Subject: Re: The NetBSD developers agreement
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Stefan Bozhilov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/04/2006 12:32:25
--- Lasse Hillerĝe Petersen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 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
> about whether this situation remains the case or
> 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
> Agreement. It should be abolished sooner rather than
> >The largest problem of NetBSD is one of
> >misrepresentation - a commercial entity that would
> >a perfectly acceptable contributor is posing as
> >whole Project. To me this is bizarre. I don't think
> >this charade makes any business sense to begin
> >Red Hat, IBM and many others are happily making
> >without pretending that they are altruistic,
> >non-profit organizations.
> > The conclusion I think is clear - there is a need
> >another project with different rules and a clear
> >vision. The current project would make a respected
> >valuable contributor - one of many, I hope.
> Stefan, you are saying that the "NetBSD Project" is
> controlled by a possibly commercial entity (the
I'm *guessing* that's the case. It looks like that.
There are rumors about it. That is all I can say.
> and that we need a new "project" to supersede the
> old one because of this?
Yes, I think we need a project that includes the
current one as a contributing branch. That branch can
operate under whatever rules they please.
>I'm not making a comment, just
> trying to understand what it is you are suggesting.
> nasty stuff we've been reading lately has made me
> think in
> similar ways - either that or switch to Linux :-)
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around