> Your statement holds the key to understanding the
>problem of NetBSD. It stems from mixing the open
>project with one of its commercial contributors. 

Can someone please enlighten yet another confused netbsd-user
about whether this situation remains the case or not?

Between what could be viewed as sidestepping from one side and
the vicious attacks from the other side (Hannum) it is hard to
tell where the truth in all this lies. Somewhere in the middle
I guess (and hope.)

> This is not the case with NetBSD. The developers
>agreement is one of a commercial entity, not of an
>open project.

Heh. The company I work for has just been subsumed by a big,
three-letter IT-giant of a primary color. The new contract I
have received contains - as far as I can see - nothing that
even approaches the strong words of the NetBSD Developers'
Agreement. It should be abolished sooner rather than later.




>The largest problem of NetBSD is one of
>misrepresentation - a commercial entity that would be
>a perfectly acceptable  contributor is posing as the
>whole Project. To me this is bizarre. I don't think
>this charade makes any business sense to begin with.
>Red Hat, IBM and many others are happily making money
>without pretending that they are altruistic,
>non-profit organizations.
> 
> The conclusion I think is clear - there is a need for
>another project with different rules and a clear
>vision. The current project would make a respected and
>valuable contributor - one of many, I hope.

Stefan, you are saying that the "NetBSD Project" is
controlled by a possibly commercial entity (the "Foundation"?)
and that we need a new "project" to supersede the old
one because of this? I'm not making a comment, just
trying to understand what it is you are suggesting. The
nasty stuff we've been reading lately has made me think in
similar ways - either that or switch to Linux :-)

-Lasse