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
you appear to represent, the FSF), you seem to go fully against your
recommendation of people to use free software.

Ironically enough, providing the users of non free operating systems
with free software encourages them to keep using their non-free
software and thereby promotes the use of non-free software. How is
that for ethics ?

On the other hand, providing users of a free operating system (which
already provides users the ability to install and use non-free
software, as you've so eloquently pointed out) with an easy interface
to install *AND REMOVE* non-free software, might actually encourage
them to investigate other, free, alternatives to the non-free software
they sought to use. As has been said before, the ports tree is just a
scaffold, used to force third party programs (be they free or non-free
and for whatever value of freedom you wish) to install into a sane and
known location within the filesystem, easing the task of installing
and uninstalling said program. This, in no way, encourages or promotes
the use of said software (free or non-free).

Truly, OpenBSD is the most free operating system available to the
public at large today. If your system happens to contain an NVidia
videocard and you run any linux variant (including gNewSense), you
will be able to find, download and install the non-free binary blob
that allows using the advanced accelerated 3d features of this piece
of hardware. Some other BSD's also allow these to be used. OpenBSD
makes it virtually impossible to use such blobs. It is the ONLY OS (at
least to my knowledge, and I do try to stay informed on this
particular topic) that actively approaches hardware vendors to ask for
open and free (of NDA's) documentation so drivers can be written to
support that hardware, the only one to take a firm stance AGAINST
binary blobs and take positive action where other systems happily
accept loadable modules to support their hardware (as the linux kernel
in gNewSense and Ututo).

There's a whole community of people who take very great care of using
free software out here and who are well aware of the rights (and
duties) that free software brings to the user. Your remarks are
considered out of place and even offensive by some who put very much
effort into creating a truly free operating system. I've been using
"free unix-like systems" for well over a decade now and after some
years of trying I've found the only system that is truly free and
actively fights for the freedoms it gives to its users is OpenBSD.

Really, you ought to look in to it some time.

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

-- 
quoted text
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/