login
Search
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/.
In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.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.
Richard,
while we do provide a free operating system,
http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar.(while others promise the moon, we deliver.)
- Marc
Now the answer is...
Stallman, why did you start this thread? It is totaly absurd, it does
not make any sense...Borja Tarraso
Sounds like the first three lines for Ty's next song!
Stallman, why did you start this thread?
It is totaly absurd,
It does not make any sense
OpenBSD is as free as the wind
Take that out with you
On the Gnu on which you rode in ...Etc.
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@absolute-performance.com
303-443-7000 ext. 527
[troll]
WARNING: Thread Parody.
Original: "Keanu Sausage"
skit from the episode "Operation: Rich in Spirit"
"Operation: Rich in Spirit" is the sevententh episode of
season one of the television comedy series Robot Chicken.To see the original, simply google for
"robot chicken keanu" and you will find it in adobe flash 9 format.Unfortunately for many openbsd users, I am uncertain how to find
a copy of the skit in any other format. Hopefully I put enough text
in to describe some of the visual elements required enough for the
imagination.(c) 2007 by whyzzi@gmail.com. All rights reserved. Any similarity to
persons real or imaginary in this article is coincidental -- or
written for entertainment or parodic purposes only.Enjoy.
/ //////////////////////////////////////
Richard M. Stallman stands dressed in a matrix style black pants, black
t-shirt, black shades and a black leather overcoat. Approaching him on his
left side is Bill Gates of Microsoft dressed in grey khaki's and white
t-shirt with the windows vista logo on it."My name is Richard M. Stallman, and I'm going to beat you, Bill Gates."
*CRUNCH* A solid punch, right in the gut. Bill collapses.
From his right side approaches Linus Torvalds, wearing grey khaki's and
a white t-shirt with the linux penguin on it."My name is R. M. S., and I'm going to defeat you, Linus Torvalds."
*WHACK* A well executed kick directly into the chin. Linus falls.
From the right side now enters Theo de Raadt, wearing blue jeans with the
blue T-Shirt and the anime style of OpenBSD release 2.8 puffy fish on
the front."I'm the guy for the 'Free Software Movement', and I'm going to stop you,
lead programmer for the Open B-S-D Project - Theo De Raadt."*CRACK* Richard jumps from the ground, rebounds off the wall and connects a
kick to the back Theo's head. Theo falls face first into the concrete./ director in the background yells "Cut" /
/ stage production bell rings /Camera shifts, clearly now you can see ...
And makes it total clear that you are the hypocrite and a liar.
Choice quotes from that page:
Microsoft Windows is a clear and instructive example of non-free
software.Using free software on Microsoft Windows (or any non-free
operating system) is the first step towards freedom, but it does
not get you all the way there.So the next step is to replace Windows with a free operating
system such as GNU/Linux[1].However, on this page we're concerned with the first step.
[1] Now I see why you have such animosity towards this page...
--
P'tang!
Today is Boomtime, the 55th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
RMS claims that OpenBSD does not meet his criteria as a recommendable
free operating system since the userland ports infrastructure contains
references to non-free software. As your choice quotes demonstrate,
Richard Stallman, the FSF and the GNU project advocate the use of non-
free operating systems. They go so far as to provide binary
executables on their own official servers.It doesn't get any more hypocritical than that.
---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
Hmmmm. This one is from rms@somewhere and another is from rms@gnu.org
Doppelganger?Maybe they should be careful that they are not Titans. I remember
another rms - the RMS Titanic. Sank without trace never to surface
again after meeting a superior force due to incompetence on the part of
the designers and captain.Normally I wouldn't promote a site like
http://www.chartcourse.com/articletitanic.htm but reading that page in
this context is hilarious.Rod/
/earth: write failed, file system is full
cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
Ooooh! That one is <particularly> ironic in this thread.
It RECOMMENDS free software to replace unfree but then includes VLC
player that does MP3 which somebody tells me is patent encumbered.Rod/
/earth: write failed, file system is full
cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
Richard "Hypocrite" Stallmann,
we, OpenBSD, are endorsing non-free software?
what is that: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html ?
old man, stop trolling.
You've got too much time on your hands.
Hi
About the ports tree, maybe you are right and OpenBSD should go kick out
the possibly 50 ports that you have a problem with.Now, about BSD/GPL that's an other story. But that doesn't mean we can't
learn from each other and help each other.I hope it has to do Richards efforts on the GNU/Linux side of the
open-source world that even Ubuntu works on a completely free edition
(Gobuntu) nowadays.OpenBSD "refuses to accept it's users being forced into depending on
vendor binaries" and pushes people to "send a message that open support
for hardware matters". Unix is becoming mainstream again. You should all
work together at educating new people.Kind regards,
Tom
http://www.fsf.org/news/freebios.html
And especially :
--
The FSF uses laptops donated by IBM over the past few years. This
was one among several ways IBM cooperated with the GNU Project.
But the cooperation is incomplete: when I asked for the
specifications necessary to make LinuxBIOS run on these laptops,
IBM refusedbciting, as the reason, the enforcement of "trusted
computing" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
Treacherous computing is, itself, an attack on our freedom; it is
also, it seems, a motivation to obstruct our freedom in other ways.--
You can also help our campaign by writing to manufacturers such as
Intel, saying they ought to cooperate with a fully free BIOS. Calm
but strong disapproval, coupled with stating an intention to take
action accordingly, is more effective than venting rage. Please
send a copy of your message to bios@gnu.org, so we can monitor the
support for this campaign. The more mail they get, the more
effect, so please do add your voice to ours.--
For me BIOS, is mostly software embedded so i have to live with
that 'closed source bios' (at least on peecee's ) i think i don't
have to accept closed binary blobs at higher level ...Now, please, can we together stop feeding that awful troll ?
Watching the latest flame war, I can't help thinking that as
founders of their respective projects Theo and RMS are trapped
in a jail of rigid consistency and absolutism demanded by
children and utopians. Only at home, with the door locked,
are they free to boot their home's sole computer, a Windows
box, watch some Real Media streams and play a few Valve-
controlled games. And late at night, when the ice weasels
come, a hypnogogic fog provides cover for a last conscious
thought: "I wish, I wish, I wish... *I* had written OS X."--
Monty Brandenberg
Well, yes and no.
Theo's absolutism has kept OpenBSD pretty much the last
blob-free OS in the Free Software world.RMS's absolutism has kept alive an ideal that launched
the mainstream open source movement.So it's not non-functional. It's emotionally hard on the
individuals concerned, and often emotionally hard on
us who bask in the reflected glow of these geniuses :-).
But it all seems to work out in practice. Has for a cuple
of decades now, give or take a few years.--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@absolute-performance.com
303-443-7000 ext. 527
his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a
recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.and all stallman says about it is basically, "I am not familiar
with the situation, leave me alone."I would like to see more cooperation between the free software
developers.but IMO, stallman is the one being far more unfriendly and
uncooperative. of course stallman is not directly responsible
for the actions of the GPL community. but his opinions do wield
power. didn't this whole thread start because of his opinions
and recommendations?now stallman won't talk to theo, because theo is unabashed in
stating his opinions? just look at the thread. between theo
and stallman, who posted the most words, and who gave less
misinformation/slant?in much fewer words: the gutless politician attempted to use his
influence to snub and smear his opponent. when fallacies in his
campaign were brought to light, he accused his opponent of being
unfriendly.--
jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a
"social failure".If some people think that, they did not get it from me. I do not call
BSD either of those things. I say that releasing free software under
a non-copyleft free software license is basically good (i.e., not
evil), but that using copyleft is better.recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.I don't think it is wrong in general to relicense code from BSD to
GPL. However, in some cases I think it is more useful not to do so,
in order to contribute changes back to the original BSD-licensed
project.If such an issue arises for a GNU package, and people think it is not
doing the most useful thing, I will look at the issue and then if
necessary discuss it with the developers.However, if such an issue arises for a program which is not a GNU
package, I will not get involved unless the developers ask me for
advice.
