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.
Richard, while we do provide a free operating system, http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar. (while others promise the moon, we deliver.) - Marc
Now the answer is... Stallman, why did you start this thread? It is totaly absurd, it does not make any sense... Borja Tarraso
Sounds like the first three lines for Ty's next song! Stallman, why did you start this thread? It is totaly absurd, It does not make any sense OpenBSD is as free as the wind Take that out with you On the Gnu on which you rode in ... Etc. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. jwoehr@absolute-performance.com 303-443-7000 ext. 527
[troll] WARNING: Thread Parody. Original: "Keanu Sausage" skit from the episode "Operation: Rich in Spirit" "Operation: Rich in Spirit" is the sevententh episode of season one of the television comedy series Robot Chicken. To see the original, simply google for "robot chicken keanu" and you will find it in adobe flash 9 format. Unfortunately for many openbsd users, I am uncertain how to find a copy of the skit in any other format. Hopefully I put enough text in to describe some of the visual elements required enough for the imagination. (c) 2007 by whyzzi@gmail.com. All rights reserved. Any similarity to persons real or imaginary in this article is coincidental -- or written for entertainment or parodic purposes only. Enjoy. / ////////////////////////////////////// Richard M. Stallman stands dressed in a matrix style black pants, black t-shirt, black shades and a black leather overcoat. Approaching him on his left side is Bill Gates of Microsoft dressed in grey khaki's and white t-shirt with the windows vista logo on it. "My name is Richard M. Stallman, and I'm going to beat you, Bill Gates." *CRUNCH* A solid punch, right in the gut. Bill collapses. From his right side approaches Linus Torvalds, wearing grey khaki's and a white t-shirt with the linux penguin on it. "My name is R. M. S., and I'm going to defeat you, Linus Torvalds." *WHACK* A well executed kick directly into the chin. Linus falls. From the right side now enters Theo de Raadt, wearing blue jeans with the blue T-Shirt and the anime style of OpenBSD release 2.8 puffy fish on the front. "I'm the guy for the 'Free Software Movement', and I'm going to stop you, lead programmer for the Open B-S-D Project - Theo De Raadt." *CRACK* Richard jumps from the ground, rebounds off the wall and connects a kick to the back Theo's head. Theo falls face first into the concrete. / director in the background yells "Cut" / / stage production bell rings / Camera shifts, clearly now you can see ...
And makes it total clear that you are the hypocrite and a liar. Choice quotes from that page: Microsoft Windows is a clear and instructive example of non-free software. Using free software on Microsoft Windows (or any non-free operating system) is the first step towards freedom, but it does not get you all the way there. So the next step is to replace Windows with a free operating system such as GNU/Linux[1]. However, on this page we're concerned with the first step. [1] Now I see why you have such animosity towards this page... -- P'tang! Today is Boomtime, the 55th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
RMS claims that OpenBSD does not meet his criteria as a recommendable free operating system since the userland ports infrastructure contains references to non-free software. As your choice quotes demonstrate, Richard Stallman, the FSF and the GNU project advocate the use of non- free operating systems. They go so far as to provide binary executables on their own official servers. It doesn't get any more hypocritical than that. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Hmmmm. This one is from rms@somewhere and another is from rms@gnu.org Doppelganger? Maybe they should be careful that they are not Titans. I remember another rms - the RMS Titanic. Sank without trace never to surface again after meeting a superior force due to incompetence on the part of the designers and captain. Normally I wouldn't promote a site like http://www.chartcourse.com/articletitanic.htm but reading that page in this context is hilarious. Rod/ /earth: write failed, file system is full cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
Ooooh! That one is <particularly> ironic in this thread. It RECOMMENDS free software to replace unfree but then includes VLC player that does MP3 which somebody tells me is patent encumbered. Rod/ /earth: write failed, file system is full cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
Richard "Hypocrite" Stallmann, we, OpenBSD, are endorsing non-free software? what is that: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html ? old man, stop trolling.
