In message <m0zKFjS-0009MEC@most.weird.com>, Greg A. Woods writes:
>Perhaps further clarification should be made to that document to define
>the term "free", esp. if it does not mean, in part, "freely available,
>freely redistributable, and freely modifiable source code".

I think the key is that the NetBSD folks believe that *their* source should
be freely redistributable and modifiable.  Not necessarily that anyone
else's derviations need be.

-s