How could you in all conscience come and *talk, arguing, judging and
pretend to defend and promote freedom* when you are in fact publicly
promoting license to steel!?Richard, *the secret software agent 007 with license to kill*?
How dare you to come and talk about freedom and promoting actions like that!
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!No wonder that it looks like the GPL code base is loosing it's ethics
and integrity so fast these days with such statement position and
advocacy statement from it's head leader!What is really *your hidden agenda* here one would asked?
I hope it's worth it as you destroy, very quickly, what looks like you
spend a life time trying to built.To really *talks, promote advocate and defend freedom and already free
software*, the right thing to do would be to *respect the author
freedom* and keep it under the author license of choice and *feed all
improvements and fixes upstream period*.But what do you know about the right things to do here going, making and
promoting statement like this!Of all people Richard, you have great power and with that comes great
responsibility, how could you make such nonsense statement!In these circumstances, I don't think this gives you any rights or power
what so ever, to discuss other projects choices of software packages,
distributions, etc.Best regards,
Daniel
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
including distributing the code under other licenses. The only
requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
whether that involves changes to the code. When I say "relicensing" I
mean distributing the code with another license applied. That doesn't
mean deleting the old license.The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
changes. If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
just silly (in most cases).
I don't think so. The recipient of BSDL'd material gets a copyright
license from the original licensor -- without the middleman getting a
chance to do anything at all regarding granting some or all of the
copyright rights that middleman received as a licensee. The middlemanAnd that means what? Well, you might want to wget and check out
http://opensourcelaw.biz/publications/papers/BScott_BSD_The_Dark_Horse_o...
"What is the legal effect of being required to retain "this list of
conditions". Are they just there for show? Do they have some other
effect? In determining this, a court will look to the objective
meaning of the clause and, potentially, the objective intention of the
original licensor. In this case, the actual subjective intention of
the party granting the license (and what they thought the words meant)
is irrelevant.8 What the court is looking to determine is what the
reasonable person (ie an idealized and dispassionate citizen who is
called on to assess the scope of the license) would make of the
words.9Consider first the warranty disclaimer. If there is a requirement to
"retain" a copy of the warranty disclaimer in a redistribution, is a
court likely to say the warranty disclaimer is intended to be
effective or not? For example, could the disclaimer be retained but
framed by a redistributor in such a way that the disclaimer had no
legal force?10 It is likely that the reasonable person would read the
license and think that the licensor intended that the warranty
disclaimer was to be retained without qualification. A similar
argument could be made about clause 5 (which prohibits endorsements).On this analysis, the warranty disclaimer travels with the
distribution and the redistributor has no ability to qualify it. The
question then becomes what about the other clauses? What about clause
2 which permits "redistribution and use" of the source form? If, in
the case of the warranty disclaimer, the objective intention of the
requirement t...
Public domain aside, in what other case would it be legal to change a
license, where no changes were made to the code, and the original
author has not granted permission?
certainly someone could not take BSD licensed code and change it to
GPL if they have changed nothing and do not have the authors
permission.keep in mind I have limited knowledge at best of software licensing
Sam Fourman Jr.
That is not relicensing, it is adding restrictions and rules.
This is illegal. Repeating it over and over again will not make it so.
I assumed that the issue was *adding* GPL code to a BSD-licenced project,
not changing the licence on the already-written code. In this case, RMS
is right that there is nothing technically wrong with this, but that
licencing the code under a BSD licence may be more useful.You are right, of course, that only the licence-holder can change the
licence. I'd prefer to assume, though, that RMS simply misunderstood the
hypothetical situation, rather than intentionally recommending copyright
violation.Ben
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
It is not just wrong it is fucking illegal.
Go talk to some of those wireless developers in Linux. You'll find
Your advice is as useful as your recommendations. Last time the
wireless issue was brought up you simply declined to comment. Ethics in
action again!I don't know what your agenda is but it stinks. Tell us, who pays you
again?
The Linux kernel is not a GNU package any more than Xorg is an OpenBSD package.
I forgot, dictator do create rules for others to follow, but never apply
to them. They kill the one that put their kingdom in jeopardy and
provide more viable and respectful alternative to their view point.With all the very long lists of self infringement on your own rules
provided to you today from your own servers, etc. Looks like you will
have a lots to talk about for many years to come then, and we shall now
return to a peace state of affair.Go do your penitences now, you need it. You must be very well paid to
try to destroy project that actually provide very real alternative to
not only Microsoft empire like you say you are fighting against, but
also to Apple, SunOS, Cisco, Juniper, NetScreen, Fortigate, and many
others as well. Support for BGP alone in OpenBSD does it so well now,
that there isn't a need for alternative i most cases now, nor any others
alternative of firewall out there that can't even come close to what
OpenBSD free alternative provides, and even soon looks lie to your own
GCC compiler too and many others. OpenBSD doesn't do everything, not
does it pretend to do, but what it does, it is doing very well and in a
complete *FREE* matter. It's a shame to not see and value that.Must be really hard to see that with the biggest bunch of programmers
following you, you can't come with free software that can even touch, or
remotely come close to what makes OpenBSD such a great and *FREE* OS in
such a clean, efficient, simple, well documented and secure way.The treat must be so bad as to feel the needs to try to destroy it
burned your finger. That out to be the only logical explications to your
actions in the last 48 hours.If you can't beat them, joint them, so why don't you see the light and
start acting accordingly.You are a great preacher, just doesn't apply to your own church, does it?!
With all due respect, if there is any left,
Best regards,Daniel
PS: With everything put to light, how can you put a judgment on others ...
What? No.. it is wrong. You can't just change the license on people!
You might have meant "I don't think it is wrong in general to get
permission from the original authors to relicense code from BSD to
GPL" but it doesn't sound like that.
And in *all* cases it is useful not to do so, because you should
always be trying to integrate fixes upstream.-Nick
Well, sue 'em, if it's so. But no point in sulking. Like the ENTIRE
PROGRAMMING COMMUNITY, we're a bunch of cantankerous,
contentious, contumacious perfectionists.Stallman and Theo especially. And you, too. And me.
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@absolute-performance.com
303-443-7000 ext. 527
hmmm,
I do/have done a fair amount of work adding/maintaining GPL software
in the ports collection. I was working on a port for libcdio, an
GNU project. there'a a file in NetBSD's pkgsrc that adds support
for NetBSD/OpenBSD cd(4). that file is BSD licensed. the
README.libcdio file in the libcdio sources mentions this file and
says it can't be included because it's not GPL. I contacted the
libcdio maintainer about this file, and he again said he could not
include it because the BSD license is incompatible. whatever.
so I contacted the author of said file, asking if he could change the
license so it could be included upstream. he eventually agreed.I'm only posting this because I understand how easy it could be to
look at my remarks and conclude I'm just another theo fan-boy BSD
zealot.--
jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> 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.Therefore, you don't recommend linux. Oh wait ...
I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.> However, its ports
> system does suggest non-free programs,No it doesn't "suggest" non-free programs in any way;
it just makes it possible and easy to install them.Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using
that program. It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that
is what I am opposed to.You may have a different interpretation of these facts.
That's my interpretation of them.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 06:56:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
| in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.Interesting, these linux distributions. They seem to be pretty new,
what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
these seemed to exist 8 years ago.A free and usable operating system was already well available back
then, and it still is today : OpenBSD.| > However, its ports
| > system does suggest non-free programs,
|
| No it doesn't "suggest" non-free programs in any way;
| it just makes it possible and easy to install them.
|
| Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using
| that program. It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that
| is what I am opposed to.Including source- and header files for non-free OS'es in the
distribution of gcc and emacs does suggest using gcc and/or emacs on
these non-free OS'es. It grants these non-free OS'es a sort of
legitimacy, something you say you are opposed to.| You may have a different interpretation of these facts.
| That's my interpretation of them.I would have to agree with you that, in your interpretation and your
definition, the ports tree (which is not recommended, by the way, a
point you've carefully chosen to ignore but OpenBSD developers suggest
people to use binary packages which (to the best of my knowledge) all
come with source available under permissive licenses) does facilitate
the use of non-free software on an otherwise free operating system,
which, according to your views and definitions is "not good".You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views
with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft
software packages of emacs and gcc. By providing binaries for (for
example) the Windows family of operating systems on your web and/or
ftp servers (and I say 'your' to mean the servers of the foundation...
