On Fri, 29 May 1998 12:17:37 +1000, matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au>
wrote:

>in my view, we _cannot_ ever distribute sendmail 8.9.0 with netbsd,

>1. Redistributions qualify as "freeware" or "Open Source Software" under
>   one of the following terms:
>=20
>   (b) Redistributions are accompanied by a copy of the Source Code or =
by
>       an irrevocable offer to provide a copy of the Source Code at the
>       cost of materials and delivery.

>the first sentence of 1. (b) is the problem to me.  "irrevocable offer
>to provide a copy of the Source Code".  that's an *awful* long time to
>be bound..

It also says *OR* "a copy of the source code."  So if you're already
distributing source code anyway, like NetBSD does, then that sentence
is harmless.

All it means is that you can't withhold, or "hide" the source.

I don't understand why that requirement causes such great alarm among
the advocates of BSD-style "freedom."  Why does anyone really care
whether or not it's distasteful to a commercial organization which
might want to hide the source?  How much active support of the project
actually results from such organizations creating derivative works
which are later released back to the project?