On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Andrew Gillham wrote:

> I don't think we should mix the facts regarding license compliance
> with the "facts" about marketing our "product" to the world.

I grant that I'm guilty of (hopefully unintentionally) promoting this
confusion. 

I suggested a possible license violation.  I was bewildered by the way
people seemed to feel powerless to do anything about use of our code
without our knowledge.  How could this be, if users were complying with
the license? David Maxwell promptly followed up and explained that there
was no such violation--simply, a precedent, an m.o., a deliberate
_tendency towards_ obscuring facts that were nevertheless technically
public.

In fairness, I was very clear in my original post that i suspect i must be
``misunderstanding'' something.  I called for an explanation, and I got a
very good one. If there is still some confusion:

I no longer see evidence of BSD license violations, given the facts
available to me.

> I agree, we shouldn't be in the concealing information business.  That
> doesn't mean we're in the "Freedom of Information" business.

I'm a bit hazy on the exact position you're taking.  If we would otherwise
like to publicize Fact X, but we _choose_ not to publicize it because we
have noticed that Company Y doesn't like to talk about it--that is,
Company Y is trying to _conceal_ fact X--then we have just entered the
concealing-information business.

This may seem strange, because usually when a person, company, or
government ``conceals'' a fact, it is because that fact is damaging to
them.  In our case, we are concealing facts that are beneficial to us. So,
our actions don't ``smell'' to everyone like concealment.  But, that is
what they are.

I don't think this is very relevant, though--it's just an argument about
words.  We are concealing.  Or we aren't, we're merely ____ing.  Whatever. 
I choose words deliberately to communicate my position, but the words
themselves shouldn't be part of the argument.  I should stop wasting your
time and get to the point.


The BSD license has
 o a legal _requirement_ that products credit us for their use of NetBSD 
   in their manuals
 o a practical _consequence_, that it's fairly easy for us to figure out,
   through perfectly open and legitimate means, who is using our code
 o a _spirit_, that we feel we're entitled to recognition for the use of
   our code, and that we ask for little more than that.  

Who is it that said, ``you can do practically anything with it except
claim that you wrote it?'' I see this as similar to the BSD license's
``spirit.'' Now, I can imagine a leap-of-interpretation with this
statement, so let me remind you that in our society, failing to attribute
work to another, in an academic paper for example, is an implicit claim
that the work is yours.  Our request for recognition is not a restrictive
burden imposed by shortsightedly egotistical developers.  It's a basic
tenent of the way intellectual work is treated in modern society.  It is
so reasonable that normally it is obeyed as a matter of course, even
without the legal coercion of a specific copyright.  I cannot understand
why anyone who actually did work on NetBSD would be eager to sacrifice
this basic token of respect, or would hesitate to openly claim the work as
his own.

I feel the spirit of the license endorses the course of action I'm
suggesting. That's why I say that I'm so surprised by the contention
here--i thought these issues were all argued out long ago when the BSD
license was devised and then inherited by NetBSD.

Assuming an alternate universe in which you could, would you like to
remove clauses 1-3 from the license we use? That seems to be the substance
of the discussion.  Or at least, ``we want to have the clauses.  we just
don't ever want to use them.''

But in any case, the license's ``spirit'' does not need to endorse
anything. We are free to decide whatever. If we decide this is something
we want to do (we should), then the ``consequence'' and the
``requirement'' of the license alone are sufficient to support our
actions.

To review, my opinion is that we should post on the web page and openly
discuss any company that we know is using NetBSD, whether they approve of
it or not. We should make this behaviour our precedent, openly declare our
intentions, and solicit informaiton from the public about where they've
seen NetBSD used.  This does not necessarily preclude negotiating with
companies, coordinating press release dates, or even suppressing the
announcement altogether in the case of companies that offer extremely
substantial bribes in source code or money--but, it does mean we don't
wait for companies to send us endorsements, and we don't suppress
information out of some desire to be ``polite'' to an entity with
thousands of stockholders.  When a PR lackey says ``please take that
down,'' the appropriate response is ``demonstrate that it's in our best
interest to do so, and we will. but not before.''

> Do you think we should try to "force" NASA to admit they are sending a
> NetBSD machine into space?

No.  I think that we should say, ``NASA is sending a NetBSD machine into
space,'' (assuming this is indeed the case).  If NASA, when asked for
comment, neither confirms nor denies the statement, well I would find
that annoying but I don't immediately see a problem with it.

NASA is a bad example because they aren't exactly distributing Space Probe
Products publicly.  Thus they probably don't have to admit to using NetBSD
in publicly-distributed manuals so long as there aren't any publicly
distributed manuals.

It would be nice if they'd admit it.  But I'm not asking us to decide upon
the actions of others--merely our own.  I am advancing the apparently
novel idea that we should act in our own best interest, and no one else's.
I don't think the link between being ``nice'' to others and our own best
interests is _nearly_ strong enough to warrant the reverent obedience it
seems to be enjoying so far.

-- 
Miles Nordin / v:1-888-857-2723 fax:+1 530 579-8680
555 Bryant Street PMB 182 / Palo Alto, CA 94301-1700 / US