If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the
book? Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect
the citizenry? Absolutely not.Along these same lines, it doesn't make sense to try to hide what software
is out there. I think people can figure out which software they want to
use from ports after installing the base system, free or non-free.Either way, a makefile to download and install a non-free piece of
software doesn't make the system any less free.--
Kyle George
If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the
book? Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect
the citizenry? Absolutely not.A system distribution is more like an anthology than like a library.
We do consider the editor of the anthology book responsible for the choice
of what to include.
OpenBSD neither includes nor promotes any non-free software. However,
like any unbiased material, it does contain a complete and detailed
reference list, called 'ports'.Please note, that there is no automated process about getting ports
onto your system. The only thing that the OpenBSD install process can
install for you is the base system, which actually happens to have a
lot of software in it as it is, from X and apache, to gcc and lynx. So
unlike other BSD systems, which heavily depend on you installing both
ports and packages for various components of the system, OpenBSD
requires neither ports nor packages for the day to day operation.C.
Yes, but we do not automatically assume that he recommend or endorse
what the included text discusses. If that was so we would have to assume
that anyone writing a book about the holocaust also approves. Telling a
person about something is not the same thing as telling someone to do it.--
Erik WikstrC6m
An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports
tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to.Your argument here fails.
--- Marina Brown
An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports
tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to.You're right, but I don't think that difference matters for this
issue. Giving just the URLs for non-free software is referring people
to them.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man.
Actually I'm not a man at all.
Not all people who are in software are men.
I've contributed in small ways to OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux
and Plan9.--- Marina Brown
Yet on Richard's side of this fence, emacs and gcc _directly include_
code which lets users use those two pieces of software on commercial
operating systems.The gcc and emacs developers -- led by Richard -- have decided the
directly include support for commercial operating systems in their
respective distributions.Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork
Richard would surely approve of.Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
He facilitates using something good on something bad, which helps
He is arguing against facilitating something bad on something
good. Your argument does not hold and it's unnecessarily
insultive.BTW I personally think that people should be free to choose to
install whatever software they wish on their machine and that the
ports tree sufficiently warns about the used license. I'd wish you
would keep your arguing at that.# Han
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1Hi,
This is what I felt; All comments are welcome.
If both parties were at fault for somehow giving the user the wrong
idea that flash player is great on BSD OR windows is great coz it runs
emacs, is this the right way to settle it?The honest way is to removing these Makefiles/binaries wherever (if
you really want to encourage free software).
The wicked way is to keep these at the expense of popularity but not
complain about it.
The worst way is to fight about it.Now if one of you didn't do what the other said, that one would be the
bad guy. But if both of you decided to keep these things as they are,
both would be against free software.Which one would you rather be?
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.orgiD8DBQFHYb5TRzTnZfDdIE8RAiE2AJwOkj2Jl9Ls/t9cIdTgoxJ0W4M8OwCfcCGP
9IKozlMUHm4u5N4LI2UYdTs=
=pSrc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
There's one for usr.bin/mg/theo.c
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@absolute-performance.com
303-443-7000 ext. 527
Where is your line in the sand? When does an operating system become
free by your interpretation? When non-free ports frameworks are
hosted outside the official OpenBSD cvs repository? On a server not
owned by the OpenBSD project? What if I want to host it on my own
server, but I also happen to be an OpenBSD developer? When does the
disassociation satisfy your unpublished requirements?Your interpretation is vague and self-serving.
---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
Where is your line in the sand? When does an operating system become
free by your interpretation? When non-free ports frameworks are
hosted outside the official OpenBSD cvs repository? On a server not
owned by the OpenBSD project?If they are published by someone else, and OpenBSD doesn't point
people at them, then OpenBSD is not responsible for them.Helping people install non-free software is bad, just as developing
and distributing non-free software is bad. But if OpenBSD doesn't
participate in spreading that information, it's not OpenBSD's fault.What if I want to host it on my own
server, but I also happen to be an OpenBSD developer?I don't think it matters whether you're an OpenBSD developer. What
matters is whether OpenBSD (in the distribution and its servers) says
anything to leads users to that information. Mentioning your name in
other some context, such as to thank you for your contributions, would
not lead people to look at your site for non-free software, so it is
not an issue.If OpenBSD eliminates the non-free programs from the ports system
that it recommends to users, then I will consider it good.
Richard,
I'm trying very hard here to assume that you're acting in good faith,
and frankly, your words make it A LOT simpler to assume that you are
acting in bad faith, which is what Theo and many others have long
since resigned themselves to assuming (hence the reactions you're
getting).You said "Real men don't attack straw men". Yet this is *EXACTLY* what
you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write that OpenBSD
recommends the ports system to its users, *which it does not*. Let me
say that once again: OpenBSD recommends that EVERYBODY USE PACKAGES,
NOT THE PORTS TREE.When you started this discussion, I assumed that you were simply ill
informed about the OpenBSD packages and ports systems and the
difference between them and how they intersect.
Misunderstandings or having a misconception are no shame,
But you now have already been told that OpenBSD recommends packages
and that it does not recommend the ports tree. Yet you continue to
criticise OpenBSD based on your (incorrect) view that it recommends
the ports tree.That is a straw man argument.
OpenBSD does not recommend the ports tree.
It says right in the FAQ in *bold* letters:
"Everyone is encouraged to use the pre-compiled binary packages."
( http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports )
You should know this.
I alone have told you so again
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119741909911558&w=2
and again
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119743259725428&w=2
and again
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119745441717134&w=2
and again
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119746948206930&w=2
and others have concurred
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119746051925719&w=2Richard, I if you are in fact merely ill-informed and not acting in
bad faith, then I would like to offer you to have a one on one email
conversation, where I will be happy to explain to you exactly the
nature of the OpenBSD ports and packages systems. But let's do that
off-list, because ...
http://marc.info/?t=119658331900002&r=1&w=2
http://forum.skype.com/lofiversion/index.php/t96248.html
OpenBSD "suggests" non-free software?
--
jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
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.
Richard, do you still remember the 2004 FSF awards?
http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html
"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
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
Because he tends to be unfriendly.
Interestingly enough, if you specified that as the reason you recommend
against using OpenBSD, this thread would have been a lot shorter.
Somehow I think Theo is more interested in writing code and changing the
world than making friends. Personally, I think he's made the right choice.
Interestingly enough, if you specified that as the reason you recommend
against using OpenBSD, this thread would have been a lot shorter.Maybe it would have led to a shorter thread, but it would not have
been accurate. My decision not to recommend OpenBSD was not based on
personalities.
Interesting.
So have you sent these types of "unrecommendations" to other OS'
mailing lists or just OpenBSD's?gg
So have you sent these types of "unrecommendations" to other OS'
mailing lists or just OpenBSD's?I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time.
I did not start this discussion. I posted on this list because people
were making inaccurate statements about my views.
Nope. Your interview on bsdtalk is the starting point of this discussion.
Think whatever you will, but if you publish your views like that, you can
expect criticism.
I noticed that the subject of this thread is "straw men." I'm
familiar with the fallacy."I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD, because all of
them include, in their installation systems, the ports system, they
all include some non-free programs. And as a result I can't recommend
any of them."I believe your clairification to this was that you don't recommend
OpenBSD because it _suggests_ non-free software. And that people
should not actually be prevented from installing non-free software
(is this latter clairification the straw man argument in question?)It means you are trying to force people!
