[OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] Equinox license to DIG

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Dan Scott wrote at 13:14 (EST) on Wednesday:
> Intent certainly matters, but if we get the licensing details right then
> it matters less.

I'd add that if both parties (Equinox and Conservancy/Evergreen) agree
about the intent, we should be able to redraft the license text so that
everyone agrees the intent is obvious.  I realize we're not there right
now, which is precisely why this thread started.  However, it seems that
Equinox is open to negotiation about this, so let's seek to resolve the
situation amicably for both parties.

Dan Scott wrote at 16:31 (EST) on Wednesday:
> I had hoped to avoid involving the Conservancy at all and don't want
> to burden you/it further with IRC logs that only have trace references
> to the matter.

It's no a burden, and if you think it will help, we at Conservancy
will review the IRC logs and see if we can glean better what's going on.

However, I'd suggest that we wait a little while and give Equinox a
chance to respond to the issues I raised in my email yesterday.
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy