From: Richard Stallman <rms@...>
Subject: Real men don't attack straw men
 [3]Date: Dec 10, 11:18 am 2007

It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they
construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and
then try to blame me for them.

For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous,
even inconvenient.  However, if anyone wants to know what I do think,
I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ [4].
In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html [5].

One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
recommend OpenBSD.  It is not about what the system allows.  (Any
general purpose system allows doing anything at all.)  It is about
what the system suggests to the user.

Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others.  Therefore,
if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
some non-free program, I do not recommend it.  The systems I recommend
are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
non-free software.

From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
(though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
blobs).  However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
recommend.  I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.

I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.

The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
important.  If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.


From: Nick Guenther <kousue@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
 [5]Date: Dec 10, 1:12 pm 2007

On 12/10/07, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD.  It is not about what the system allows.  (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.)  It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.
>
> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
> think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others.  Therefore,
> if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
> some non-free program, I do not recommend it.  The systems I recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.
>
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).

Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 [6]
We're on the same side here.

> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important.  If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.

Sir, it was brought up that the linux distributions you do suggest do
often include in their ports systems non-free software. See e.g.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119726055819074&w=2 [7]
What do you say to that? Was that a lie or a mistake?

Respectfully,
-Nick


From: Steve Shockley <steve.shockley@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
 [7]Date: Dec 10, 1:57 pm 2007

Nick Guenther wrote:
>> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
>> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
>> blobs).
> 
> Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 [8]
> We're on the same side here.

He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host 
machine's processor.  Browse around under:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/ [9]

For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the 
BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be 
redistributed as object code only.


From: Reyk Floeter <reyk@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
 [9]Date: Dec 10, 3:58 pm 2007

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
> He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host 
> machine's processor.  Browse around under:
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/ [10]
> 
> For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the 
> BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be 
> redistributed as object code only.
> 

yes, but it is so stupid, the firmware is loaded into the device and
not running in OpenBSD itself.

in the past, the microcode was normally stored in non-volatile memory
on the hardware device, let's say a NIC, but now most of the devices
require to load the firmware into RAM.  it is cheaper to do it this
way, flash chips are just too expensive for the mass market.  mostly
all of the new ethernet and wireless cards require to load an external
firmware image into the _card's_ RAM, it wouldn't be possible to
support any of these chipsets without using their firmware.

but again, there is a major difference between binary blobs and
firmware images; the blobs are loaded as code into the OS kernel, but
the firmware runs directly on the device on crappy embedded micro
CPUs.  asking the vendors for releasing their firmware source code is
just ridiculous or a nightmare since I don't even want to see this
code (we wouldn't even have the right compiler for this)...

anyway, i'm clearly against binary blobs in the kernel, and in
contrast to most of the GNU/Linux dudes i _did_ some against it by
writing ar5k, instead of pointing into the wrong direction.  this open
firmware discussion is just a joke to make the relevant discussion,
binary blobs in the OS kernel, irrelevant.

reyk


From: Gilles Chehade <gilles@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
 [10]Date: Dec 10, 1:47 pm 2007

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:58:40PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
> > He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host 
> > machine's processor.  Browse around under:
> > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/ [11]
> > 
> > For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the 
> > BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be 
> > redistributed as object code only.
> > 
> 
> [...]
> 
> anyway, i'm clearly against binary blobs in the kernel, and in
> contrast to most of the GNU/Linux dudes i _did_ some against it by
> writing ar5k, instead of pointing into the wrong direction.  this open
> firmware discussion is just a joke to make the relevant discussion,
> binary blobs in the OS kernel, irrelevant.
> 

... and oddly enough it is the most activist of the _GNU_/Linux dudes who
did not care enough about your efforts in ar5k to raise his voice for the
freedom of software and yet feels the urge to teach us all a lesson about
the true meaning of free software.

Gilles

From: Marco Peereboom <slash@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
 [11]Date: Dec 10, 12:59 pm 2007

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they
> construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and
> then try to blame me for them.
> 
> For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous,
> even inconvenient.  However, if anyone wants to know what I do think,
> I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ [12].
> In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html [13].

*yawn*

> 
> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD.  It is not about what the system allows.  (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.)  It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.

What you recommend is quite boring what is not boring is your lack of
research into this topic.  It's ok to not know what you are talking
about; it is not ok to make blanket statements based on hearsay.

> 
> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
> think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others.  Therefore,
> if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
> some non-free program, I do not recommend it.  The systems I recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.

OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape.  Everything that
ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it.  There is
not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD
on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents.  We actually have
standards.

> 
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).  However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.  I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.

Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the
distribution.  Unlike linux OpenBSD does not have a HAL.  I can go on
for a while.

> 
> I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
> I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
> am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
> to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.

Here is one, the code isn't bloated and doesn't mostly suck.  I find it
unethical to recommend a steaming pile of crap to someone.

> 
> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important.  If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
> 

Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones
intelligence.  You are basically saying: "you are retarded if you don't
let me tell you what you want".

From: Marc Espie <espie@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
 [13]Date: Dec 10, 6:21 pm 2007

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD.  It is not about what the system allows.  (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.)  It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.

[...]
> >From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).  However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.  I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
[...]
> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important.  If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.

You do realize that that specific stance is *completely* hypocritical.

You do not recommend OpenBSD because its ports system states upfront
that there *are* non-free pieces of software that works under it.

But you recommend Linux distros, even though every one out there knows
there are *more* pieces of non-software that work in it.

Even though Linux contains hooks to allow for binary blobs, or is careful
to stay compatible with binary drivers from nvidia and ATI for people to
choose from.

But noooo, linux distros are white as a cygnus, since they don't suggest
out-right you can install non-free software. They just happen to make it
very easy, and you can just simply run into extended distros and sites
that make it *as trivial* to install non-free stuff as the OpenBSD ports
system.

Heck, *most linux distros out there* have a non-free section as well.

You *do know* that the non-free section of the OpenBSD ports tree is
labelled as such, don't you ? you do know we forbid redistribution
on CD-Rom of various pieces of software. Hence, non-free stuff does not
make it to the official CD-Rom. It does not even make it to the ftp
site.

This includes such prominent stuff as sun's java, which is not free...
and which is probably one of the most commonly installed linux software
out there... along with binary drivers for nvidia cards and other hardware.

Hypocrit.

From: Martin Schröder <martin@...>
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
 [13]Date: Dec 10, 4:26 pm 2007

2007/12/10, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>:
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).  However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.

Richard, do you still remember the 2004 FSF awards?
http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html [14]
"Theo's leadership of OpenBSD, his selfless commitment to Free Software ..."
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?

Best
   Martin