Jason Thorpe said:
}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.

This is the philosophical point I mentioned in my first letter. The
NetBSD Foundation (and The FreeBSD Project, and Op?nBSD's legal cover, etc.)
can legally pass around Sendmail 8.9 because the binaries are going out
free (clause 1a). However, this sticks Walnut Creek, Redhat, the BSDisc
people, and everyone else who's ever make a "freeware" CD for more than
pure cost, because they can't cover the costs of perpetual distribution.
They would be stuck with clause 1b, and the more I read that, the more
it stinks for everyone but Sendmail, Inc.


Greg states:
}Seems like 2 or 3 times a year this list becomes consumed with licensing.
}How about every time someone feels compelled to type a message on that
}subject they instead go to the bug database and try to solve one...

Considering that I was one of the people in the last serious discussion,
I'll accept this critism as valid. :)

The reason that a lot of people react to licensing terms is that NetBSD
is a "free" operating system package. The NetBSD Project is a
freely-distributable code base that anyone can pick up and use anywhere
for just about anything. Yes, we have GPL code in the tree which is
less "free" than the BSD license code, but its terms are still acceptable
compared to the alternatives.

Even if the Foundation can successfully and legally distribute Sendmail
8.9 (or any other "differently-licensed" code), the Project still fails
if other people can't use the code as easily with the new license in the
code tree as before.

Of course, I'm not core, so don't take the last two paragraphs as official
for the NetBSD Foundation, or anyone else but me.

Perhaps we are "license weenies", but the point is to get code into
the public's hands with easy reuse licensing. The license is the crux
of the discussion. That said, the discussion is quickly leaving
current-user's purvue. Perhaps another list can be set up for discussing
this issue and the issue of either updating Sendmail 8.8.8 or picking
a replacement. (I'd offer, but the dedicated link is still a couple of
months off...)

Oh, and lest I forget, sendmail is a trademark of Sendmail, Inc. (which
means that a seperately-maintained Sendmail 8.8.8 might need another
name *blech*).

David