Miles Nordin writes:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, David Maxwell wrote:
> 
> > Not 'write' no, but approve the use of their name.
> 
> hah!  seriously?
> 
> You mean, sort of like AOL approves of the use of their name on
> http://www.aolsucks.org?  We are not a bunch of jellowbellied barbecuing
> firework-saluting cop-fearing whimps.  Are we?  Please tell me, No!
> 
> But, I'm getting off to an awful start, since the main response I had
> after reading your message was one of agreement.  This first part just
> really irked me, that's all.
> 
> If there is seriously some part of free speech that prevents us from Using
> The Name of a Tiny Insignificant Corporatin In Vain, please elucidate me.
> Otherwise, let's toss this first point out.

We *do not* want to antagonize *any* entity using NetBSD code.  The license
on the software does not give TNF the right to antagonize, or attempt to
strong arm companies, or end users, using their software, as long as they
are complying with the copyright license.

Are you claiming these companies are not complying?  The whole point of
the BSD type license is to allow *exactly this* type of use.  Why is there
suddenly a lot of discussion about TNF being "screwed" because people are
using the software?

I am not aware of any clause in the TNF license that would require IBM
or NCI to post references to NetBSD on their pages, or to contribute code
back, or even to file a single PR on the code.  I am assuming the clause
about advertising is/will be struck from the TNF license, just like the
Berkeley license. Regardless, the advertising clause is only applicable if
specific features are mentioned, correct?

If every embedded product in the entire world was using NetBSD, and nobody
admitted it, I don't believe this would be a violation of the license, or
the *spirit* of the license.  How many times in the last years have we
seen the GPL .vs. BSD licensing arguments?  Just recently there were a
heck of a lot of rapid BSD license proponents saying the C-Kermit license
prevented "Commercial Use" of NetBSD, and "There is no way it will be
going on a CDROM."  Plenty of people were ready to fight for the right of
a commercial entity to do just about whatever it wants with the software,
yet now people are "up in arms" over these entities doing this quietly.

Let's see some of these "publicity" proponents to put up a webpage 
listing all of the uses of NetBSD they have at work, or home, or anywhere
they can legally reference.

How many big companies use it internally as end-users and don't shout this
from the hilltops?  Why should we expect a commercial entity using NetBSD
in a product to act any differently, *when it is not required* by any
license?

We happen to have a few production NetBSD machines, but we don't shout
it out anywhere.  We don't shout about the production MVS, or Netware
or Windows NT machines either. (err, ok I shout about one, check the
stats on http://uptime.hexon.cx for my name.. )

Whatever is done, *do not attempt to piss off NetBSD users of any kind*
with any sort of "demands" on publicity.  This, IMHO, is very very very
crazy.

A polite request is a different thing entirely though, but it needs to
come from TNF itself, not one of us end-user types.

Please, let's go back to figuring out how to spinup those second CPUs
on many of our Intel based motherboards.. :-)

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