From owner-freebsd-chat  Sun Nov 15 13:53:17 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06633
          for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:53:17 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA06628
          for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:53:16 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1])
	by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21110;
	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:53:32 -0800 (PST)
To: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com>
cc: dg@root.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: FreeBSD finances 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 15 Nov 1998 23:25:35 +0200."
             <199811152125.XAA27263@ceia.nordier.com> 
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:53:32 -0800
Message-ID: <21106.911166812@zippy.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> In the circumstances, wouldn't "The FreeBSD Project" or "Individual
> members of the FreeBSD Project, and contributors" be preferable in this
> context?

I think this was worded thusly mostly for legal reasons.  If we get
into a copyright dispute, it's easier for a corporation to fight it
than some rather more nebulous "project" organization.  Not that I
want to get into any, but that seemed to make sense when this issue
was last raised.

- Jordan

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