Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
> There are plenty of companies using NetBSD in commercial products
> right now, and so far I can safely say that at least one (Vixie
> Enterprises) completely sympathises with Chris and doesn't mind
> jumping through some extra hoops to deal with this issue.   Another,
> Digital, is Chris's employer.   I think you should come up with an
> example of a commercial entity that is *actually* harmed by this
> license before you start making claims as to such harm.
> 
> 			       _MelloN_

I didn't say I knew of one.  I said *if* they were to use NetBSD.
So what happens when 200 developers need to be cited *individually*
in an advertisement?  Does this license actually *scale* like other
ones. (i.e. Berkeley can be cited *once* for *all* Berkeley code)

Is proof of *existing* harm really necessary?  Shouldn't people
be worried about *potential* harm?  My argument is that this type
of license *could be* potentially harmful.  For years I've seen
the GPL .vs. BSD arguments, and quite often the "core" answer
for *not* using GPL, is that they (core) want to *encourage*
commercial use of NetBSD, and they feel the GPL is too restrictive.


-Andrew
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gillham                            | This space left blank
gillham@whirlpool.com                     | inadvertently.
I speak for myself, not for my employer.  | Contact the publisher.