From: Rick Pettit (rpettitvailsys.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 2007 - 00:50:48 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> :
> >
> > It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
> > knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports
> > tree has no non-free software in it at all.
> >
> > Does that make it non-free?
> >
> > Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
> > non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
> > and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".
> >
> > Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
> > to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?
> >
> > No, that's a totally different question.
> >
> > Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO.
> > Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO.
> >
> > The answer to Q1 is always yes. I'm concerned with Q2.
>
> It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line.
> For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution
> it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free
> software does not exist, but just not point where to find it.
>
> OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free software
> but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step by the
> user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software.
> Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view.

I've been a user for years and could care less what Stallman thinks.

> If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free
> software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port
> tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some
> other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution
> would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort.

The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so who
cares?

> If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation
> about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that
> would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher.

Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web site is
Stallman kosher--I just hope Stallman can sleep at night.

> But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list
> of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a
> completely different question.

Who is Stallman that we as users should even care?

> And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is
> a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD
> is already freer than most, and I also feel it is.
> At least in spirit.

Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that
Stallman's licenses are *more* free than OpenBSD!?

> But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman,
> and he is free to have that opinion.

He sure is (free to debate the merits of OpenBSD on *his* mailing lists).

I've been an OpenBSD advocate for years. This stuff gets rather tired after a
while (I can't even imagine what it must be like to be a core member of the
OpenBSD team and have to read this stuff).

-Rick

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]