On Friday 29 June 2001  5:49 am, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:43:06PM -0500, emre@vsrc.uab.edu wrote:
> > I'm glad that NetBSD is staying with IPF, it's stable and it works.
>
> Clearly, it's not a stretch to conclude that the time for private,
> behind the scenes negotiations with Mr. Reed has probably run out. If
> they haven't succeeded by now, it's doubtful they ever will. If they
> have succeeded, then why has that fact not been communicated to the
> community of NetBSD users? As has been pointed out, there is no
> evident change in the source code.

Please read the following post (dated June 3rd), I'm not sure why but it 
appears to never have made it to the netbsd-users or current-users list:
http://false.net/ipfilter/2001_06/0051.html

I quote from it:
> The licence is intended to mean that people can use (which includes modify
> or patch or tune, as seen fit) IPFilter as found within FreeBSD/NetBSD for
> whatever purpose they desire - so long as the conditions (due credit and
> the notice) are met.

The intention is that we can modify it.

> I am working with the core team for each project to 
> ensure that this understanding is recognised by both parties at a more
> formal level.

Which suggests some sort of proper legal thing is going on, and that's 
potentially why it's taking a while to sort out.

Chris
(Speaking for himself, and not as a developer)