Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!news.ececs.uc.edu!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.bayarea.net!baygate.bayarea.net!thorpej From: thorpej@baygate.bayarea.net (Jason R. Thorpe) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc Subject: Re: Why no addusr? Date: 16 Feb 1997 02:39:06 GMT Organization: George's NetBSD answer man Lines: 17 Message-ID: <5e5s0a$oja@news.bayarea.net> References: <none-ya023480001912962244220001@news.infi.net> <DERAADT.97Feb15103817@zeus.pacifier.com> <5e51l2$gde@cynic.portal.ca> <DERAADT.97Feb15150028@zeus.pacifier.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: baygate.bayarea.net Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:5420 In article <DERAADT.97Feb15150028@zeus.pacifier.com>, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@theos.com> wrote: >Yup, because the NetBSD tree has illegal source code in it. Not only is this a gross misrepresentation of the facts, but your statement makes no sense. There is no law banning the existence of the source in question. There is, however, an agreement in place which stipulates certain restrictions on a set of revisions. The text of this agreement is not public. Because of this, you cannot have all of the facts. Therefore, since you don't have the facts, and thus cannot make an accurate statement on this matter, I suggest you refrain from commenting, lest you discredit yourself further. -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@bayarea.net>