--=.SBHl:1Xd'cj9J5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:53:27 -0800 (PDT)
Brian Chase <vaxzilla@jarai.org> wrote:

 
> Now, I'm not quite familiar with all the history of the OpenBSD /
> NetBSD split, but I'm under the impression that OpenBSD effectively
> wholesale copied the then existing NetBSD tree and modified it to
> their needs. Which is certainly /allowed/ under the BSD license, as
> long as the proper attributions are retained.

The NetBSD project did not create NetBSD from scratch. NetBSD came from
4.4BSD Lite. Code interchange between BSDs is not immoral, it is a good
thing. There is a lot of code gone back into NetBSD from OpenBSD.

> And though I disagree with the reported wholesale search-and-replace
> of copyright notices done by MicroBSD, that's clearly in violation of
> the BSD license, it does seems like an easy enough problem to fix and
> get back in compliance with the BSD licensing terms.  So why all the
> fuss to shut them down?

They shut down voluntarily. They broke the rules, they got a lot of bad
publicity and their project lost credibility with the community, they
pulled the plug.

> Is my understanding of the history between NetBSD and OpenBSD
> mistaken, or does this behavior by OpenBSD towards MicroBSD really
> seem a bit hypocritical?

There is no problem in forking your own BSD from [Net|Open|Free]BSD,
nobody will mind. However, if you start to call the code your own, then
people get pissed off.

--Andrew

--=.SBHl:1Xd'cj9J5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+Vl5rb+hS2f7aJVYRAgZiAJ9AJbww/E/rqUyVY3XNZhSv0J/r1ACePbhk
DkGvBO/+v+VETCTELdOEJRc=
=Msqu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=.SBHl:1Xd'cj9J5--