In article <19970613171255.00476@netbsd.warped.com> you write:
> Anybody wishing to deal with NetBSD should be faced with a similar
> situation.  If they abide by the NetBSD license agreement (let's
> live in teh world of makebeleive), and negotiate everything with TNF,
> that should be the END of it.  There should be no reason to deal with
> every author in a collected work such as NetBSD.

This is exactly the problem. And it's not such a big deal if Chris' is
the only such license. But if everyone who ever contributed anything to
the project used the CGD license, the project would be dead. It's
completely unreasonable to expect people to follow a hundred such
licenses. Getting a waiver is not an option. Chris, you try even sending
a postcard to everyone who has contributed to this thread, let alone
executing an agreement with everyone who ever contributed to NetBSD.

Can't Core see that if eveyone used this license, it'd destroy the
project? And if it's not acceptable for everyone to use, why Chris?
Because he's written a lot of neat stuff? That wasn't acceptable for GPL
material in the kernel.  The answer has always been "Yes, it's useful
code.  Yes, we'd like to have that.  But the license is onerous, so
someone will either have to write a BSD-license replacement, or we'll
have to do without".  The same should apply to his code.  Period.  If
that means nuking arch/alpha and whatever else is infected with his
license, too bad.  And I too am upset that this major shift in policy
wasn't discussed first.