Re-homing of RAToolSet to RIPE NCC

 Neither myself or Cengiz can interprete USC legal issues.
 If this was me, I'd contact USC legal for a valid ruling.



% 
% 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