I'd like to add two things I forgot earlier on, for Richards consideration:
On 12/12/2007, ropers  wrote:

quoted text
> This is IMHO very similar to the way the OpenBSD ports system is

> related to unfree software:

> - The unfree software is not hosted by OpenBSD. The ports tree

> effectively only contains metadata.

> - The individual ports in the ports system are maintained by

> (advanced) OpenBSD users. The inclusion of a port that users chose to

> submit and maintain does not imply an endorsement of the (possibly

> unfree) software that can be installed using the port metadata.

> - The use of the ports system is officially *discouraged* for average

> users. Average  Joes are encouraged to *not* use ports but use OpenBSD

> _packages_ instead, which are precompiled binaries which are hosted by

> OpenBSD. ( See "IMPORTANT NOTE" here:

> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports ) There are no unfree

> packages. See for yourself: (caution: very long page and long load)

> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html

> - Unlike the Pirate Bay, the OpenBSD ports system does itself

> distinguish between free and unfree content. See this comment by Nick

> Guenther:

> > It may be relevant to point out:

> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119731456628749&w=2

> > > Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports

> > > tree would be useful.

> >

> > PERMIT_*=(not Yes)

- Here I'd like to add that the ports tree is *not* part of the

OpenBSD operating system install. The ports tree is something the user

has to actively look for and check out to their local system if they

want it. This means that the OpenBSD OS and install CD are *completely

free* of even the metadata repository that contains user-contributed

metadata files, only a minority of which refer to unfree software.
As far as I understand, the OpenBSD position appears to be that trying

to police users by forbidding them to maintain and retrieve port

metadata about unfree software via this adjunct service (that is not

included in the OS) would be a restriction of the users' freedom.
The Pirate Bay does not police torrents, or suppress certain torrents,

and OpenBSD does likewise not police ports. If a user wants to be an

ass and do something stupid and unethical, they can. They have the

freedom to do that. But don't blame OpenBSD for that. It only has an

adjunct facility that allows what is effectively the exchange of

advanced semi-automated usage information, nothing more. And yes, it

even allows users to exchange stupid usage information, such as how to

install unfree-app-xyz. The choice whether to do something stupid is

left up to the user, but the user is advised not to use ports in the

first place, and hints that allow users to more easily distinguish

halal from haram software are in place.
> In addition, it is *considerably harder* to install unfree software on

quoted text
> OpenBSD than on gNewSense. This eg. is what installing Skype entails:

> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.bsd.india/352

> On gNewSense, it is *much* easier to install Skype. Just add an unfree

> repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to

> install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not

> warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so

> why expect more from OpenBSD?

Also, the installation of unfree software is *extremely* frowned upon

by the OpenBSD user community. To stay with the Skype example:

http://www.nabble.com/Skype-on-the-OpenBSD-td14113398.html

http://www.nabble.com/Skype-on-the-OpenBSD-td14113398i20.html
> Richard, I you wrote:

quoted text
> > If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would

> > recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.

>

> I suspect that your skepticism of OpenBSD stems from yourself being

> unfamiliar with the OpenBSD packages and ports system and not aware

> that the OpenBSD project does not in fact host unfree packages (and

> that ports for unfree programs such as users have submitted only

> contain metadata).

>

> In summary, I strongly feel that OpenBSD in fact does *not* suggest

> non-free programs. Despite the heated and sometimes personal nature of

> this thread, I think the honorable thing to do would be to be the

> bigger man and acknowledge the misunderstandings and make good on your

> offer to recommend OpenBSD.

>

> Thanks and regards,

> --ropers