Frankly, i'ld love having someone maintain the compilers, especially
of we get new ones out of it.

Unfortunately, I doubt that we can come up with a license
that they'll like.  I talked to our attorney about removing
the indemnification requirement in section 4.  His answer was
that there were too many things not covered by the
disclaimers.  After the first few examples, I tend to agree.
If we were getting revenue for the release, we could set
aside money from profits for court battles and dump the
indemnification nonsense.  That's what we do with products.
However, there aren't any revenues from plan 9 and the company
is still waiting for its first profitable quarter in a
number of years.

In the past we had actually gotten smaller things out with
just disclaimers.  Our attorneys feel that they would be
irresponsible to do that now.

This is supported by mail I've gotten from some of you saying
that the disclaimers are pretty much worthless in places like
the UK.

Nevertheless, I can see why OpenBSD would be afraid of it.
It is true that if OpenBSD agreed to indemnify us, they
could rerelease under their own license so the buck stops
there, so to speak.  However, that leaves OpenBSD obligated
in a new way and I could see why they wouldn't like it,
especially since they too are getting no revenue from the code.

By the way, I've seen a lot of messages out there deprecating
our lawyers.  It is definitely not warranted.  Their job
is to protect our company without getting in the way of things
that bring in revenue.  Nevertheless, they've spent a lot of time
with me and ehg trying to approximate what we want without
jeopardazing the company.  This is really amazing considering
we have no real clout here.