>> Since I'm not a member of core, maybe I can be slighly more
>> verbose. :-)

>Maybe next time, you can also be correct.  Sorry, but i have ... very
>little tolerance for people who go commenting on legal issuses,
>without their facts straight.

Obviously I was misinformed, then.

I don't remember all the details, but this was a rough summary of what
I remember from a thread on usenet when the OpenBSD thing first came
to light.  Either I mis-remembered the details, or the person(s) I
heard it from were just plain wrong.  It's also why I ended my
statement with "if I'm not mistaken... (and I very well could be)".

>> I believe the big stumbling block is that the NetBSD CVS trees must go
>> back to the very first version of NetBSD, which covers before, during,
>> and after 4.4BSD integration.  This means you can get the source for
>> the "legally encumbered" files that were removed from 4.4 to make
>> 4.4Lite, if you have CVS access to the tree, simply by checking them
>> out.

>"4.4BSD" was never integrated into the NetBSD source tree.  Neither
>was any other "encumbered" (i.e. requiring a AT&T, WE, USL, Novell,
>whatever, license to obtain) release.

Right.  My mistake -- I meant BNR2, there, not 4.4BSD.  There were
files from BNR2 that made it into NetBSD and 4.4BSD, that were
"legally encumbered" by the assertion of USL.  The reason I used
quotes is that this was never actually decided in court.  But both
NetBSD and FreeBSD removed those files anyway, for various reasons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Michael L. VanLoon                                 michaelv@HeadCandy.com
       --<  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x  >--
     NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4,
                           DEC PMAX (MIPS), DEC Alpha, PC532
     NetBSD ports in progress: VAX, Atari 68k, others...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------