Marco,

I can definitely see another angle:

RMS spoke about OpenSolaris without getting his facts straight. When his 
bullshit was exposed he backtracked and had the author of the article 
post this correction:

"[RMS added this comment later:] Since that interview I've learned that 
not all of OpenSolaris is free software; it is distributed with many 
non-free programs. I am not sure that the free parts can even run on 
their own. I cannot endorse OpenSolaris in its present form as a system 
to use."

RMS has an agenda and he has been spewing sincere misinformation for a 
while now to try stay in the spotlight. Check out this link for another 
example of RMS badmouthing a project without checking his facts first:

http://fitz.blogspot.com/2007/07/stallman-shoots-free-software-movement.html

RMS can get away with running at the mouth because when he is wrong he 
dodges the criticism and twists his original statements to try and 
squirm out of taking responsibility for them. It is exactly what he 
tried to do here recently, but thankfully some of the OpenBSD developers 
got quite vocal about it. Even so, I still wouldn't call it a decisive 
victory against hypocrisy, misinformation, and slimy tactics.

Given that it has been voiced on this list that RMS "makes the rounds" 
badmouthing projects with little to no justification, and that this 
isn't the first time he has done it to OpenBSD (and he is likely to come 
back in a year and do it again), maybe it is time that his exploitation 
of free software projects be chronicled in a single location on the 
Internet. He counts on his positive publicity to lend credence to his 
endorsements, so a counter balance of centrally available bad RMS 
pontification might cause him to do some research before opening his 
mail program or mouth in the future. At the very least, it may cause 
some journalists to actually fact check his statements before publishing 
them.

For example, his Wikipedia article is one sided propaganda:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_stallman

Unfortunately, I do not know what central repository should be used for 
this purpose. If there are any Wikipedia editors on this list then they 
might want to update the article so that it properly reflects the 
criticism RMS has generated when he has spoken on subjects which he 
understood only poorly.

It might seem like a smear campaign, but at least it would be ACCURATE - 
which is more than can be said of RMS' smearing.

Breeno


Marco Peereboom wrote:
quoted text
> These messages somehow did not make it to misc@ so I am resending them.
> My reply to RMS did make it to misc@.
>
> I basically asked RMS why he endorses Solaris which is not even remotely
> free.
>
> I encourage people to try to understand the FSF reasoning for this
> endorsement.  I can't come up with anything else but a bought
> endorsement.
>
>
> Original message:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:07:15 -0600
> From: Marco Peereboom <slash@peereboom.us>
> To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
> In-Reply-To: <E1J1kP9-0005Vw-Qa@fencepost.gnu.org>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
>
> Richard, can you please educate me why you endorse Solaris?
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3717476_3
>
> Per that interview you are endorsing an OS that basically won't run
> without proprietary drivers.  I love Solaris as an OS but it isn't free.
> The CDDL clashes with the GPL; or can you explain why suddenly CDDL is
> GPL compatible?  Did someone tell you its free?
>
> Might it have something to do with money?
> http://www.fsf.org/donate/patron/index_html
>
> We are talking about the same Sun that rejects open source drivers for
> proprietary reasons.  Like this beautiful piece of software written by
> David Gwynne: http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~dlg/mfi/
> This was rejected in favor of LSI's proprietary driver that adds nothing
> over David's driver.
>
> Eagerly awaiting your answers,
> /marco
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> RMS' answer:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> X-Original-To: slash@peereboom.us
> Delivered-To: slash@peereboom.us                                                                                                                               
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on
> mail.peereboom.us                                                                                   
> X-Spam-Level:                                                                                                                                                  
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0
> tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS                                                                                    
>         autolearn=ham version=3.2.2                                                                                                                            
> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> To: Marco Peereboom <slash@peereboom.us>                                                                                                                       
> CC: misc@openbsd.org
> In-reply-to: <20071226150715.GB9799@peereboom.us> (message from Marco                                                                                          
>         Peereboom on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:07:16 -0600)
> Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men                                                                                                                   
> Reply-to: rms@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:42:08 -0500                                                                                                                          
>                     
>     Per that interview you are endorsing an OS that basically won't run
>     without proprietary drivers.
>                     
> I did not know that.  Can you send me a URL for the precise details?
> Once I know the details, I will ask them to post a correction in the
> interview.
>                     
>     The CDDL clashes with the GPL; or can you explain why suddenly CDDL
>     is GPL compatible?
>                     
> The CDDL is not GPL-compatible, but it is a free software license.
> The source code of OpenSolaris is indeed free software, just as the
> source code for OpenBSD is free software.  If your information is
> correct, OpenSolaris has a serious problem, and should not be endorsed,
> Those are two different questions.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------