On 12/12/07, Rodrigo V. Raimundo  wrote:

quoted text
> On Wednesday 12 December 2007 06:37, Richard Stallman wrote:

> > However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in

> > its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on

> > the ethical responsibility for it.

> >

>

> Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical because it allows

> compilation of non-free software.

>

I don't see this as a valid point. Stallman talks about "endorsement".

By what I've understood of his vision, when OpenBSD team decided to

"aggregate" a functionality called ports, they "endorsed" everything living

in ports tree, even if it's non-free software.

Such "endorsement" had the ability to "taint" the entire distribution, so it

was labeled as "non recommended". At this point, we start to disagree.
Ports is a userland feature, not a kernel one. So, to abid to his pinciples,

he decided  to broad the "tainting" thing to the entire distribution

(kernel, base,

ports,  etc).
I just don't see this as a fair thing.
A possible solution would be to "segregate" ports from the distribution

itself. Maybe creating an openbsd.com website, hosting the ports system,

and making clear that openbsd.com is not affiliated anyway to openbsd.org

(which would host the kernel space apps and code). This could move the

"tainted" code to outside the "distribution". Stallman would have to point

his arguments to the individuals themselves.
Also, since we're talking about BSD licensing here, this entire

"solution" should

be considered an absurd and a waste of resources.
I'll let this thread rest now. Nothing new to gain here.