You've got too much time on your hands.
Hi About the ports tree, maybe you are right and OpenBSD should go kick out the possibly 50 ports that you have a problem with. Now, about BSD/GPL that's an other story. But that doesn't mean we can't learn from each other and help each other. I hope it has to do Richards efforts on the GNU/Linux side of the open-source world that even Ubuntu works on a completely free edition (Gobuntu) nowadays. OpenBSD "refuses to accept it's users being forced into depending on vendor binaries" and pushes people to "send a message that open support for hardware matters". Unix is becoming mainstream again. You should all work together at educating new people. Kind regards, Tom
http://www.fsf.org/news/freebios.html And especially : -- The FSF uses laptops donated by IBM over the past few years. This was one among several ways IBM cooperated with the GNU Project. But the cooperation is incomplete: when I asked for the specifications necessary to make LinuxBIOS run on these laptops, IBM refusedbciting, as the reason, the enforcement of "trusted computing" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html Treacherous computing is, itself, an attack on our freedom; it is also, it seems, a motivation to obstruct our freedom in other ways. -- You can also help our campaign by writing to manufacturers such as Intel, saying they ought to cooperate with a fully free BIOS. Calm but strong disapproval, coupled with stating an intention to take action accordingly, is more effective than venting rage. Please send a copy of your message to bios@gnu.org, so we can monitor the support for this campaign. The more mail they get, the more effect, so please do add your voice to ours. -- For me BIOS, is mostly software embedded so i have to live with that 'closed source bios' (at least on peecee's ) i think i don't have to accept closed binary blobs at higher level ... Now, please, can we together stop feeding that awful troll ?
Watching the latest flame war, I can't help thinking that as founders of their respective projects Theo and RMS are trapped in a jail of rigid consistency and absolutism demanded by children and utopians. Only at home, with the door locked, are they free to boot their home's sole computer, a Windows box, watch some Real Media streams and play a few Valve- controlled games. And late at night, when the ice weasels come, a hypnogogic fog provides cover for a last conscious thought: "I wish, I wish, I wish... *I* had written OS X." -- Monty Brandenberg
Well, yes and no. Theo's absolutism has kept OpenBSD pretty much the last blob-free OS in the Free Software world. RMS's absolutism has kept alive an ideal that launched the mainstream open source movement. So it's not non-functional. It's emotionally hard on the individuals concerned, and often emotionally hard on us who bask in the reflected glow of these geniuses :-). But it all seems to work out in practice. Has for a cuple of decades now, give or take a few years. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. jwoehr@absolute-performance.com 303-443-7000 ext. 527
his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it. and all stallman says about it is basically, "I am not familiar with the situation, leave me alone." I would like to see more cooperation between the free software developers. but IMO, stallman is the one being far more unfriendly and uncooperative. of course stallman is not directly responsible for the actions of the GPL community. but his opinions do wield power. didn't this whole thread start because of his opinions and recommendations? now stallman won't talk to theo, because theo is unabashed in stating his opinions? just look at the thread. between theo and stallman, who posted the most words, and who gave less misinformation/slant? in much fewer words: the gutless politician attempted to use his influence to snub and smear his opponent. when fallacies in his campaign were brought to light, he accused his opponent of being unfriendly. -- jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a
"social failure".
If some people think that, they did not get it from me. I do not call
BSD either of those things. I say that releasing free software under
a non-copyleft free software license is basically good (i.e., not
evil), but that using copyleft is better.
recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.
I don't think it is wrong in general to relicense code from BSD to
GPL. However, in some cases I think it is more useful not to do so,
in order to contribute changes back to the original BSD-licensed
project.
If such an issue arises for a GNU package, and people think it is not
doing the most useful thing, I will look at the issue and then if
necessary discuss it with the developers.
However, if such an issue arises for a program which is not a GNU
package, I will not get involved unless the developers ask me for
advice.How could you in all conscience come and *talk, arguing, judging and pretend to defend and promote freedom* when you are in fact publicly promoting license to steel!? Richard, *the secret software agent 007 with license to kill*? How dare you to come and talk about freedom and promoting actions like that! You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent period! No wonder that it looks like the GPL code base is loosing it's ethics and integrity so fast these days with such statement position and advocacy statement from it's head leader! What is really *your hidden agenda* here one would asked? I hope it's worth it as you destroy, very quickly, what looks like you spend a life time trying to built. To really *talks, promote advocate and defend freedom and already free software*, the right thing to do would be to *respect the author freedom* and keep it under the author license of choice and *feed all improvements and fixes upstream period*. But what do you know about the right things to do here going, making and promoting statement like this! Of all people Richard, you have great power and with that comes great responsibility, how could you make such nonsense statement! In these circumstances, I don't think this gives you any rights or power what so ever, to discuss other projects choices of software packages, distributions, etc. Best regards, Daniel
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!
That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
including distributing the code under other licenses. The only
requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.
Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
whether that involves changes to the code. When I say "relicensing" I
mean distributing the code with another license applied. That doesn't
mean deleting the old license.
The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
changes. If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
just silly (in most cases).I don't think so. The recipient of BSDL'd material gets a copyright license from the original licensor -- without the middleman getting a chance to do anything at all regarding granting some or all of the copyright rights that middleman received as a licensee. The middleman And that means what? Well, you might want to wget and check out http://opensourcelaw.biz/publications/papers/BScott_BSD_The_Dark_Horse_of_Open_Source_... "What is the legal effect of being required to retain "this list of conditions". Are they just there for show? Do they have some other effect? In determining this, a court will look to the objective meaning of the clause and, potentially, the objective intention of the original licensor. In this case, the actual subjective intention of the party granting the license (and what they thought the words meant) is irrelevant.8 What the court is looking to determine is what the reasonable person (ie an idealized and dispassionate citizen who is called on to assess the scope of the license) would make of the words.9 Consider first the warranty disclaimer. If there is a requirement to "retain" a copy of the warranty disclaimer in a redistribution, is a court likely to say the warranty disclaimer is intended to be effective or not? For example, could the disclaimer be retained but framed by a redistributor in such a way that the disclaimer had no legal force?10 It is likely that the reasonable person would read the license and think that the licensor intended that the warranty disclaimer was to be retained without qualification. A similar argument could be made about clause 5 (which prohibits endorsements). On this analysis, the warranty disclaimer travels with the distribution and the redistributor has no ability to qualify it. The question then becomes what about the other clauses? What about clause 2 which permits "redistribution and use" of the source form? If, in the case of the warranty disclaimer, the objective intention of the requirement t...
Public domain aside, in what other case would it be legal to change a license, where no changes were made to the code, and the original author has not granted permission? certainly someone could not take BSD licensed code and change it to GPL if they have changed nothing and do not have the authors permission. keep in mind I have limited knowledge at best of software licensing Sam Fourman Jr.
That is not relicensing, it is adding restrictions and rules.
This is illegal. Repeating it over and over again will not make it so.
I assumed that the issue was *adding* GPL code to a BSD-licenced project, not changing the licence on the already-written code. In this case, RMS is right that there is nothing technically wrong with this, but that licencing the code under a BSD licence may be more useful. You are right, of course, that only the licence-holder can change the licence. I'd prefer to assume, though, that RMS simply misunderstood the hypothetical situation, rather than intentionally recommending copyright violation. Ben [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
It is not just wrong it is fucking illegal. Go talk to some of those wireless developers in Linux. You'll find Your advice is as useful as your recommendations. Last time the wireless issue was brought up you simply declined to comment. Ethics in action again! I don't know what your agenda is but it stinks. Tell us, who pays you again?
The Linux kernel is not a GNU package any more than Xorg is an OpenBSD package.
I forgot, dictator do create rules for others to follow, but never apply to them. They kill the one that put their kingdom in jeopardy and provide more viable and respectful alternative to their view point. With all the very long lists of self infringement on your own rules provided to you today from your own servers, etc. Looks like you will have a lots to talk about for many years to come then, and we shall now return to a peace state of affair. Go do your penitences now, you need it. You must be very well paid to try to destroy project that actually provide very real alternative to not only Microsoft empire like you say you are fighting against, but also to Apple, SunOS, Cisco, Juniper, NetScreen, Fortigate, and many others as well. Support for BGP alone in OpenBSD does it so well now, that there isn't a need for alternative i most cases now, nor any others alternative of firewall out there that can't even come close to what OpenBSD free alternative provides, and even soon looks lie to your own GCC compiler too and many others. OpenBSD doesn't do everything, not does it pretend to do, but what it does, it is doing very well and in a complete *FREE* matter. It's a shame to not see and value that. Must be really hard to see that with the biggest bunch of programmers following you, you can't come with free software that can even touch, or remotely come close to what makes OpenBSD such a great and *FREE* OS in such a clean, efficient, simple, well documented and secure way. The treat must be so bad as to feel the needs to try to destroy it burned your finger. That out to be the only logical explications to your actions in the last 48 hours. If you can't beat them, joint them, so why don't you see the light and start acting accordingly. You are a great preacher, just doesn't apply to your own church, does it?! With all due respect, if there is any left, Best regards, Daniel PS: With everything put to light, how can you put a judgment on others ...
What? No.. it is wrong. You can't just change the license on people! You might have meant "I don't think it is wrong in general to get permission from the original authors to relicense code from BSD to GPL" but it doesn't sound like that. And in *all* cases it is useful not to do so, because you should always be trying to integrate fixes upstream. -Nick
Well, sue 'em, if it's so. But no point in sulking. Like the ENTIRE PROGRAMMING COMMUNITY, we're a bunch of cantankerous, contentious, contumacious perfectionists. Stallman and Theo especially. And you, too. And me. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. jwoehr@absolute-performance.com 303-443-7000 ext. 527
hmmm, I do/have done a fair amount of work adding/maintaining GPL software in the ports collection. I was working on a port for libcdio, an GNU project. there'a a file in NetBSD's pkgsrc that adds support for NetBSD/OpenBSD cd(4). that file is BSD licensed. the README.libcdio file in the libcdio sources mentions this file and says it can't be included because it's not GPL. I contacted the libcdio maintainer about this file, and he again said he could not include it because the BSD license is incompatible. whatever. so I contacted the author of said file, asking if he could change the license so it could be included upstream. he eventually agreed. I'm only posting this because I understand how easy it could be to look at my remarks and conclude I'm just another theo fan-boy BSD zealot. -- jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> 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.
Therefore, you don't recommend linux. Oh wait ...
I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
> However, its ports
> system does suggest non-free programs,
No it doesn't "suggest" non-free programs in any way;
it just makes it possible and easy to install them.
Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using
that program. It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that
is what I am opposed to.
You may have a different interpretation of these facts.
That's my interpretation of them.On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 06:56:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: | I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs. Interesting, these linux distributions. They seem to be pretty new, what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of these seemed to exist 8 years ago. A free and usable operating system was already well available back then, and it still is today : OpenBSD. | > However, its ports | > system does suggest non-free programs, | | No it doesn't "suggest" non-free programs in any way; | it just makes it possible and easy to install them. | | Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using | that program. It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that | is what I am opposed to. Including source- and header files for non-free OS'es in the distribution of gcc and emacs does suggest using gcc and/or emacs on these non-free OS'es. It grants these non-free OS'es a sort of legitimacy, something you say you are opposed to. | You may have a different interpretation of these facts. | That's my interpretation of them. I would have to agree with you that, in your interpretation and your definition, the ports tree (which is not recommended, by the way, a point you've carefully chosen to ignore but OpenBSD developers suggest people to use binary packages which (to the best of my knowledge) all come with source available under permissive licenses) does facilitate the use of non-free software on an otherwise free operating system, which, according to your views and definitions is "not good". You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft software packages of emacs and gcc. By providing binaries for (for example) the Windows family of operating systems on your web and/or ftp servers (and I say 'your' to mean the servers of the foundation...
