Simon McVittie writes ("Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement"):
> Only the ftp-masters can give you a canonical "yes" or "no" on what
> legal risk they are prepared to accept for non-free (or for that matter,
> for contrib or main), but they'd almost certainly want to see the "other
> stuff in Restriction" before saying anything.
The `other restrictions' are in the PDF to which the OP linked.
The only one which is troublesome is that if ST think their licence
has been violated (for example by their software being used or
modified for use with non-ST hardware), ST may
`request certification as to whether such unauthorized use
or distribution has occurred'
and we then have to
`cooperate ... and assist'
to find out whether there has been such use and
`take appropriate steps to remedy'
Those terms are there because in most situations, ST wouldn't have
visiblity of the production processes for potentially infringing
proprietary software.
For Debian we could comply with these requirements simply by pointing
ST to our public archive, bug system, etc., to show whether anyone
related to Debian had infringed, and (if necessary) by dropping the
software.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21806.27321.948327.424...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
