On Dec 16, 2007, at 2:24 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

quoted text
> Ray Percival wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>>>> You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular  
>>>> weapon and
>>>> you have the choice to retain the source code.
>>>>
>>>> You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
>>>> provided you deliver the source code with it.
>>>>
>>> Agreed, but would you except either in ports ?
>>> The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to
>>> endorse.
>>>
>>> The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including
>>> something within
>>> ports has meaning.
>>
>>
>> Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given tool
>> just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking arrogant.
>>
>> But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
>> (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
>> including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby
>> mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
>> Theo cvs@openbsd.org mailing list, May 29, 2001
> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is  
> exactly
> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent  
> from the
> OpenBSD web site.
> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than
> the watered down language on the website.
> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and  
> one of
> security.

Yeah, those are the things that matter. Why do you need so many  
guidelines and rules? If logic and commonsense isn't enough for you  
then there are other projects for you to bother. Cause it's more than  
enough for us. And since we've already established that your use of  
the word "distribute" is wacky to say the very least you have not  
point AT FUCKING ALL.
quoted text
>
> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
> free to all.
> I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom  
> than the
> FSF/GNU/RMS.
> Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the
> things you provide URL's for in ports,
> then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important
> to you.
> If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in  
> ports.
> Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is  
> freely
> redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.
>
> One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
> mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,

Speaking for myself. Damn straight it is. Put down the crack pipe for  
a minute and think about if your argument there makes any sense at  
all. Hint: No reasonable person would think it does.

quoted text
> including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I  
> think
> you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would
> deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.

No. My principles are to to live and let die. In other words I could  
give a shit what anybody else does with a given system or if there  
happen to be a URL or two pointing them at some app in ports that  
might have a license I don't like. What business is it of mine? Since  
I think everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want with  
their stuff and that Big Mommy (as represented by Stallman and  
everybody else who think that reasonable adults will be corrupted in  
someway by being able to easily install software that might have a  
less permissive license than others) should fuck off and die this is  
PERFECTLY in line with what I think. And if you really can't see the  
difference between a blob loaded into kernelspace and a pointer to a  
userland app with a less permissive license well then you really are  
a religious and political shill and I can see why you want somebody  
enforcing various rules about thoughtcrime.