>> And what do you propose we should do about problematic licenses,
> Really, problematic licenses are something that the NetBSD lawyer
> should look at and decide upon based on a fixed set of criteria that
> we give her.

How do we (eg, me) get this to happen?  Based on my reading of the
license terms, the MD5 code in libc is sufficiently encumbered that
anyone who has ever used it even once is required, whenever mentioning
it in any context, to note that it is "derived from the RSA Data
Security, Inc. MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm".  I consider this
completely outrageous and can't understand why it got into the tree,
especially so soon after the cgd license flap (which blew up over
functionally similar license terms).  I consider it especially
egregious because it has managed to stick *me* with being compelled to
recite that bit of silliness because I once accidentally ran "md5" on a
machine without my (public domain) md5 code installed - in other words,
NetBSD accepted a license that has caused someone who used a NetBSD
machine in good faith to become committed to something that would never
have been accepted if it had been known ahead of time.

According to my reading of the license.  That's why I'd like to hear a
real legal opinion on the matter...which is where I came in.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B