Dear Richard and others

It was I who started this discussion in the first place. It was I who
posted the question about non-free in OpenBSD, because I had the
understanding, that OpenBSD only contains non-free. After I heard you on
the BSDTalk I posted to misc@openbsd.org in order to get som
clarification because I got confused.

I respect your work and opinion strongly, and I must apologize if this
has lead to any misbehaviour directed against you or others.

I do feel however, than in order to get this discussion ended, in a
good and kind manner, that you should comment on the statement below
from Theo d. Raadt.

To clarify everything and wrap this up I do believe that the following
is the truth:

1. OpenBSD does not contain any non-free software, but does have some
Makefiles in the ports system which contains urls that point to
non-free. The ports tree is just a scaffold.

2. Richard Stallman does not consider an OS to be non-free when it
contains urls, links or guides that will help people install non-free.
Futher he considers this to be un-ethical. This is an oppinion to be
respected. Hence OpenBSD is "un-ethical" in the intrepretation of
Richard.

3. Richard Stallman did make a mistake on BSDTalk that he should admit,
because OpenBSD does not contain ANY non-free software, it only
contains urls in Makefiles to non-free software - there is a BIG
difference.

The following comment from Theo is true:

quoted text
> 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.

Lets wrap this up in a nice manner.

Best and kind regards.

Rico Secada.