If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the book? Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect the citizenry? Absolutely not. Along these same lines, it doesn't make sense to try to hide what software is out there. I think people can figure out which software they want to use from ports after installing the base system, free or non-free. Either way, a makefile to download and install a non-free piece of software doesn't make the system any less free. -- Kyle George
If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the
book? Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect
the citizenry? Absolutely not.
A system distribution is more like an anthology than like a library.
We do consider the editor of the anthology book responsible for the choice
of what to include.OpenBSD neither includes nor promotes any non-free software. However, like any unbiased material, it does contain a complete and detailed reference list, called 'ports'. Please note, that there is no automated process about getting ports onto your system. The only thing that the OpenBSD install process can install for you is the base system, which actually happens to have a lot of software in it as it is, from X and apache, to gcc and lynx. So unlike other BSD systems, which heavily depend on you installing both ports and packages for various components of the system, OpenBSD requires neither ports nor packages for the day to day operation. C.
Yes, but we do not automatically assume that he recommend or endorse what the included text discusses. If that was so we would have to assume that anyone writing a book about the holocaust also approves. Telling a person about something is not the same thing as telling someone to do it. -- Erik WikstrC6m
An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to. Your argument here fails. --- Marina Brown
An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports
tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to.
You're right, but I don't think that difference matters for this
issue. Giving just the URLs for non-free software is referring people
to them.Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man. Actually I'm not a man at all. Not all people who are in software are men. I've contributed in small ways to OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux and Plan9. --- Marina Brown
Yet on Richard's side of this fence, emacs and gcc _directly include_ code which lets users use those two pieces of software on commercial operating systems. The gcc and emacs developers -- led by Richard -- have decided the directly include support for commercial operating systems in their respective distributions. Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork Richard would surely approve of. Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
He facilitates using something good on something bad, which helps He is arguing against facilitating something bad on something good. Your argument does not hold and it's unnecessarily insultive. BTW I personally think that people should be free to choose to install whatever software they wish on their machine and that the ports tree sufficiently warns about the used license. I'd wish you would keep your arguing at that. # Han
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, This is what I felt; All comments are welcome. If both parties were at fault for somehow giving the user the wrong idea that flash player is great on BSD OR windows is great coz it runs emacs, is this the right way to settle it? The honest way is to removing these Makefiles/binaries wherever (if you really want to encourage free software). The wicked way is to keep these at the expense of popularity but not complain about it. The worst way is to fight about it. Now if one of you didn't do what the other said, that one would be the bad guy. But if both of you decided to keep these things as they are, both would be against free software. Which one would you rather be? Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYb5TRzTnZfDdIE8RAiE2AJwOkj2Jl9Ls/t9cIdTgoxJ0W4M8OwCfcCGP 9IKozlMUHm4u5N4LI2UYdTs= =pSrc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
There's one for usr.bin/mg/theo.c -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. jwoehr@absolute-performance.com 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Where is your line in the sand? When does an operating system become free by your interpretation? When non-free ports frameworks are hosted outside the official OpenBSD cvs repository? On a server not owned by the OpenBSD project? What if I want to host it on my own server, but I also happen to be an OpenBSD developer? When does the disassociation satisfy your unpublished requirements? Your interpretation is vague and self-serving. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Where is your line in the sand? When does an operating system become
free by your interpretation? When non-free ports frameworks are
hosted outside the official OpenBSD cvs repository? On a server not
owned by the OpenBSD project?
