On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:14AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Then there's the practical side to consider. Most computer users simply
do not care about freedom. They only want their stuff to work. Even
among the local Linux crowd in my town, if I bring up an issue of
freedom I get a frigid response, or even outright anger. Mostly they
want a blanket blessing for using Free Software (even when it's not),
and they want to stick it to Microsoft. And... they don't want to think,
or evaluate, and make a tough choice.
So, in that sense GNU, the FSF, and your personal recommendations aren't
having the effects they should. Hmm.
In the past years I've been using OpenBSD I've had more education on
software freedom than the previous decade of using Linux. As a
community, OpenBSD users are much more aware of these issues, I believe.
If you can accept that, then consider that a more educated user base is
more capable of making their own decisions. The ports collection
includes some licensing information about each port's Makefile. The
binary packages do not contain non-free software at all. So OpenBSD has
given me plenty of information to make a choice.
So, in practice, OpenBSD is doing just fine to promote software
freedoms. If principles are important then it's important to see those
principles used in everyday life by the community at large.
If you can't recommend OpenBSD from where you stand maybe you should
have a fresh look from somewhere just a few feet away. Things look
different from here.
