> It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they
> construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and
> then try to blame me for them.
>
> For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous,
> even inconvenient. However, if anyone wants to know what I do think,
> I've stated it in various articles in
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
> In particular, see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.
>
> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.
>
> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
> think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore,
> if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
> some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.
>
>>From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs). However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
>
> I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
> I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
> am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
> to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.
>
> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
>
>
>