If they are published by someone else, and OpenBSD doesn't point
people at them, then OpenBSD is not responsible for them.
Helping people install non-free software is bad, just as developing
and distributing non-free software is bad. But if OpenBSD doesn't
participate in spreading that information, it's not OpenBSD's fault.
What if I want to host it on my own
server, but I also happen to be an OpenBSD developer?
I don't think it matters whether you're an OpenBSD developer. What
matters is whether OpenBSD (in the distribution and its servers) says
anything to leads users to that information. Mentioning your name in
other some context, such as to thank you for your contributions, would
not lead people to look at your site for non-free software, so it is
not an issue.
If OpenBSD eliminates the non-free programs from the ports system
that it recommends to users, then I will consider it good.Richard, I'm trying very hard here to assume that you're acting in good faith, and frankly, your words make it A LOT simpler to assume that you are acting in bad faith, which is what Theo and many others have long since resigned themselves to assuming (hence the reactions you're getting). You said "Real men don't attack straw men". Yet this is *EXACTLY* what you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write that OpenBSD recommends the ports system to its users, *which it does not*. Let me say that once again: OpenBSD recommends that EVERYBODY USE PACKAGES, NOT THE PORTS TREE. When you started this discussion, I assumed that you were simply ill informed about the OpenBSD packages and ports systems and the difference between them and how they intersect. Misunderstandings or having a misconception are no shame, But you now have already been told that OpenBSD recommends packages and that it does not recommend the ports tree. Yet you continue to criticise OpenBSD based on your (incorrect) view that it recommends the ports tree. That is a straw man argument. OpenBSD does not recommend the ports tree. It says right in the FAQ in *bold* letters: "Everyone is encouraged to use the pre-compiled binary packages." ( http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports ) You should know this. I alone have told you so again http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119741909911558&w=2 and again http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119743259725428&w=2 and again http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119745441717134&w=2 and again http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119746948206930&w=2 and others have concurred http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119746051925719&w=2 Richard, I if you are in fact merely ill-informed and not acting in bad faith, then I would like to offer you to have a one on one email conversation, where I will be happy to explain to you exactly the nature of the OpenBSD ports and packages systems. But let's do that off-list, because ...
http://marc.info/?t=119658331900002&r=1&w=2 http://forum.skype.com/lofiversion/index.php/t96248.html OpenBSD "suggests" non-free software? -- jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
You do realize that that specific stance is *completely* hypocritical. You do not recommend OpenBSD because its ports system states upfront that there *are* non-free pieces of software that works under it. But you recommend Linux distros, even though every one out there knows there are *more* pieces of non-software that work in it. Even though Linux contains hooks to allow for binary blobs, or is careful to stay compatible with binary drivers from nvidia and ATI for people to choose from. But noooo, linux distros are white as a cygnus, since they don't suggest out-right you can install non-free software. They just happen to make it very easy, and you can just simply run into extended distros and sites that make it *as trivial* to install non-free stuff as the OpenBSD ports system. Heck, *most linux distros out there* have a non-free section as well. You *do know* that the non-free section of the OpenBSD ports tree is labelled as such, don't you ? you do know we forbid redistribution on CD-Rom of various pieces of software. Hence, non-free stuff does not make it to the official CD-Rom. It does not even make it to the ftp site. This includes such prominent stuff as sun's java, which is not free... and which is probably one of the most commonly installed linux software out there... along with binary drivers for nvidia cards and other hardware. Hypocrit.
Richard, do you still remember the 2004 FSF awards? http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html "Theo's leadership of OpenBSD, his selfless commitment to Free Software ..." Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD? Best Martin
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD? Because he tends to be unfriendly.
Interestingly enough, if you specified that as the reason you recommend against using OpenBSD, this thread would have been a lot shorter. Somehow I think Theo is more interested in writing code and changing the world than making friends. Personally, I think he's made the right choice.
Interestingly enough, if you specified that as the reason you recommend
against using OpenBSD, this thread would have been a lot shorter.