Stallman, you are so steeped in hypocrisy, you aught to submit a
picture of yourself to various dictionaries.P.S. It can't be that difficult to remove the "add plugin" feature
in mozilla firefox. Do you not code anymore?--
Travers Buda
You lied on a recorded show.
Richard, you are a Hypocrite.
Assuming and/or judging that someone is unfriendly, is an unfriendly act
itself. Publicly stating on a mailing list that someone 'tends' to be
unfriendly is a very unfriendly act. Especially since the word 'tends'
sounds very much like FUD spreading (fear of Theo, ohhh, is he friendly,
or is he mad? what will we do? use words like 'tends' and live in fear,
uncertainty, or doubt).Stating that someone 'tends' to be unfriendly would be encouraging more
unfriendliness from that unfriendly person, if they were even unfriendly
in the first place.Even if they were unfriendly, stating publicly that they 'tend' to be
unfriendly would not be healing an unfriendly person, nor a friendly
person that was incorrectly judged as unfriendly.Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
first place.Bringing up friendliness versus unfriendliness in a conversation which
had nothing to do with unfriendliness, is very unfriendly and provoking.I declare the comment a flamebait, in which I was baited successfully.
Therefore, one who makes a premature unfriendly judgment, may in fact be
*the* actual unfriendly, judgmental, and assumptive person in reality.Laugh and smile,
L505
Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
first place.Someone else attacked me on this list for not discussing this with
Theo. I explained the reason in the gentlest way I could think of.
If you wish we were not discussing the subject, you had best take it
up with him.
There is nothing to discuss with me.
Richard claimed that there is non-free software in OpenBSD. That is
not true.It is no more true than Linux being able to run commercial binaries.
The ports tree is just a scaffold.
Richard, you are wrong. You said very clearly in your interview that
the ports tree contains non-free software. It does not. It is just a
scaffold of Makefiles containing URLs, and an occasional patch here or
there.You are just plain wrong. And you are not enough of a man to admit
that you are wrong.I may be unfriendly at times, but you are a power-misusing
hypocritical liar who attacks projects that try harder than any
others to only make free software available.Shame on you.
The same argument could be made about your unfriendliness. We could not
talk to you since you have *proven* to be unfriendly:http://z505.com/images/gnu-sign.png
Any programmer or philosopher worth his salt can appear critical,
analytical, or unfriendly at times. Security experts especially.I doubt someone who is truly unfriendly could organize a hackathon, a
friendly social event. Remember, this is just email after all, Stallman.
Take some of it with a grain of salt.Any time someone brings up the fact that openbsd has unfriendly
programmers, we are to call them on it.Label it as:
The OpenBSD Cliche"Cliche: an idea that has been overused to the point of losing its
intended force or novelty,"That way, when anyone regurgitates this same old tired "openbsd
programmers are unfriendly" argument, we can redirect them to a FUQ or FAQ.An example demonstration of this:
Bum Bum wrote in message:
> "blah blah blah OpenBSD programmers are unfriendly blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah Not friendly blah blah Don't use it blah
> blah blah Because they are unfriendly blah blah blah"Hello Bum Bum, that is an invalid argument. Please see:
"The OpenBSD Cliche".It is in the FUQ under the beaten dead horse section.
Regards,
L505"A philosopher who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job."
--Plato (source: Wikipedia)"A programmer who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job."
--L505 (source: Z505)
Now *that* I find humorous.
I find it Kafka-esque, your inability to reccomend OpenBSD because
of some "unfree" items in the ports tree. Effectively you are taking
away the right of people to choose the software they wish to use.Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the
freedom of choice in the name of freedom.That is bizarre.
--STeve Andre'
Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the
freedom of choice in the name of freedom.Freedom means having control of your own life; "Freedom of choice" is
a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and
taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions.
Thus, I say I advocate "freedom" -- not "freedom of choice".This always leads to the question of "which freedom?" In the area of
software, I want a society in which users are free to run software,
free study and change its source code and make their changed versions
run, and free to redistribute changed and unchanged versions. In
other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't
exist.Establishing a free society that endures generally requires not
allowing people to give up freedom. In other words, it requires
inalienable rights. I do not want a society in which people had those
freedoms only until they gave them up.I do not say this with the expectation that you will agree with me.
It sounds like you are as firmly convinced of your views as I am of
mine. I hope, though, that at least you will understand better
what my position is.
No one has control of their own life. Why? Because in a society we are
not separate from others. By definition. We enter, or rather are
entered at birth, into a social contract which includes us, theAnd there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the
very right to exist. How free is that? Perhaps we should tar up all
the non-free software in the world and untar it in a data-crypt on a
remote island where the murky odour of its tainted code does not
attack our refined sensibilities? Is that acceptable on the road to a
free, by your definition, society?You use a lot of grand words: good, evil, freedom, but seem unaware of
the logical conclusions of your own thinking, or for that matter, the
several millenia of debate surrounding these concepts. If I take your
words at face-value I must conclude that you are either seriously
misguided or downright dangerous. In any case, you do not stand for
any definition of freedom that I could ever subscribe to.But I would actually like to thank you for having made this clear to me.
michael
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:52:10 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Many fascists have used this argument for centuries.
"Oh dear, the people are too stupid to make their own
decisions so we need to make them for them."
It is me, who finds it humurous that you consider a recommendation as
taking away the right of people choosing the software they wish to use.If I recommend you not to jump into a well, am I taking your liberty to
jump into it? It would be quite funny to see how bits & bytes, my onlyThat is bizarre...
Rui
--
All Hail Discordia!
Today is Setting Orange, the 53rd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Simply put in the years since then he's become much more shrill and
intolerant. Perceived success is, IMO, going to the collective head
of the FSF.
RMS,
..maybe you should look into the OpenBSD project, methods, and the end
result - not necessarily to promote OpenBSD in some way, because I
don't believe anyone here sees value in that - but to educate
yourself, rather than speak from what someone else has commented on,
or little bits of cursory research. I think it's difficult getting a
sense of what OpenBSD stands for without having used the OS itself, orthe ultimate freedom is that of free choice. As I've seen, the OpenBSD
developers have fought tooth-and-nail, in many cases to the bitter
end, to provide the cleanest and freest operating system available. It
is coherent, and cohesive. In some cases, it's frustrating, simply
because support for non-free entities are sketchy or flat-out aren't
available. But at the same time, the opportunity remains open for
folks to implement their non-free whatevers if they so choose, though
they probably won't get the support of the developers, they may get
support from other users.. all of us are working with varying levels
of conviction and outside influences. That being said, I believe those
of the developers, many openbsd users, are stricter and more focused
any other single group of computer users.again.. my words come from my perspective, from what I've heard/read
on this list and across the internet, as well as my experiences in
using windows, linux, *BSD, and seeing the effects of these sorts of
issues even in the non-technical areas of our lives.So again.. I think OpenBSD should be tried and explored before being labeled.
Thank you for your time,
~Jason
Is the list at:
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
the list of operating systems that meet your criteria? It appears that
gNewSense includes LAME in binary format, and BLAG "recommends" it at
https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Lame in much the same way OpenBSD does.
In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar
(https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is
non-free.Since I have time to rant but don't have time and resources to download
and install two new operating systems, feel free to correct me if myI don't think anyone is particularly upset that OpenBSD isn't among the
software you recommend, but to claim that OpenBSD includes "non-free"
software in its ports collection (using your definition of "free") while
claiming that gNewSense meets your criteria is disingenuous at best.
Is the list at:
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
the list of operating systems that meet your criteria? It appears that
gNewSense includes LAME in binary format, and BLAG "recommends" it at
https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Lame in much the same way OpenBSD does.ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check.
In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar
(https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is
non-free.What is the license of Unrar? I will try to access that page, but I
cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me.
I will see if it works with plain http:.I don't think anyone is particularly upset that OpenBSD isn't among the
software you recommend, but to claim that OpenBSD includes "non-free"
software in its ports collection (using your definition of "free") while
claiming that gNewSense meets your criteria is disingenuous at best.At best, it's an accurate statement. At worst, the gNewSense
developers made a mistake, and will correct it.My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted.
Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their
mistakes. So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in
OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I
trust the developers will remove it once they find out.On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed,
then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed. That's
what gives me stronger concern. The presence of non-free programs
in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional.
The source code of LAME is licensed under the LGPL; however, the mp3
format itself is patented and restricted. Further reading:http://www.mp3-tech.org/patents.html
http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developers.htmlIn short, the patents don't affect what you can do with the source code,
they affect what you can do with the program after you compile it. So,
you can modify, compile and distribute the program all you want, but if
you actually execute the program you need a patent license. I suppose
that could be considered Free Software, with a very narrow definition ofUnfortuately, several of the sites linked from the FSF page require
viewing using their self-signed SSL cert for some reason.From license.txt in the unrar source archive:
-----
The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives
without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the
RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
-----That seems to run completely counter to the ideals of the GPL, but I
I'm not sure I see how this is an issue. With gNewSense, I can point to
the Debian/Ubuntu repositories and install unfree software binaries.
With OpenBSD, to run unfree software I need to check out the Ports tree,
find the package I want to run, compile it, and install it. (Note the
distinction between Ports, which contains all the third-party software,
and Packages, which contains only Free software.)So, it would seem that (barring human error) the primary philosophical
difference between the packaging systems of OpenBSD and gNewSense is
that gNewSense tries to prevent you from seeing any packages they
consider non-Free, while OpenBSD directly provides only Free software
(Packages) but gives the user a choice of installing any software
(Ports). So, from my point of view, OpenBSD provides the user with more
freedom by not imposing artificial restrictions. After all, this
removes "the overhead of considering who owns the system software and ...
So, it would seem that (barring human error) the primary philosophical
difference between the packaging systems of OpenBSD and gNewSense is
that gNewSense tries to prevent you from seeing any packages they
consider non-Free, while OpenBSD directly provides only Free software
(Packages) but gives the user a choice of installing any software
(Ports).The above description of gNewSense is inaccurate. gNewSense doesn't
try to "prevent" you from seeing anything. How could stop you?What gNewSense does is avoid suggesting non-free programs you might
use.The above description of OpenBSD is not false, but it is misleading.
OpenBSD can't "give" (or not give) users the the choice of installing
non-free software, any more than I could "give" you (or not give you)
the choice of what to eat for dinner tomorrow. It's simply a fact
that non-free software can be installed on any general-purpose system.The difference between gNewSense and OpenBSD which is the cause of my
different judgment of them is that OpenBSD presents non-free software
in the list of programs it can install for you (through the ports
system), and gNewSense doesn't.
From license.txt in the unrar source archive:
-----
The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives
without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the
RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
-----UnRAR seems to be a real problem. I will discuss it with the BLAG
developers.
LAME is free software, but distributing it may be dangerous. I do not
criticize those who distribute it. Meanwhile, the FSF support efforts
to reject MP3 format and adopt OGG formats.
Good people of MISC land, could we please drop this thread, its lasted
way longer than really needed.RMS has his viewpoint and would prefer to defend it.
We have our own war cry, "Shut-up and hack" :-)Best,
I'm enjoying watching RMS struggle and fail to make any headway with his
argument.
His argument would be more acceptable to me if it wasn't so
hypocritical. Not that I would ever agree with it but least it would
hold a little more water.Greg
--
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
isn't it like hitler in '44 ?
cu
--
paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
perhaps using pcc as a gcc replacement in openbsd doesn't settle well
with rms and this is all a smokescreen?this was someone else's suggestion and they will remain unnamed.
--
just a layman here trying to make sense of it all. According to you,
gNewSense, an ubuntu (debian) derivitave -- is free software. I use
ubuntu on a laptop. According to gNewSense their policy supports use of
the universe and main package repositories from ubuntu with the
few mentioned changes. Apples to apples comparisons I say. I adjust
my repositories in a repository browser and poke away. I find java, I
find tools to work with many non-free pieces of software as well.So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column
that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?
few mentioned changes. Apples to apples comparisons I say. I adjust
my repositories in a repository browser and poke away. I find java, I
find tools to work with many non-free pieces of software as well.Could you explain what "I adjust my repositories in a repository
browser" means, precisely? I need to know the details in order to see
whether this is a problem that gNewSense is responsible for.Non-free software is available on the net, and people can find and
install it. I think that is unethical, but gNewSense is not
responsible for that (and neither is OpenBSD). On the other hand, if
there is something in gNewSense recommending or leading you to that
non-free software, that would be the responsibility of gNewSense.So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column
that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?Putting the non-free software in a separate folder or labeling it is
not enough. That is what Debian does, and that's why I don't
recommend Debian. Likewise, that's what Ubuntu does nowadays, which
is why I don't recommend Ubuntu. Gobuntu does the same thing -- the
non-free repositories are disabled by default, but a dialog box offers
the chance to enable them. So I don't recommend Gobuntu either.(Gobuntu also has the problem that its name is so close to Ubuntu that
people would get them confused. Practically speaking it is not
feasible to recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu.)The right thing to do is kick out the non-free softwre entirely. I
tried for years to persuade Debian to do that, and eventually I gave
up on them. I tried to talk with the Ubuntu developers about this,
too, and did not succeed. All I can do is not recommend those
distros.
Boo hoo, hoo, hoo.
We don't care about your failures, Richard.
Get of our mailing lists, or we WILL start cc'ing your groups'
mailing lists.
It may be relevant to point out:
The infrastructure is all there, it's just not emphasized.
-Nick
So a distro that comes (de-binaryzed) from ubuntu, that comes from
debian that any of them allow you to install a (nvidia) blob or any of
the non-free ports of openbsd, is more convenient that a system that
fight over all, about the freedom of the users, developers and of the
code.Please, dear rms, you can use any thing like opera on ututo or
gnewsense, also you can taint the kernel, or browse in emacs for a flashPretty, even if they could develop something on the O.S. to avoid the
use of blobs, firmwares, and non gpl'ed software by the users, it couldYes, like all the really free developed drivers, like the fight for
documentation of hardware, excellent code and better license, like the
really hard decisions that OpenBSD has chose about software and licenses
on his time line. It is intentional and appreciated :)But say that OpenBSD is not a "recomendable" distribution for people
that wants freedom, is like say that it is insecure by default, and is
better a popolulufufulunix that comes whit a firewall activated by
default.Greetings, and have a nice day.
IC1igo
Partitioning the non-free material from the free material in the ports
would be a first step. There are many who might choose to put their
efforts into a free tool (or start one if it is missing) if the
licensing categories were more apparent.-Lars
Sir, please check my inline comments.
I just can't follow this. Let's see what's written in the OpenBSD ports
page (http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html):"Motivation
OpenBSD is a fairly complete system of its own, but still there is a
lot of software that one might want to see added. However, there is
the problem of where to draw the line as to what to include, as well
as the occasional licensing and export restriction problems. As
OpenBSD is supposed to be a small stand-alone UNIX-like operating
system, some things just can't be shipped with the system."So, an operating system can born "free" (free as in speech, in the GNU sense)
and then, become "non-free" just because some users decided to create a way
to ease installations of software that "just can't be shipped with the system"?Despite some OpenBSD kernel developers are also port mantainers, I'd
believe that the vast majority of the latter don't do kernel programming, soWell, it seems that we have the following pattern:
- gNewSense, if someone finds a non-free program in it, that's no disaster
- anything else, if someone finds a non free program in it, that's
surely a disasterAs a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like"
software install package project for it?Thanks in advance.
