>> If you're using -current supped last night, on an i386 machine with
>> pci, you are using code to which Chris Demetriou's new license
>> applies.  [...]

> Of course, if you'd actually _read_ the license, you'd note that it
> doesn't apply in this case, because this is quite thoroughly covered
> -- and excluded -- by the clause about supporting existing users.

Perhaps that's what you meant that clause to cover, and if I squint my
mind just right I can see how it can be interpreted that way.  That's
not how I read it when I wasn't primed to so interpret it, and as I'm
sure you know, with licenses one has to read the text and ignore any
knowledge one may have of the intent.

> For what it's worth, i'm considering changing the license, and have
> been for a while at core's request.

Considering?  _Considering_?!?  If I discovered _I'd_ committed
something core found unacceptable, I would have rolled the commits back
out as soon as I found out!  It's been what, a month now, since the
flurry of messages on current-users?  And over a week since I said "I
can only assume core finds this license acceptable" and Jason
explicitly replied that this was an incorrect assumption?

Friend, I'm trying really really hard to believe you care about NetBSD.
It's looking more and more as though you don't give a damn about NetBSD
except as it serves as a tool in your own personal scheme, whatever the
hell that may be.  I don't know what's actually going on in your mind,
though your actions are sure seeming awfully eloquent to me.  If you
_do_ care about NetBSD, I call upon you to start acting like it,
starting with getting that unacceptable license out of the tree, either
by replacing it with a better one or rolling back the relevant commits.

> It's just a matter of what it's going to be changed to.  However,
> People badgering me about it, or generally being abusive (e.g. by
> trying to start a flame war and cc'ing me so that i'll get extra
> copies of all the responses),

I've removed you from the headers, I'm sure you'll be glad to know.
This message is being sent only to port-i386.

As for trying to start a flame war...no.  I was trying to stir up
outrage, at the license and even more at its unexplained presence in
the tree weeks and weeks after everyone involved knew it was there and
knew it was unacceptable.  This is a _scandalous_ situation, and nobody
seems to even notice; I was trying to wake people up.  (Sure, it could
have turned into - still could turn into - a flame war.  So could
almost anything.  I certainly don't see this as a more inflammatory
issue - in that sense - than, oh, say, the /etc/rc-vs-/etc/rc.d
religious debate.  I certainly don't think I've been flaming, and I
don't intend to; I'm severely critical of you and core on this issue,
but I'm not resorting to random insults and I am giving the grounds for
my criticism.)

> aren't going to help.

> That kind of behaviour wastes my time, and certainly doesn't
> predispose me to doing anything that you would find helpful, at all,
> ever.

This strikes me as a threat, "don't rock the boat or I'll drag my feet
even more on this".  If that's what you meant, well, if you're willing
to continue crippling NetBSD to get some bizarre kind of revenge on me,
I guess we can all tell what that says about your priorities.  But if
that's not what you meant, if you really do care about the project,
then I ask, what's holding up the works?  (You also may want to be more
careful to avoid saying things that sound like veiled threats.)

					der Mouse

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