From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Apr 8 09:58:14 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id JAA18576 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 09:58:14 -0700 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA18570 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 09:58:10 -0700 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.11/8.6.10) id LAA22733; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 11:01:52 -0600 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 11:01:52 -0600 Message-Id: <199504081701.LAA22733@trout.sri.MT.net> To: Julian Howard Stacey Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: The FreeBSD trademark. In-Reply-To: <199504062310.BAA06899@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> References: <21198.797161368@freefall.cdrom.com> <199504062310.BAA06899@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> Reply-To: nate@sneezy.sri.com (Nate Williams) From: nate@sneezy.sri.com (Nate Williams) Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > And you completely ignored my other points, which was that the > > necessary INFRASTRUCTURE is here! > > Where the coms links are & where the sup servers & cvs are physically has > little relevance to whose law is best used, you'd be best advised offloading > the paper work on willing helpers in other countries who want to help, > but aren't quite up to you mega hacker/techie standard, or are you afraid > of loosing control ?. No, because there aren't any willing helpers in other countries who have proven their willingness and commitment to FreeBSD. > We should minimise FreeBSD's involvement with the USA national legal system > because it has proven itself disruptive to FreeBSD (crypt etc). That won't change no matter where FreeBSD's legal infrastructure is. That's a function of source distribution. I hate to be the bearer of obnoxiousness, but 'DROP IT'!!! Your arguements are wasting peoples time and money since it's not going to change because there is NO VALID reason for it to change right now. Nate