>> I can only assume that core concluded that this license is
>> acceptable to them.
> We, in fact, did not conclude that, and are working on resolving the
> situation.

Good, I'm glad to hear that.  The Intel box I mentioned hasn't actually
shown up yet, so see no reason I at least can't afford to just wait
until it is resolved.

> Let's not make random assertions; if you have a concern, it's best to
> get the facts first, by sending mail to core@netbsd.org.

The fact of interest to me when I sent that was that -current still
contained files with the obnoxious license.  If core considers that
license unacceptable, I ask you/them: why have those commits not been
rolled back?  Why are you distributing a source tree containing
license terms you find unacceptable?

I was under the impression that the only reasons that core would permit
the distributed files to remain as they were were (1) the files'
acceptability or (2) core's unawareness of their unacceptability.  In
this case, of course, (2) was not tenable, which is why I assumed (1).

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B