On Jan 5, 2008 11:20 PM, William Boshuck <boshuk@math.mcgill.ca> wrote:
quoted text
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
> > > On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
> > > non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
> > > be documented for users to get their job done faster.
> > >
> >
> > If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be
> > putting the 'Free. ' in 'Free. Functional. Secure.'
>
> The word 'free' is there because OpenBSD is free.  It is not
> there because developers mind or don't mind users doing this
> or that.
>

You're missing the point why somebody is calling OpenBSD non-free. Or
supposedly why emacs runs on non-free.

quoted text
> > ; You shouldn't be
> > fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather,
> > probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'.
>
> Should you wish to inform yourself, there are a number of posts
> in the list archives explaining various specific reasons why the
> OpenBSD developers are against blobs.  Theo, in particular, wrote
> at least one rather short and very cogent message explaining the
> reasons.  You should look towards the beginning of the threads,
> because later on you are more likely to see Theo losing patience
> with respondents who did not read the original posts (carefully
> enough, or perhaps not at all).
>

Here is one:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-March/081313.html

Notice how Theo talks about "because their firmware images were not
free enough to ship in our releases"

I suppose you can now explain the meaning of the term "free" in
firmware in this context? Don't assume people don't read before
replying in here.


-- 
Karthik
http://guilt.bafsoft.net