On Wed, 30 May 2001, Darren Reed wrote:


# In some email I received from Marc Espie, sie wrote:
#
# [...]
# > I sent you a plain old email stating facts about what was going to happen,
# > I, for one, would very much know how you solved this internally to NetBSD,
# > why it went through `core@' and not elsewhere,
#
# Because that is the correct manner in which to resolve such issues.

Because private-ish issues, when presented to the list, turn into pissing
contests like this one, which are precisely what I believe Darren wanted
to avoid.

If core says they have this rather contentious issue (from an objective
point of view, mind you) in hand, in this instance, I'm inclined to let that
be enough.  There is no technical discussion to be had about a license, so
it's not like the rc.d war in that respect.  There is no discussion of merit
to be had about a license, so it's not like the ACL war in that respect.
It is a presentation of terms by an individual in such a way that will be
(hopefully) ultimately beneficial to the NetBSD project as a whole.

And before I really lower myself into this pissing contest and start hurling
the age-old epithets regarding librarians, computers and heritage, I'll
shut up and watch.  I will posit that the sane ones with any sense will
remain quiet and be thought fools while the true fools will open their
mouths, removing all doubt (thank you, Oscar Wilde!)

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: a devil of an operating system.