> > Chris doesn't want to submit GPL'd code, so this is a meaningless
> > question.
> 
> Not really.  The point is that there are some licensing terms which
> would not be appropriate for inclusion in the NetBSD tree.  Given this
> fact, it seems proper to have an open discussion of the issues involved
> before such a drastically changed license _is_ included in the tree.

You already know that the NetBSD philosophy excludes GPL'd code in the
kernel, and discourages it elsewhere, so you're just building up
hypothetical castles and knocking them down - this is not
constructive.

I will put it bluntly: you're not on core.  You're not a developer.
Why on earth do you expect to be consulted on every policy decision
that the NetBSD core team makes?  How would the core team *ever* get
anything done if every such issue had to be debated openly on
current-users before a decision was made?

Look at the evidence before you!  This flame war will probably still
be going on at Usenix, and the changes Chris has made to the
copyright, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, are *trivial* to
anybody who was already willing to act in good faith.  If core had
consulted you on this issue, NetBSD on the alpha would be dead in the
water!

			       _MelloN_