Re-homing of RAToolSet to RIPE NCC

On Thu, 2001-10-04 at 05:57, Bill Manning wrote:
>  Neither myself or Cengiz can interprete USC legal issues.
>  If this was me, I'd contact USC legal for a valid ruling.

The explanation I gave to Joao is the one Jon Postel gave me and to
others. If my memory serves me right, Jon came up with the copyright
message in the first place. And it is up to each project director (at
the time Jon) what copyright message goes to each project.

Also, I dont hesitate for a moment that new developers will address the
concerns and needs of the global community and they are best positioned
to be the new host of the toolset. 

Cengiz

> 
> 
> 
> % 
> % The way Cengiz explained USC's copyright to me it was supposed to mean:
> % 
> % You can not sell this stuff (the software) without giving us a part 
> % of the profit.
> % 
> % It was not supposed to mean: if you are a commercial company, you can't use it.
> % 
> % After the RA project was about providing infrastructure to support an 
> % Internet that had become commercial, right?
> % 
> % In any case, no one, other than USC, can remove their copyright from 
> % the code but if the real interpretation of the copyright statement 
> % happens to be the more restrictive one, then the RIPE NCC would 
> % certainly have a problem with this code, because we *HAVE* to make 
> % the software we develop available for use by the community.
> % 
> % Joao
> % 
> % At 05:13 -0700 4/10/01, Bill Manning wrote:
> % >% Like I said, most (techie) people don't give a hoot, but legal
> % >% departments at largish outfits can seriously halt Progress(tm). Although
> % >% RIPE and the RIPE NCC are non-profit organisations, most of the members
> % >% are most definitely out to make a (euro-)buck. It's only proper that if
> % >% these tools are to be hosted/provided/maintained by the RIPE NCC, that
> % >% the restrictive license is removed. Replacing it with a RIPE/RIPE NCC
> % >% copyright may make non-RIPE members nervous, so I still think a GNU-like
> % >% license is the safest and fairest option.
> % >
> % >
> % >	I spect that the USC tag still claims that it needs to stay
> % >	w/ the code so RIPE would need to do a "clean-room"
> % >	reimplementation to expunge the USC tag.
> % >
> % >	Of course RIPE could also cut a deal w/ USC on broad
> % >	commercial use of the tools.  That has often proved to
> % >	be the cheapest/easiest course.
> % >%
> % >% Cheers,
> % >% Steven
> % >%
> % >
> % >
> % >--
> % >--bill
> % 
> % 
> % -- 
> % 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --bill
>