So, an operating system can born "free" (free as in speech, in the GNU sense)
and then, become "non-free" just because some users decided to create a way
to ease installations of software that "just can't be shipped with the system"?You've formulated a very broad description, which applies to the act
of putting a non-free program in the ports system, and equally to many
other acts whose nature is different. For instance, the program might
or might not be free; the easier way might or might not be included in
OpenBSD. I might say the act was bad, or I might say it was good,
depending on the details not specified.If "some users" write a way to "ease installation" of some non-free
program, and distribution D doesn't include this way in its
distribution or publicize it, then those users have done something bad
but distribution D is not responsible for what they did.However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
the ethical responsibility for it.I say "distribution D" because this is the same for any distribution,
whether it's a distribution of the BSD system, or a distribution the
GNU/Linux system, or whatever.
Nope.
Users have responsability for what they do. We do not take responsability
for them. We give them enough information to make their informed decision.In my opinion, that's the ethical way to do things.
But then, that's the main difference between BSD and GNU.
In BSD land, we trust the human nature. We're not condescending to our
users, we treat them as adults and we let them make *their* own ethical
choice and take their own decision. We are *neutral* with respect to
commercial programs. Maybe they're evil, maybe they're not. But we show
enough respect to people to let them choose what they want.In the brave GNU land, you've taken upon yourself to take ethical decisions
and protect the user from making those decisions...I think it's pretty clear where I stand. Of course, my voice doesn't carry
the weight yours does.`with great power, comes great responsability.'
maybe you're misusing your power, Richard.
'nugh said.
Users have responsability for what they do. We do not take responsability
for them. We give them enough information to make their informed decision.In my opinion, that's the ethical way to do things.
In my opinion, we ought to take responsibility for the recommendations
and assistance we give to others. Thus, we should not steer people
towards non-free software. Even though they are not forced to follow
our advice, we are still responsible for having given it.In BSD land, we trust the human nature. We're not condescending to our
users, we treat them as adults and we let them make *their* own ethical
choice and take their own decision.You cannot claim the credit for "letting" them, because it is a fact
that they can do so in any case. It is misleading to speak of "letting"
or "stopping" the users from installing non-free software.What's really going on is that you are helping them use the non-free
software, which grants it legitimacy. That is what I object to.
I don't believe anybody who has followed this thread over the last couple
days could misunderstand your opinion on references to non-free software in
a distribution. But I don't think I've seen a post from a single person on
this mailing list who agrees with that opinion. If I'm wrong, let me know.Tom
That would be because this is BSDLand, whereas Richard lives over
there in GPLLand. I'm sure things would be reversed if this thread
were to take place over in GPLLand (and it would look even more
differently in RedmondLand).I don't actually think Richard is "diss'ing" OpenBSD. That has not
been my impression all this while.One big problem (beyond the current discussion) is that people seem to
want to throw all the Linux issues onto Richard's shoulders - and I
think he clarified pretty well above - if it's a FSF/GNU sponsored
program, he'll speak up about it, but otherwise, he'll only speak up
if he was asked to. In the last bruhaha about firmware and
relicensing - remember this, Richard and Linus don't see eye to eye on
things - why would people even link Richard to that issue?And for all those people who keep trying to say that OpenBSD doesn't
support ports - we do. If we put it out, that's the support already.
But - seriously, as a project, do we need the validation from
FSF/Richard?Now, on the other hand, the question for Richard is this - if OpenBSD
includes ports (on the CD), which is not an installable option, which
the FAQ discourages you from using, how different/worse is this from a
linux kernel that allows blobs to be installed? This is, of course,
based on the assumption that you can load modules into gnewsense's
running kernel. It may be that the option has been turned off (or
unable to load tainted modules). If the kernel is compiled to retain
the ability to load tainted modules, isn't that just as bad?--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford
learn french: [ message continues ]
This is a topic I would like covered. If we were to decide to adhere to
Richard's requirements for inclusion on his free software list, what are the
benefits, and is it worth the effort?
None. His recommendation is worthless.
The effort would be minimal but who gives a damn about his little list?
Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to
compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,Both those software packages steer people towards being able to use
emacs and gcc on commercial systems.You are a hypocritical liar, Richard.
OpenBSD used to send its April 1st announcements. I bet Richard has turned
the wrong page in his calendar today. Richard is obviously joking! He
can't mean it, really!Now seriously.
Theo, you are completely right. Again. Not only GNU Emacs (which is
developed and maintained by Richard personally) includes code allowing
people to run it on non-free platforms, GNU Project also _actively_ and
_publicly_ supports use of such non-free operating systems, see `Supported
Platforms' on GNU Project's website:http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html#Platforms
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/MACHINESEmacs 22 runs on these operating systems regardless of the machine type:
GNU/Linux NetBSD
FreeBSD OpenBSD
AIX 4.3.3 and higher Solaris
Mac OS X SunOS
MS DOS Ultrix
MS Windows
and others...GNU Emacs also contains code which GNU Project developed specifically to
support those non-free platforms and maintaines native builds for them:(from http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-faq.text)
4.5 What is different about Emacs 22?
=====================================
[...]
* Emacs 22 features support for GNU/Linux systems on S390 and x86-64
machines, as well as support for the Mac OS X and Cygwin operating
systems.* The native MS-Windows, Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X builds include full
support for images, toolbar, and tooltips.Richard, you really have a perverted sense of humour. It isn't April 1st
today.Regards,
David
Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical because it allows
compilation of non-free software.
> However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
> its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
> the ethical responsibility for it.Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical because it allows
compilation of non-free software.That isn't the same argument, or even the same issue.
You are talking about what the user can do.
I'm talking about something else: what the system distro suggests
that the user do.
OpenBSD does not suggest that people use ports. We suggest people
use binary packages.With two exceptions (which look like they're marked in error since
their licenses do indeed allow source code redistribution), where we
provide a binary package, we also provide the source distribution
files used to build them.
I think this answer is slightly incomplete and, in that sense,
not entirely accurate in the present context.http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgVsPorts
"15.4.6 - What should I use: packages or ports?
In general, you are *highly* *advised* to use packages
over building an application from ports.
[ ... snip about two paragraphs elaborating why ... ]
Of course, there are a few good reasons
to use ports over packages in some cases:
- Distribution rules prohibit OpenBSD from distributing a package.
- [ ... snip three other uncontroversial reasons ... ]
However, for most people and most applications, using packages
is a much easier, and definitely the recommended way of adding
applications to an OpenBSD system."Thus, *if* somebody is really determined to use non-free software
on OpenBSD, using ports is officially recommended, though certainly
not in any prominent way. I think the recommendation makes sense
the way it is.Thus, the project recommends *how* to install non-free software,
not sure whether the project *suggests* to install non-free software,
probably the project does not recommend using non-free software.Using non-free software under OpenBSD is considerably more difficult
than using free software. But note that these difficulties are not
artificially constructed in order to scare people away from non-free
software. These difficulties just arise naturally as some of the
inherent downsides of non-free software; other downsides, no doubt,
will be less obvious to the casual user.I understand that many people deem the right to keep the product
of one's own work to oneself an essential part of freedom,
even people contributing huge amounts of work to free software.
By contrast, I certainly hope for a world where *everybody* enjoys
sharing the products of her/his thought freely; yet, currently,
i do commercial software development to earn a living.
Completely coherent human beings are hardly imaginable:
If i understand correctly...
This is what I've learned - and how my perspective has changed - In
following this thread, over the last two days:- Stallman cares more about appearances and outward responses than actions
- Stallman is a hypocrite, circles himself within his words, and
attempts to confuse others in the process.
- Words seem to mean more to Stallman than actions.
- Stallman is incapable of admitting any wrong doing. What an ego.
- Stallman has yet to actually use OpenBSD, least I have yet to see
evidence otherwise
- Not only has Theo been awarded the open-whatever award from the
FSF, which Stallman seems to play a great role in leading, Theo was
also a finalist *two* other years, yet OpenBSD seems to be a problem
for Stallman..
- Stallman likes to lose people in speech.
- Stallman's arguments make no sense.
- Stallman's greatest actions are that of requests. At best, he will
ask developers to make the changes which he sees necessary.
- Stallman will overlook facts to further prove a failing point.
