>> [...] do we perhaps want to do some cleanrooming ourselves?

> I'm not too sure about that.  We're way too few people who actually
> code for next68k anyway.  I don't think it makes sense to lose some
> because they have used encumbered code.

I don't see that we have much choice, unless perhaps we can convince
the Linux cleanroom effort to release their intermediate notes or some
such.  Given how little of my code is in /next68k at present (none? or
did something I wrote work its way in?), I'm tempted to start in on the
code-reader side of the cleanroom.

>> It's not clear to me to what extent the stuff in the .tar.gz is
>> covered by the plan9 license; I haven't yet unpacked the tar and
>> looked for copyright license terms.
> I don't know what .tar.gz you are getting,

The one referred to in the embedded message.

> but if it's from the same site, it most likely is completely covered.

It came from a completely different site; the only connections with
Plan9 I can see without looking at file contents are (a) the message I
quoted and (b) the names of some directories in the tarchive.

					der Mouse

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