Hi Greg. I am worried with possible licensing issues with AT&T's Documenter's Workbench (DWB). In fact, AT&T retained the copyright and distribution rights on those parts of the UNIX documentation tools they developed some years ago. That is the reason we have [nt]roff, but not diction (diction(1), explain(1), suggest(1)) and style(1). Last days, Perry E. Metzger observed that 2.11BSD was closed source: "And it is closed source. Sorry. We aren't allowed to use code that did not originate in V7/32V. If Caldera did not specifically release the sources, we cannot use them. If your claim is that diction and style were not in 32V, then we have no rights to them." Well, in a previous email Perry observed that: "I appreciate all this and I thank you for doing the work, but please do your work against a version we have clear ability to use." In short, he does not says that "we cannot add diction(1) and style(1) to NetBSD" only that *license terms are NOT clear*. What I do *not* want to do, is asking for adding a piece of code that will report problems to the NetBSD Foundation. They are doing a superb job, and I do not want to start a legal problem adding some tools whose license is not clear. On the other hand, Steven M. Schultz observed that "Not 100% - much of it is covered by the BSD license and the Caldera/SCO/whatever license(s)". I believe that diction(1) and style(1) are covered by a different license agreement, but I did not find it in the source code. Well, there are some operating systems under Caldera's agreement (a BSD-style license), including v7 and 32V, but looks like 2.11BSD is *not* under those terms. In fact, it is not available through Caldera, it is in tuhs, not covered by Caldera's license agreement. (at least I think that it is right...) I am not a lawyer, only a Physics grad student working on a Ph. D. on CS. I have no idea about the legal status of 2.11BSD or, to be more precise, about the status of diction(1) and style(1). Cheers, Igor. -- Igor Sobrado, UK34436 - sobrado(a)acm.org