> However I'm not willing to do that, especially not for anything truly
> significant (only patches, fixes, minor enhancements, pkgsrc modules,
> etc. [which I'm more likely to continue to donate to the public domain
> than assign to any one organisation like TNFi]).

What I offered is more recognition than you will *ever* get for just
your own code (especially since you've hardly contributed anything),
and you reject it for what reason?  Because you want your own wording
in the license rather than TNFi's?  That's *pathetic*.

> I still need the same terms met that I feel my own copyright offers.

Really?  You need to change the verbiage in each clause but retain the
same effect?  That's all you did, in practice.

> Either accept my
> wording as-is, or propose wording that would be accepted but that you
> feel will still protect my rights as I've desired they be protected, or
> *unanimously* turn me away as a potential contributor of significant
> content.

You know very well that nothing happens `unanimuously' around here.
That is, in effect, holding *us* `over a barrel', by stating that you
won't quite flaming about this until we accept your license.

> That's why I suggested some sort of membership structure where fees
> and donations could be collected for the express purpose of creating a
> defense fund.

If you want to retain your copyright, then it's up to you to deal with
it, not us.  TNFi doesn't exist to provide free legal assistance.

Sounds to me like you want a bunch of things given to you, without you
making any concessions yourself.