> [ sorry, but to properly respond to Paul R.'s mail, the following
>   _had_ to be done. ]
> 
> 
> Theo,
> 
> On port-sparc, Paul.Riethmuller@Aus.Sun.COM (Paul Riethmuller - Qld SE)
> said:
> 
> > > So is this code publically available?  I was of the understanding that
> > > Theo didn't want to release any code until he had CVS commit privileges?
> > 
> > It's available on request from Theo.  Email him.

paul isn't quite correct: only 2 people have access to my source tree.
they have access because they worked with me to write/test code. chuck
and johns -- thanks for working with me. working in a vacuum sucks, and
you filled the vacuum. why the vacuum? because the netbsd core took
away my position as maintainer of the sparc tree. (yeah, yeah, i've
heard all the arguments about sending in patches: "hey jason -- would
you be doing extensive hp300 modifications if you had to do it with
someone else doing the commits?"

i've never said that just anyone can have access to my source tree.
i've sent a few small tidbits to people, that is all.

> I'd like to obtain a copy of your kernel source tree, and i'd like the
> ability to distribute it freely, under a standard berkeley-style
> license.
> 
> could you send me a copy, or tell me where to get one?

i sent some code to the (replacement) port-sparc maintainer before. he
commited them to the tree without even mentioning that the changes
came from me. sour grapes? sour grapes is not the issue.

as well, i feel it to be quite common that new code may be written
with the intention of eventually being `free', but at some earlier
stages it might be "i'm keeping close tabs on this -- do not pass it
on". i'm keeping close tabs on the sparc stuff i do, for various
reasons. (core, chuck, and johns have known what those reasons are for
more than 3 months.)

for example, chris: when you were writing the alpha port of netbsd,
you didn't even want any mention of it to be made. hmm -- you had
unavailable code (i couldn't even see it). once you told the public
about it, you retained access to certain pieces of the code and didn't
commit them immediately, no? or were things commited to the tree
immediately? were pieces available to anyone any time? i suspect you
also, at times, have held onto other pieces of code for other
reasons.

i'm not trying to suggest that you had incorrect reasons for holding
onto code you wrote when you didn't commit it immediately. i'm simply
suggesting that the reasons i have might not be incorrect. core is not
giving me the confidence that the code that i feverishly slaved over
will get me anything. (if anyone here writes code for `nothing', speak
up -- i'd like to hear how you do it when you get your baby stolen
from you. everyone does everything they do to get something.)

now: if you suggest giving my code to everyone (by, say, commiting it
to the tree on my behalf), no, you cannot have the code for those
purposes. if you want the code so that you can just look at it and use
it personally, i suspect i will give it to you. but you'll have to
wait until i get back from a week long caving trip on Vancouver
Island.

basically i'm saying that if you want the code i might give it to you.
if you want to redistribute it further, no you can't. the situation is
not right for me to allow infinite redistribution.

(by the way, has anyone seen the source for all the MBONE utilities
from LBL? i rest my case.)

(Chris -- i hope you phrase your next request nicer. saying in your
first line that you just "_had_" to do this, which essentially amounts
to baiting me, could be considered rude in some corners. know what i
mean? after all, i should know, because if port-sparc was taken away
from me for being rude in personal & private email with an individual
who was spamming my machine.... then certainly you should know how to
be politically correct and not-rude when posting to a mailing list,
shouldn't you?)