Rich Bowen wrote: > Having seen this referenced several times in the last few weeks (was > there a news story that resurrected this?) I've wondered about this > claim, too. Can someone who remembers this incident please speak up and > set the record straight about what actually happened? It seems > improbable to me that there's just one side of this story, and that > nobody remembers it from our perspective. What was refused, and why? Or > is that not actually how it happened?
Well, I wasted some time on the openbsd-misc list at that time ... Apart from the OpenBSD team claiming that we rejected some of their security patches the main issue was about them liking the Apache license 2.0. They more or less literally said, we don't like the new license because it has more stuff in it. I've given up talking to them after that... If they don't want to use anything with an Apache License 2.0, then it's really the problem of the OpenBSD team, and nothing for us to fix. cheers... -- Lars Eilebrecht [email protected]
