From owner-freebsd-chat  Wed Jun  7 22:33:19 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B67F37B9D1
	for <chat@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 Jun 2000 22:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jhix@mindspring.com)
Received: from mindspring.com (user-2inip0d.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.100.13])
	by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA31794;
	Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <393F3018.CDC3C074@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:33:12 -0700
From: W Gerald Hicks <jhix@mindspring.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE i386)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: j mckitrick <jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Cc: chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kerberos and bsd license
References: <20000608021150.A69953@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

j mckitrick wrote:
> 
> a friend of mine argues againts bsd licensing for this very reason.
> 

Hi Jonathan,

Hanging out with parrots, eh?  :-)

This is the the latest in a long history of FUD character assassination
against *BSD from the Linux spin machine.  Thankfully, not all Linux
developers and users share these traits.

There is currently a very poorly written "article" on ZDNet covering
exactly this issue.  Read it and the response thread for
counter-arguments.

Cheers,

Jerry Hicks
jhix@mindspring.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message