> I think you do Scott a grave discredit by <snip>ing the rest of his
> post, where he makes it clear that, like the rest of us, he would rather
> have Chris stay with the Project, but that, like several of us have
> already said, he does not consider Chris's contributions worth saddling
> NetBSD with an unworkable licensing scheme.

I think people who are actually following this discussion rather than
deleting it unread probably read Scott's posting, and heard what he
had to say.

> > on NetBSD.   Suggesting that Chris's copyright is an attempt at
> > self-aggrandizement is completely ridiculous - *nobody* is *ever*
> > going to get famous writing code for NetBSD.   If you think otherwise,
> > I want to know where you get your weed, because it must be *really*
> > fantastic!
> 
> This is _exactly_ the sort of ad hominem attack that I objected to in
> your last post, albeit on a much more offensive scale.

How is this an ad hominem attack?  Seriously, do you think that
anybody is going to get famous contributing code to NetBSD?  That's
not an ad hominem attack - it's a statement of fact.  Claiming that
Chris is using his new license as a vehicle for becoming famous is as
much of an ad hominem attack as anything I've said.

			       _MelloN_