Phil Knaack wrote:

>        This is OK until Chris decides some company or organization has
> pissed him off and he just reinterprets the license and sues them for
> not emblazoning his name above the name of the software being marketed.

Excuse me?  Chris doesn't have to "reinterpret" anything.  It is the
responsibility of anyone who wants to use his code without including the
required notice -- which is hardly required to be "emblazoned above the name
of the software being marketed" -- to contact him and arrange a separate
license.

We've seen that a number of commercial entities don't have problems with the
license even in its most restrictive form.

If you think, however, as you appear to from your text above, that licenses
are things which may be arbitrarily altered or imposed _ex post facto_, your
thinking is directly at odds with both common law and the coyright law of the
United States.  In which case I'd say that Chris' suggestion that you're
either being deliberately dense or have no clue is quite correct.

>         An exaggeration, but only slight.  Who knows what people on
> power trips will do.

Well, considering that this is the second "slight exaggeration" -- I'd call it
more like "misleading demagogic rant" myself -- you've made lately while
slagging NetBSD, or trying to, I'm a bit curious about your motivations and
upon behalf of whom you might be acting.  Basically, I'm curious about just
_who_ is on just _what_ kind of power trip here.  I think by now we've all
heard the sloagn "OpenBSD: winning flame wars in a newsgroup near you."; is
this the point, as usual?

Thor