Subject: Re: Daemon license (was: Something I noticed on the Yahoo site)
To: Todd Whitesel <>
From: Herb Peyerl <>
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 12/13/1998 06:44:51
  by with SMTP; 13 Dec 1998 13:45:50 -0000
	by (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA13007;
	Sun, 13 Dec 1998 06:44:52 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <>
To: Todd Whitesel <>
Cc: (Greg Lehey),
Subject: Re: Daemon license (was: Something I noticed on the Yahoo site) 
From: Herb Peyerl <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <13004.913556690.1@lager>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 06:44:51 -0700

Todd Whitesel <>  wrote:
 > > Since when does Kirk want any money for the license?  His only
 > > stipulation so far has been that the use of the daemon must somehow be
 > > related to BSD, and I can't see he'll have any problems in this case.
 > Apparently not money, but definitely written permission. From the source:
 >     If you want to mass produce the daemon on Tshirts, CDROM's, etc you
 >     need to request permission in advance. In general, I require that the
 >     daemon be used in an appropriate way. This means that it has to be
 >     something related to BSD and not expropriated as a company logo (though
 >     I do allow companies with BSD-based products such as Walnut Creek CDROM
 >     or BSDI to use it). I regret having to be so legalistic about the daemon,
 >     but I almost lost the daemon to a certain large company because I failed
 >     to show due dilligence in protecting it. So, I've taken due dilligence
 >     seriously since then. 

That doesn't say "written permission"... In the past, I've sent kirk mail,
pointed him at a gif/jpeg, and received his permission via return email.
I interpret 'written permission' as a physical piece of paper.