-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'd certainly welcome debate of this bill, but it's not _per se_ a
NetBSD issue.  (Hey, our CVS repository and a large number of our
developers are not in the .us).

There are lots of forums where this can and probably should be
discussed.  This really isn't one of them, though.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Richard Rauch wrote:

>No, please don't cross-post this to -advocacy.  As I read the mailing list
>descriptions, if it fits anywhere, it belongs here on -users, the general
>purpose discussion forum.  -advaocy is for discussing means to promote
>NetBSD, not for random debate.  (Don't confuse the mailing list -advocacy
>with [ab]Usenet's .advocacy groups.  Very different concept.  (^&)  (You
>could argue that it belongs to -advocacy about as much as to -users, but
>it's already here and certainly is within the domain of this list.)
>
>As for whether it is appropriate here: From reading the articles and some
>of the quotes attributed to IP law professors, it could impact NetBSD.
>Whether it actually will do so depends.  Armed with sufficient ignorance,
>a legislature (any legislature, not just the one supposedly representing
>me) could probably pass this without working up a sweat.
>
>
>  ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu
>

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8oSZON71lEcOYcw4RAlYSAJ9MphaWvY1tlN0gLMW9tbo9yUH0ywCgjzX9
GVVqWeaqz38M7DMB2TbERgM=
=PRBw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----