Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Perhaps you should post the exact language that the author used when granting > this permission? That would be the definitive source of information. If she > said "You have my permission to redistribute", that is different from "Debian > has my permission to redistribute". >
I asked him "permission on behalf of Debian/GNU Linux distribution" and he said "yes". The author's a very busy man, and his reply (which I might have deleted) is sufficient given the informal nature of the license, the software being a university project and the widespread distribution of metis (available through Internet). In other words, Debian doesn't do anything illegal by distributing metis, so I take it that the previous short thread about metis did reach a correct conclusion. (in which it was agreed that we could distribute metis in the non-free distro) I think the point of the license was that if you want to incorporate metis into a commercial code, they want to know it and perhaps even license it separately. [but of course this is wildly off topic for our discussion] If somebody is distributing metis, they'd like to know who is doing that and in what manner, which is our point of interest. Almost becoming an IP lawyer. Thanks, -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
