try and address license concerns with LICENSE.md

INSTALL

@@ -256,17 +256,6 @@ Detailed Instructions
 
 Other Information And Gotchas
 
-    - Debian Linux Distribution
-
-        The Debian folks have conserver distributed with the package
-        names of conserver-client and conserver-server.  They are in
-        the distribution "sid" and the "non-free" part (because the
-        Ohio State license doesn't explicitly allow for modification to
-        the code, even though it's totally implied and the intention of
-        the author - I've even got proof in email!  Oh well, can't
-        blame the Debian folks for being cautious - they've been burned
-        before, apparently).
-
     - Potential GCC bug
 
         Adam Morris <AMorris@providence.org> reported a problem with

LICENSE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+License Concerns
+================
+
+The licenses attached to this software ([LICENSES](LICENSES)) are supposed
+to paint a simple concept: that this software was built for the open source
+community and they result in a license compatible with [LICENSE](LICENSE).
+
+Unfortunately, the real world steps in and troubles can arise.  This note
+has been moved over from the [INSTALL](INSTALL) file:
+
+    The Debian folks have conserver distributed with the package
+    names of conserver-client and conserver-server.  They are in
+    the distribution "sid" and the "non-free" part (because the
+    Ohio State license doesn't explicitly allow for modification to
+    the code, even though it's totally implied and the intention of
+    the author - I've even got proof in email!  Oh well, can't
+    blame the Debian folks for being cautious - they've been burned
+    before, apparently).
+
+Here's a copy of the message I exchanged with Thomas A. Fine (original
+author at OSU) in 2001 that is referenced above:
+
+> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
+> To: bryan@conserver.com
+> From: "Thomas A. Fine" <fine@head-cfa.harvard.edu>
+> Subject: Re: A conserver license question...
+> 
+> > Hi Tom,
+> > 
+> > I had a little "problem" crop up that I was hoping you could help me
+> > with.  A guy out in net-land is trying to put a debian package together
+> > of the code I've been releasing (based on your original work) and they
+> > don't like part of the Ohio State license.  I've attached the message
+> > below.
+> > 
+> > I'm not sure what can be done.  One thought was a message from you that
+> > I could put with the code stating that modifications are ok would
+> > work.  Or maybe just modifying the original license statement.  Heck, I
+> > don't even know if either are 100% legal.  Maybe I need to talk to
+> > someone at Ohio State.
+> > 
+> > Well, if you have any ideas or suggestions, please let me know.  Don't
+> > know if I ever got a chance to thank you for the great stuff you
+> > started!  Thank you!  ;-)
+> 
+> Well, if I knew then what I know now, I would have copyrighted it
+> under my own name, and not under OSU, and then I could change it.
+> Since I don't work there anymore, strictly speaking, I can't change
+> it.
+> 
+> However, IMHO, this license allows modifications, without explicitly
+> stating it.  I can state without a doubt that this was my intention
+> at the time (and hence, OSU's intention, since I put in the copyright
+> while working for OSU).
+> 
+> But also, since it allows use of the source, and since the statement
+> required for inclusion says "includes software ..." it seems pretty
+> clear that modification was both allowed and expected.  You can't
+> really use sources if you aren't changing them, and you certainly
+> can't include this software in some other product without making
+> modifications.
+> 
+> As I recall, I more or less used the copyright that Berkeley was using
+> back then for there BSD-related software, so I'm surprised there's a
+> problem with it.
+> 
+> I have to point out that version 1.2, available at
+> http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/cs1.2/
+> is distributed entirely without copyright notices.  Interesting, no?
+> So I guess I could add a copyright notice to that.  But would I then
+> be violating the OSU copyright that I wrote for 1.1?  Since it is
+> a different version, I could probably write a new copyright notice 
+> and license and be free and clear.
+> 
+> There's also Purdue's versions of the software.  It's mentioned on my
+> console server web page at
+> http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/console-server.html
+> 
+> So, pass this on to the people you're working with and let me know how
+> you want to proceed.
+> 
+> 	 tom
+
+Hopefully corporations (or, I suppose, their lawyers) will be happy with the
+explanation above and become comfortable with the stated license.