Maybe it would have led to a shorter thread, but it would not have
been accurate. My decision not to recommend OpenBSD was not based on
personalities.Interesting. So have you sent these types of "unrecommendations" to other OS' mailing lists or just OpenBSD's? gg
So have you sent these types of "unrecommendations" to other OS'
mailing lists or just OpenBSD's?
I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time.
I did not start this discussion. I posted on this list because people
were making inaccurate statements about my views.Nope. Your interview on bsdtalk is the starting point of this discussion. Think whatever you will, but if you publish your views like that, you can expect criticism.
I noticed that the subject of this thread is "straw men." I'm familiar with the fallacy. "I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD, because all of them include, in their installation systems, the ports system, they all include some non-free programs. And as a result I can't recommend any of them." I believe your clairification to this was that you don't recommend OpenBSD because it _suggests_ non-free software. And that people should not actually be prevented from installing non-free software (is this latter clairification the straw man argument in question?) It means you are trying to force people! Stallman, you are so steeped in hypocrisy, you aught to submit a picture of yourself to various dictionaries. P.S. It can't be that difficult to remove the "add plugin" feature in mozilla firefox. Do you not code anymore? -- Travers Buda
You lied on a recorded show. Richard, you are a Hypocrite.
Assuming and/or judging that someone is unfriendly, is an unfriendly act itself. Publicly stating on a mailing list that someone 'tends' to be unfriendly is a very unfriendly act. Especially since the word 'tends' sounds very much like FUD spreading (fear of Theo, ohhh, is he friendly, or is he mad? what will we do? use words like 'tends' and live in fear, uncertainty, or doubt). Stating that someone 'tends' to be unfriendly would be encouraging more unfriendliness from that unfriendly person, if they were even unfriendly in the first place. Even if they were unfriendly, stating publicly that they 'tend' to be unfriendly would not be healing an unfriendly person, nor a friendly person that was incorrectly judged as unfriendly. Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly.. even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the first place. Bringing up friendliness versus unfriendliness in a conversation which had nothing to do with unfriendliness, is very unfriendly and provoking. I declare the comment a flamebait, in which I was baited successfully. Therefore, one who makes a premature unfriendly judgment, may in fact be *the* actual unfriendly, judgmental, and assumptive person in reality. Laugh and smile, L505
Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
first place.
Someone else attacked me on this list for not discussing this with
Theo. I explained the reason in the gentlest way I could think of.
If you wish we were not discussing the subject, you had best take it
up with him.There is nothing to discuss with me. Richard claimed that there is non-free software in OpenBSD. That is not true. It is no more true than Linux being able to run commercial binaries. The ports tree is just a scaffold. Richard, you are wrong. You said very clearly in your interview that the ports tree contains non-free software. It does not. It is just a scaffold of Makefiles containing URLs, and an occasional patch here or there. You are just plain wrong. And you are not enough of a man to admit that you are wrong. I may be unfriendly at times, but you are a power-misusing hypocritical liar who attacks projects that try harder than any others to only make free software available. Shame on you.
The same argument could be made about your unfriendliness. We could not talk to you since you have *proven* to be unfriendly: http://z505.com/images/gnu-sign.png Any programmer or philosopher worth his salt can appear critical, analytical, or unfriendly at times. Security experts especially. I doubt someone who is truly unfriendly could organize a hackathon, a friendly social event. Remember, this is just email after all, Stallman. Take some of it with a grain of salt. Any time someone brings up the fact that openbsd has unfriendly programmers, we are to call them on it. Label it as: The OpenBSD Cliche "Cliche: an idea that has been overused to the point of losing its intended force or novelty," That way, when anyone regurgitates this same old tired "openbsd programmers are unfriendly" argument, we can redirect them to a FUQ or FAQ. An example demonstration of this: Bum Bum wrote in message: > "blah blah blah OpenBSD programmers are unfriendly blah blah blah > blah blah blah blah blah Not friendly blah blah Don't use it blah > blah blah Because they are unfriendly blah blah blah" Hello Bum Bum, that is an invalid argument. Please see: "The OpenBSD Cliche". It is in the FUQ under the beaten dead horse section. Regards, L505 "A philosopher who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job." --Plato (source: Wikipedia) "A programmer who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job." --L505 (source: Z505)
Now *that* I find humorous. I find it Kafka-esque, your inability to reccomend OpenBSD because of some "unfree" items in the ports tree. Effectively you are taking away the right of people to choose the software they wish to use. Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the freedom of choice in the name of freedom. That is bizarre. --STeve Andre'
Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the
freedom of choice in the name of freedom.
