>Phil Knaack wrote:

>>        This is OK until Chris decides some company or organization has
>> pissed him off and he just reinterprets the license and sues them for
>> not emblazoning his name above the name of the software being marketed.

>Excuse me?  Chris doesn't have to "reinterpret" anything.  It is the
>responsibility of anyone who wants to use his code without including the
>required notice -- which is hardly required to be "emblazoned above the name
>of the software being marketed" -- to contact him and arrange a separate
>license.

	You are misunderstanding me.  I'm not talking about people who want
special consideration, I'm talking about people who want to integrate the code
under the license given -- i.e., attempting to give credit as the license
requires.

	Since the terms of the license are broad enough, he who presses
charges can interpret them as he pleases within that broad spectrum. This
license gives Chris the broad right to proclaim that someone who is
attempting to follow the license isn't following well enough.

>We've seen that a number of commercial entities don't have problems with the
>license even in its most restrictive form.

	Of course, they go through those "alternate channels," which has
nothing to do with my point.

>If you think, however, as you appear to from your text above, that licenses
>are things which may be arbitrarily altered or imposed _ex post facto_, your
>thinking is directly at odds with both common law and the coyright law of the
>United States.  In which case I'd say that Chris' suggestion that you're
>either being deliberately dense or have no clue is quite correct.

	You are resorting to personal insults.  That has no place here.

>>         An exaggeration, but only slight.  Who knows what people on
>> power trips will do.

>Well, considering that this is the second "slight exaggeration" -- I'd call it
>more like "misleading demagogic rant" myself -- you've made lately while
>slagging NetBSD, or trying to, I'm a bit curious about your motivations and
>upon behalf of whom you might be acting.  Basically, I'm curious about just
>_who_ is on just _what_ kind of power trip here.  I think by now we've all
>heard the sloagn "OpenBSD: winning flame wars in a newsgroup near you."; is
>this the point, as usual?

	Are you associating me with OpenBSD?  I am a NetBSD user too, you
know.  I use both systems quite a bit, because I think they both have valid
and worthy goals.

	I like NetBSD.  I think it is a worthy project.  I do not want to
see it come to harm.  My opinions stated here have very little to do with
OpenBSD.  This is NetBSD's welfare we're talking about here.  And Chris's
license puts NetBSD's welfare at risk.

	If you had been following the discussion, you would know this.

Cheers,
Phil
--
Phillip F Knaack
Systems Administrator, Information Development for Extension Audiences (IDEA)
Iowa State University Extension