>
>
> > > From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:48 PM
> > > To: Openbsd Misc (E-mail)
> > > Subject: Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:05:37PM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> > > > Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty
> > > > obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on.
> > > >
> > > > The world will fall because OpenBSD "recommends" that people
> > > > install a game... a game that is free to copy and use for non-
> > > > commercial use (I looked it up), and you had to go through almost
> > > > the ENTIRE package collection all the way to the Zs before you
> > > > could find such a pitiful example.
> > >
> > > Because they are such pitiful cases, they could be easily removed and
> > > remove Stallman's objections to list OpenBSD at the recommended Free
> > > Software operating systems, right? More promotion of OpenBSD would be
> > > good, right?
> > >
> >
> > CASE... not cases, you have come up with one CASE. One example, IF
> > I chose to believe in your modification of the original statement
> > that sparked this thread (which I don't) and believe that Mr. Stallman
> > was speaking of non-free software in packages your side of the argument
> > gets smaller and smaller. See what happens when you have to prove your
> > argument? It all boils down to you having an issue with ONE package.
> > A game at that. Not production software, or a web browser, or an email
> > package, a game. A single game that, from the tone of your argument
> > must be destroying all that free software stands for. Guess what...
> > I read the license text for that game and it sounds exactly like what
> > your precious GPL would say if it was boiled down to it's most basic
> > components. You can have the source code... You can modify the source
> > code... You just can't use the source code for your commercial
> > application. Sound familiar? That is almost exactly what I was told
> > by a GPL Zealot that the GPL lic was all about when I was first
> > introduced to Linux so many years ago.
> >
> > So your example of why OpenBSD isn't free is a farce. It wouldn't
> > bother me if the OpenBSD devs decided to axe that package. If I
> > wanted to use it I could install it from ports just fine, I usually
> > do anyway, but the argument that they should do so to fit yours or
> > Mr Stallman's ideals of what free software is about are wrong on so
> > many levels.
> >
> > It comes down to trying to force others to live by your ideals. It's
> > just like the christian croud thinking that it's ok to discriminate
> > against the pagans because it would take such a small thing for them
> > (us) to convert to christianity. Never mind that many of us pagans
> > view christianity as a violent death cult, so why would we ever want
> > to. You say that it would be such a small thing for the OpenBSD
> > project to do to live up to your ideals when it comes to free software
> > but quite frankly, I think that many of the OpenBSD crowd think that
> > your ideals are wrong. Freedom is all about freedom of choice,
> > If that means people choose non-free software on OpenBSD at least they
> > are using OpenBSD which is in itself free software. OpenBSD with ALL
> > the non-free software from ports (yes, really ports) would still be a
> > much more free system than any Windows system using as much free apps
> > as a person could find for it.
> >
> >
> > > Stopping this childish-tantrum regarding the FSF would also
> > > be very much
> > > more productive.
> > >
> >
> > childish-tantrum? You know, when you resort to attacking the character
> > of the other persons argument rather than argue the facts of your case
> > it means you have pretty much lost the debate and have nothing more to
> > say.
> >
> > > > This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly
> > > > stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software
> > > > in it's ports tree.
> > >
> > > He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free
> > > Software.
> > >
> > > Looking at
> > >
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2
> > >
> > >... seems to me pretty a pretty clear case.
> > >
> >
> > Ok... I get it... You are saying that zangband is such an important piece
> > of software that it alone is the cause of the downfall of free software.
> > Because OpenBSD distributes zangband nobody has any reason to install a
> > free OS or switch from MS Office to free office production software.
> >
> > No... wait... I don't get it. zangband is a GAME. It could fall off the
> > face of the earth and nobody would blink. The few people who play it would
> > move on to the next game.
> >
> > I can't believe that this thread has gone on this long and this one GAME
> > is what it is all about. Oh wait.... it really isn't, but when we boil
> > the argument down, it does become the final stand for a free software
> > zealot who didn't realize that he didn't have a real position in the
> > first case
> >
> > s