Freedom means having control of your own life; "Freedom of choice" is
a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and
taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions.
Thus, I say I advocate "freedom" -- not "freedom of choice".
This always leads to the question of "which freedom?" In the area of
software, I want a society in which users are free to run software,
free study and change its source code and make their changed versions
run, and free to redistribute changed and unchanged versions. In
other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't
exist.
Establishing a free society that endures generally requires not
allowing people to give up freedom. In other words, it requires
inalienable rights. I do not want a society in which people had those
freedoms only until they gave them up.
I do not say this with the expectation that you will agree with me.
It sounds like you are as firmly convinced of your views as I am of
mine. I hope, though, that at least you will understand better
what my position is.No one has control of their own life. Why? Because in a society we are not separate from others. By definition. We enter, or rather are entered at birth, into a social contract which includes us, the And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the very right to exist. How free is that? Perhaps we should tar up all the non-free software in the world and untar it in a data-crypt on a remote island where the murky odour of its tainted code does not attack our refined sensibilities? Is that acceptable on the road to a free, by your definition, society? You use a lot of grand words: good, evil, freedom, but seem unaware of the logical conclusions of your own thinking, or for that matter, the several millenia of debate surrounding these concepts. If I take your words at face-value I must conclude that you are either seriously misguided or downright dangerous. In any case, you do not stand for any definition of freedom that I could ever subscribe to. But I would actually like to thank you for having made this clear to me. michael
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:52:10 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> Many fascists have used this argument for centuries. "Oh dear, the people are too stupid to make their own decisions so we need to make them for them."
It is me, who finds it humurous that you consider a recommendation as taking away the right of people choosing the software they wish to use. If I recommend you not to jump into a well, am I taking your liberty to jump into it? It would be quite funny to see how bits & bytes, my only That is bizarre... Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Setting Orange, the 53rd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Simply put in the years since then he's become much more shrill and intolerant. Perceived success is, IMO, going to the collective head of the FSF.
RMS, ..maybe you should look into the OpenBSD project, methods, and the end result - not necessarily to promote OpenBSD in some way, because I don't believe anyone here sees value in that - but to educate yourself, rather than speak from what someone else has commented on, or little bits of cursory research. I think it's difficult getting a sense of what OpenBSD stands for without having used the OS itself, or the ultimate freedom is that of free choice. As I've seen, the OpenBSD developers have fought tooth-and-nail, in many cases to the bitter end, to provide the cleanest and freest operating system available. It is coherent, and cohesive. In some cases, it's frustrating, simply because support for non-free entities are sketchy or flat-out aren't available. But at the same time, the opportunity remains open for folks to implement their non-free whatevers if they so choose, though they probably won't get the support of the developers, they may get support from other users.. all of us are working with varying levels of conviction and outside influences. That being said, I believe those of the developers, many openbsd users, are stricter and more focused any other single group of computer users. again.. my words come from my perspective, from what I've heard/read on this list and across the internet, as well as my experiences in using windows, linux, *BSD, and seeing the effects of these sorts of issues even in the non-technical areas of our lives. So again.. I think OpenBSD should be tried and explored before being labeled. Thank you for your time, ~Jason