On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 10:00:53AM -0600, Richard Rauch wrote:
> After reading the rants on slashdot, *yes* they are griping about a BSD
> style license.  I've read the license, and don't see anything at all
> objectionable about it.  It seems like a simple, standard BSD license
> (with the "advertising clause").

Why are we here arguing over a non-issue?  Why should we care because
someone somewhere is not happy with the advertisement clause?  It's
a loss of everyone's time.

> As near as I can tell, the objection is to placing credits on the
> binary distribution.  There is some concern that this is not
> compatible with GPLed or LGPLed software being distributed in binary
> form.  I do not think that this is an issue for NetBSD, since NetBSD
> does not include any GPLed or LGPLed software for X (right?).  (It

NetBSD distributes XFree86 almost verbatim.  The local patches are local
as in "not yet imported".

> might be an issue for binary packages.  I'm not entirely clear that
> the GPL/LGPL causes a problem here, since the GPL and LGPL are
> long, rambling licenses that I have not read sufficiently closely.
> Since I don't use binary packages, I can't comment further on that.)

But it's not an issue since the new license doesn't apply to XFree86
libraries.  Problem solved, let's move on to something else.

Quentin Garnier.