As far as I understand, the OpenBSD position appears to be that trying

    to police users by forbidding them to maintain and retrieve port

    metadata about unfree software via this adjunct service (that is not

    included in the OS) would be a restriction of the users' freedom.
Obviously I disagree with that position.  This isn't an issue of the

users' freedom at all.  It is an issue of what OpenBSD says to the

public.

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.
--

Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG

dwchandler@stilyagin.com   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/

http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

GCC contains a file called config/sol2.h:
/* Operating system specific defines to be used when targeting GCC for any

   Solaris 2 system.

   Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
What does that say to the public?  It says you can use gcc on a non-free

operating system.
How's it feel to be a hypocrite?
What about
     gcc/config/rs6000/aix.h

     gcc/config/vax/vms.h
Or how about gcc/config/i386/win32.h:
/* Operating system specific defines to be used when targeting GCC for

   hosting on Windows NT 3.x, using a Unix style C library and tools,

   as distinct from winnt.h, which is used to build GCC for use with a

   windows style library and tool set and uses the Microsoft tools.

   Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002

   Free Software Foundation, Inc.
And hordes -- thousands upon thousands -- of #ifdef's and other crap

to support the Windows ABI.
I note that date of 1995 on the above file.  That's around the last time

when you were around actually touching code, right?
Richard, you are a total hypocrite.  You are in here creating a fuss about

our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same

thing yourself.

Put another way:
	The presence of an OpenBSD port entry for "opera" encourages

the wider use of OpenBSD and all the other free software that implies.
        The presence of a port of gcc to Windoze encourages the

development of software, free and otherwise, for Windoze, encouraging

the wider use of Windoze and all the "unfree" software that Windoze

implies.
A good example of the second case is the encouragement to use Windoze

that the gcc-enabled port of Mozilla-* to Windoze has almost certainly

caused.  I would use the lousy and dangerous behavior of I.E. as an

advocacy talking-point to lure Windoze users away from their drug.

Mozilla-* has weakened that talking-point.
I like opensource, free software.  I'll continue to support the OS

and userland that best advances that cause.  That would be OpenBSD.
Dave

--

                          I told you so.

                                  -- Cassandra

Please see
       http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html
And
        ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
What's that, there?
Emacs *binaries* for *Windows*
Supplied right by Richard's http and ftp mirrors.
Richard, I may be unfriendly, but you are a lying hypocritical

asshole.

this pretty much sums up everything. can we all stop now? (-:
aaron.glenn

Nah, it's too much fun... seriously though, even though ultimately

pointless, I think it's a worthy public debate. Let him expound his

theories and ethics and let's dissect them layer by layer. For the

record.

Not to mention:
  http://directory.fsf.org/project/reactOS/ - "ReactOS is a project to

create a free operating system that is compatible with Windows NT so

users can have access to a free operating system but still run their

favorite Windows PC programs and drivers."
  http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/ - "It is a set of

header files and import libraries that can be used by GNU tools for

compiling and linking programs to be run under operating systems

supporting the Win32 Application Programming Interface. "
  http://directory.fsf.org/project/gtmess/ - "gtmess is a console MSN

Messenger client for GNU/Linux and other systems that conform to the

POSIX standard. It supports the MSNP9 protocol version."
  http://directory.fsf.org/project/macssh/ "...This is a Macintosh

version for SSH."
  http://directory.fsf.org/project/djgpp/ "Complete 32-bit C/C++

development system for Intel 80386 (and higher) PCs running DOS."
Etc. etc. etc. - it's all over the place.  If the cygwin stuff (dunno

if it is or not) is merged into the main source repository, then we

can assume that virtually every piece of GNU code has been designed to

work with windows, so it can't be recommended.  Thus does the

revolution devour its children.
Given the plain weirdness of the arguments "Richard Stallman" has been

making, maybe we should consider the possibility that we've been had

by an impostor trying to get a rise out of the OBSD crowd. ;)  If not,

then the interesting question is, why is he doing this, really?  All

the pronouncements about freedom, and the Important Life Lessons about

how mentioning a thing is tantamount to endorsing it - it just doesn't

add up, it's too silly.  I wonder what the real agenda is.
-gregg

Mr. Stallman you are nude, please stop.

I believe Richard might have been misinformed about ports, while you...

... should know better.
It's the difference between helping people run more Free Software vs

spreading proprietary software.
Talking about "lies", or "hypocrisy" is nothing more than petty insulting.
Rui
--

All Hail Discordia!

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...?

Nice double speak.  The fact of the matter is he's encouraging the

usage of non-free OSes.
Greg

--

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

This is directly enabling people to continue using non-free software

while feeling good about it (if they don't think too hard).
--

Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG

dwchandler@stilyagin.com   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/

http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Someone already mentioned Hitler.
Can we let this thread die.
--- Marina Brown