- Theft of BSD code (or any other code for that matter.. and theft in
the sense that something has been taken, expanded upon "for the
greater good of the community," and later cannot be returned to its
original owner), means nothing to Stallman when for the "greater GPL
good."
- Stallman cares little about "empowering" people through code and
software, caring more about folks following in his ways.. even when
this concerns or involves intellectual theft.
- Stallman sees the *use* of a given application or pieces of code as
a mechanism that *supports* said application, BUT his use of linux
(despite being "free" of "non-free" software/code), is seen as not
supporting the greater use of "Linus'" linux itself, which he agrees
is "non-free"
- Stallman hasn't looked at (or thought about) his own gcc code in a
*long* timeMr. Stallman, while it may mean little to you, it's pretty clear you
have made a fool out of yourself on this list. I personally, have lost
what respect I had for you.
...
Hey, we could all use the same arguments and call OpenBSD hypocritical:
say no to blobs (it's even on the nvidia-wallpaper!) but say yes to
libflashplayer.so (which is of course secure because it's obscure, but
more than that it's a necessity for so many users which makes it
ethical to use it anyway) => maybe this will be the next misc@ threadSo who's the hypocrite huh? These spats will never end.
And for those who didn't notice, rms takes about a day to respond to
his emails; So please don't scream if you don't get a timely reply.Karthik
sparky:gilles {101} find /usr/lib -name 'libflashplayer.so.*'
sparky:gilles {102} find /usr/local/lib -name 'libflashplayer.so.*'
sparky:gilles {103}now, please go back to sleep.
--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
$ uname -a
OpenBSD moobile.peereboom.us 4.2 GENERIC#7 i386
$ locate libflashplayer.so
$what the fuck are you talking about?
That's NOT a blob. It is a browser thing running in userland. Just like
Opera does and many other things IF THE USER CHOOSES TO.Just another userland binary not something compiled/loaded into the
kernel.Rod/
/earth: write failed, file system is full
cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
The actual real issue is that gcc has code in it to let it compile on
Solaris, and even on Windows.That encourages users to continue using non-free software.
Richard, you are a big hypocrite.
I don't see this as a valid point. Stallman talks about "endorsement".
By what I've understood of his vision, when OpenBSD team decided to
"aggregate" a functionality called ports, they "endorsed" everything living
in ports tree, even if it's non-free software.
Such "endorsement" had the ability to "taint" the entire distribution, so it
was labeled as "non recommended". At this point, we start to disagree.Ports is a userland feature, not a kernel one. So, to abid to his pinciples,
he decided to broad the "tainting" thing to the entire distribution
(kernel, base,
ports, etc).I just don't see this as a fair thing.
A possible solution would be to "segregate" ports from the distribution
itself. Maybe creating an openbsd.com website, hosting the ports system,
and making clear that openbsd.com is not affiliated anyway to openbsd.org
(which would host the kernel space apps and code). This could move the
"tainted" code to outside the "distribution". Stallman would have to point
his arguments to the individuals themselves.Also, since we're talking about BSD licensing here, this entire
"solution" should
be considered an absurd and a waste of resources.I'll let this thread rest now. Nothing new to gain here.
Summary of this thread: RMS doesn't support OpenBSD.
Where here is there a problem waiting for a solution?
Marti
--
Systems Programmer, Principal
Electrical & Computer Engineering
The University of Arizona
marti@arizona.edu
Marti for chair of the next discussion!!!
+1--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@absolute-performance.com
303-443-7000 ext. 527
Hi Richard,
gNewSense uses the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel facilitates utilization of
non-free blobs. By using the Linux kernel, every idiotic people can install
Nvidia binary drivers on Linux-based distributions, like gNewSense... So if
I follow your meanings, gNewSense can not be recommended, right ?--
Mattieu Baptiste
"/earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can."
gNewSense uses the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel facilitates utilization of
non-free blobs.gNewSense does not include, or refer to, or tell people about
the drivers that use non-free blobs.Torvalds's decision to put blobs into Linux was a bad one, but
gNewSense is ok because it does not follow Torvalds' bad decision.
You manipulate my comments. Your point was :
"However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
the ethical responsibility for it."We all know that the linux kernel (on which gNewSense is based) has an "easy
way to install" binary blobs, like nvidia binary drivers. I wasn't speaking
about non free blobs that are in the Torvald's kernel but the nvidia one
that is NOT in it. Moreover, this facility to install blobs that the linux
kernel *provides* comes with the base gNewSense system... OpenBSD non-freeThis sounds to me simply wrong because your statements are full of
contradictions.--
Mattieu Baptiste
"/earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can."
"However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
the ethical responsibility for it."We all know that the linux kernel (on which gNewSense is based) has an "easy
way to install" binary blobs, like nvidia binary drivers.You've taken my words out of context. I was talking about a specific
thing, the inclusion in the ports system of a recipe to install a
particular non-free program. Someone else described such a recipe as
an "easier way to install" that non-free program. I responded using
his words, in quotation marks.By attributing his words to me, and by disregarding the context, you
misunderstood the point of my message. I'm not talking about any and
all things that make installation of anything easier. Just about
giving recipes for installing particular non-free programs. That's
what the issue is.OpenBSD non-free
packages are not in the base system and not even available...That's true, but the ports system gives recipes for installing them.
Moreover, this facility to install blobs that the linux
kernel *provides* comes with the base gNewSense system...Could you tell me the name of that facility, or something else about
it? If it is specifically and only useful for blobs, perhaps it
should be remove from gNewSense. On the other hand, if it is a
general purpose feature and blobs are merely one thing it could be
used for, then I probably don't have anything against it. I don't
criticize general facilities merely because someone could use them
to do things with non-free software.
do you give a no-recommendation to the internet as well? do you
suggest that gNewSense users should not use the internet because
it gives recipes for installing particular non-free programs.
in your own words, "That's what the issue is."you deny that when you say things, people misinderstand, yet you
continue to argue the semantics of what you said with what people
understand.accept reality or quit posting. I find it rather ulikely that any
other message from you or anyone else is going to further your
stance.further, educate yourself about OpenBSD or quit talking about it.
I find it rather unlikely that any other clumsy-at-best statement
by you about OpenBSD is going to further your stance.--
jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Well, his past statements about not being able to view HTTPS pages,
catching web pages (browsing through email?) and receiving messages in
batches almost made me suspect that he uses FidoNet or something. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet ) Others have already asked him
just what he uses. He hasn't answered that one yet, but it would not
surprise me if he boycotts the Internet for some reason. Maybe because
the Bush administration has broken the US' earlier promise to
relinquish control of the root? Hey Stallman! There's always ORSN. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORSN ) No need to use FidoNet. See, you
can browse TEH Intarwebs too. These tubes are made for surfin'. ;-)I kid, I kid! ;oP
--ropers
Email and web via UUCP ? I see it making a big comeback when humans
finally colonize mars ;-) Just no serial handshaking. No kidding. Think
of the delays. between here and there.--- marina brown
By the time the US gets to Mars, we'll have quantum communication:
instantaneous across the universe. I can't see anyone other than the US
going to Mars.Doug.
Yeah quantum entanglement sure would be something neat to exploit.
--
Travers Buda
Linux kernels allow you to load external modules. These modules can
be GPL licensed, or have other licenses. If non-GPL modules are
loaded, the kernel is "tainted". You can remove the ability to
"taint" the kernel. The first link in google for "linux kernel taint"
is Novell's page on it, the relevant piece is below. The question for
you then becomes, if the kernel allows loading of non-free modules,
but if you can disable it, but don't disable it, is that the "right"
thing to do? Well, not "right", but the "free" thing to do? Is that
what free software should support?Taint flags
The taint status of the kernel not only indicates whether or not the
kernel has been tainted but also indicates what type(s) of event
caused the kernel to be marked as tainted. This information is encoded
through single-character flags in the string following "Tainted:" in a
kernel error message.* P: A module with a Proprietary license has been loaded, i.e. a
module that is not licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL)
or a compatible license. This may indicate that source code for this
module is not available to the Linux kernel developers or to Novell's
developers.
