On Fri, 29 May 1998 04:20:21 GMT 
 jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) wrote:

 > It also says *OR* "a copy of the source code."  So if you're already
 > distributing source code anyway, like NetBSD does, then that sentence
 > is harmless.

...because it *requires* that source be distributed, *OR* that we make
it available until the end of time.  Requiring redistribution of source
is the sticking point.

 > All it means is that you can't withhold, or "hide" the source.
 > 
 > I don't understand why that requirement causes such great alarm among
 > the advocates of BSD-style "freedom."  Why does anyone really care
 > whether or not it's distasteful to a commercial organization which
 > might want to hide the source?  How much active support of the project
 > actually results from such organizations creating derivative works
 > which are later released back to the project?

Perhaps, because, we want commercial organizations to use our code base?
(There are a few that do, after all, specifically because the UCB license
is more free than the GPL.)  The UCB license was specifically designed to
make it possible for commercial organizations to use the code easily, and
that is something the NetBSD Project supports.

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                            Home: +1 408 866 1912
NAS: M/S 258-5                                       Work: +1 650 604 0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                             Pager: +1 650 428 6939