Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 11:01:52 -0600 From: nate@sneezy.sri.com (Nate Williams) To: Julian Howard Stacey <jhs@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: The FreeBSD trademark. Message-ID: <199504081701.LAA22733@trout.sri.MT.net> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504081701.LAA22733>