I think it absolutely is a language issue: > On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any purpose."
Operative word being **strives** - might want to look it up. It does not say 'guaranteed', 'only', nor 'strictly' - It says they make a good effort to provide such, and they certainly do - particularly compared to the rest of the OS landscape. On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Martin Hanson <greencopperm...@yandex.com> wrote: > 08.01.2017, 01:29, "Mike Burns" <mike+open...@mike-burns.com>: >> On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: >>> The issue is a misguiding policy statement. >> >> It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, >> et al., are saying matches perfectly with the policy statement, to me. >> Perhaps you can suggest improved wording. Patches go to tech@. > > I don't believe it's a language issue. What Theo has explained acts as a > "clarification" of the policy, which is fine in itself, but it needs to be > added. > > The policy statement alone, as is, is misguiding and I even believe that > it's a problem from a legal stand point, but that's beside the matter. > > Theo himself can correct his faulty policy.
