mellon@hoffman.vix.com writes:
> 
> > Ok. It affects me directly and personally. On my price sheet, I
> > have an item for installing a UUCP system on customer hardware for
> > use at the customer site. At this point I may well be in violation
> > of Chris's licence terms. I can't tell you for sure, because I have
> > not spent, and will not spend, the hours necessary to find out.
> > (I'd have to go through all the source files, find out which ones
> > have Chris's new licence on them, and the figure out if any of them
> > are used on the systems I'm installing.)
> 
> This is certainly the most compelling problem I've heard WRT Chris's
> license.   However, you admit yourself that you're not very worried
> about it.
> 
> A couple of points: by my reading of the license, you only have to do
> this if your standard UUCP setup includes Chris's software.  In other
> words, right now at least, runs on an Alpha.

Have a boo at the copyright in /src/sys/arch/i386/i386/mainbus.c
in -current.  And at /src/dev/pci/pci.c and /src/dev/pci/ppb.c.  

i386 users must be concerned about this license, as must folks with a PCI bus 
in their machine... (Which is why I believe this thread is not noise -- when 
the usage license changes for a piece of software you use every day, you need 
to be concerend about all the implications)

Can a login banner be construed as "informational material of any kind"?  
How about an email to a friend indicating I'm running NetBSD?  Or a pointer to 
someone indicating they can find NetBSD at ftp.netbsd.org??  What happens when 
there are 80 NetBSD developers using this license?  And you can't get ahold of 
all of them to get the necessary waivers?  Or they are all not as reasonable 
as Chris? 

I'll be much happier if/when I "see the light" and am convinced this new 
license is a benefit to the NetBSD community.  So far I'm not convinced that 
it is :-( :-( :-(

Later...

Greg Oster

oster@cs.usask.ca
Department of Computer Science
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CANADA