* G: The opposite of 'P': the kernel has been tainted (for a
reason indicated by a different flag), but all modules loaded into it
were licensed under the GPL or a license compatible with the GPL.
* F: A module was loaded using the Force option "-f" of insmod or
modprobe, which caused a sanity check of the versioning information
from the module (if present) to be skipped.
* R: A module which was in use or was not designed to be removed
has been forcefully Removed from the running kernelusing the force
option "-f" of rmmod.
* S: The Linux kernel is running with Symmetric MultiProcessor
support (SMP), but the CPUs in the system are not designed or
certified for SMP use.
* M: A Machine Check Exception (MCE) has been raised while the
kernel was running. MCEs are triggered by the hardware to indic...
SNAP!
To: list
Richard's words are the essence of the Free Software Foundation and
the GNU General Public License: people _must_ use free software,
people _can_ decide whether to use free software or not, but people
_must not_ be free to exercise that desire. I will explain that last
statement, since it may seem extreme. Easing the exercise of that
desire (with a port system, for instance) is "bad". An operative
system which does allow installation of free software, and tries to
disallow the installation of non-free software in a disguised way
(hiding it), is gifted with a promotion of its work. So, let's write a
quick condition here:// Check whether this is good shit
if (allows(project, free_software) && ! allows(project, non_free_software))
add_to_list(project);To: Richard Matthew Stallman
Since The Free Software foundation mission is to "preserve, protect
and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute
computer software" (free software), please, Richard, remove Linux from
the Free Software Directory (since "Torvalds' version of Linux is not
free software", and that is the version listed in the directory);
because you, as the director of the Free Software Foundation with
responsabilities for all work of said foundation, are promoting
software which is not free. Removing all quotes which promotes Linux
would help users not to get attracted to Linus version, too. There is
a copylefted implementation of grep, so finding them would be quite
easy.Greetings.
Well, it seems that we have the following pattern:
- gNewSense, if someone finds a non-free program in it, that's no disaster
- anything else, if someone finds a non free program in it, that's
surely a disasterPlease, sir, clarify....
The words I posted before ought to clarify this:
Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their
mistakes. So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in
OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I
trust the developers will remove it once they find out.What I said applies just the same to gNewSense and OpenBSD.
I think you misinterpreted it.
As a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like"
software install package project for it?If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would
promote non-free software.If it were included in or recommended by gNewSense, then gNewSense
would promote non-free software. I trust they wouldn't do that,
because their policies are not to do that.
And I repeat again:
The OpenBSD ports tree is *neither included in nor recommended* by OpenBSD.
OpenBSD *Does. Not. Do. That.* because OpenBSD's policies are not to do that.The OpenBSD packages system cannot be used install non-free software,
because there are none. However, it is trivially easy to use the
gNewSense apt system to install unfree software. This requires three
steps at most. From
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Skype#head-5c18cc60f56f7f5f651ee9abeca...
(Yes, this is an Ubuntu site, but AFAIK the exact same instructions
can be used on gNewSense.):
1. Add the Skype repository to /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free
2. Reload or update the package information
3. Install the skype package.Richard, I am just asking you to be consistent and avoid the
impression of biased decisionmaking based on a conflict of interest.Thanks and regards,
--ropersPS:
Ok, and I *know* I should not be trolling, but I have to get this over with:
gNewSense -- nuisance ;o)
There. I feel better now. I had to get that off my chest. Sorry, Could
Not Resist. ;-)
However, it is trivially easy to use the
gNewSense apt system to install unfree software.Any general-purpose system can run non-free software, but that's not
the issue. The issue is whether a distribution refers people to the
non-free software or not.Since so many messages have been based on disregarding that
distinction, I suggest that everyone reread the paragraph above.From
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Skype#head-5c18cc60f56f7f5f651ee9abeca...Ubuntu does many things that suggest installing non-free software. I
did not know about this example, but I know of others which are worse.
That is why I refuse to recommend Ubuntu.
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:52:01 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
##The following does *NOT* in any way express the opinions or
##goals of OBSD. They are mine alone.##So what? I couldn't care less about the FSF or any free software
initiative. I don't see any problem with someone trying to sell a
piece of software that they produced through their own hard labor.
If people want to write software and give it away for nothing, they
are *free* to do that too. I don't get this whole "unethical" stance.
It's total BS. If you don't want to pay for software, fine don't, but
don't go on some religious crusade trying to get me to believe it's
unethical so I won't either. If someone painted a picture and then
tried to sell it for money in an art gallery then that would be
"unethical" too? Oh, come on!
I also don't give a rats ass whether Richard Stallman recommends
OBSD or not and I don't think any of the developers do either.
All this crappy thread has done is make Richard Stallman more
Googleable. And I'm sorry that I facilitated that.
It's total BS. If you don't want to pay for software, fine don't, but
don't go on some religious crusade trying to get me to believe it's
unethical so I won't either.When you buy a copy of a non-free program, you pay with your money and
with your freedom. You apparently don't assign much value to the
freedom that you would give up.I respect your right to your views.
I really didn't expect to get involved in this, but if I were to buy a
copy of Hy-Tek's Meet Manager
(http://www.hy-tekltd.com/swim/mm/index.html), I would not feel any less
free than when I started. Granted, I would need to plunk down a
significant amount of coin for it, but having a copy of that software
would allow me to not only go forth and recoup my initial expenditure,
but turn a profit as well. But since there is no free (or otherwise
non-proprietary) equivalent, your version of freedom means the swim meet
never happens.How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
freedom, given that not only does it allow me to make money doing
something I find fun, but also enjoy summer weekends in the sun
watchings kids have fun, too?Oh, and before you even consider it, running the meet by hand is not an
option when you're dealing with over 20 teams and nearly 2000 kids, so
don't even go there.
Ok, it looks like I made a mistake and I have to correct myself. My apologies.
Apparently the ports tree metadata is available on the OpenBSD CD.
I did not know that because I have in fact never used the ports tree,
because OpenBSD recommends not to use ports (and use packages
instead). I just found out here:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsFetch
that there is a ports.tar.gz file on the CD.HOWEVER, that file is not installed by default, and the OpenBSD
install program *does not even give the user the option* to install
ports.tar.gz, be it from CD or otherwise. See here:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#FilesetsSo yes, the ports.tar.gz file is on the CD, but it's not part of the
OpenBSD installation, it's use is not recommended, it can only be
installed manually outsite of the OpenBSD install program, and it only
contains metadata, and only a minority of the ports metadataEven with the above correction, I still believe it would be most
consistent for you to recommend OpenBSD. The mere presence of info
that users *could* use to do something stupid on the install CD (but
*NOT* within the OS installation) does not IMHO come anywhere near to
2007/12/12, ropers <ropers@gmail.com>:
On OpenBSD: for install (a few) non-free (for someone) software (non
developed by OpenBSD), you need to manually cp, tar, search, cd, make
etc... and it is _unrecomended_On gnewsense: wget the .deb and then dpkg -i package.deb, or add a
repository (manually or from a gtk interface) and using latter another
interfaces (apt/aptitude/sinaptyc/etc) for install A_LOT of shit.
A_LOT is a relation about 10000:1 compared whit openbsd ports (may be
short).On OpenBSD, you have a tool to install (a few) non-free licensed
programs, the Ports (Makefiles), but this tool is not designed or
intended for promote non-free software.On gnewsense, you have A LOOT of tools to install non-free licensed,
Makefiles, .debs, dpkg, apt, aptitude, sinaptyc, kpackage. Also whit
apt-url, you can install non-free software only "clicking" on a url
(yes, like IE5,6,7)This is on userland. But if you go to the heart of the system, take a
look on the .h files of the fat .tgz of the linux kernel... you will
find a lot of "intersting" comments about licenses.I would like to know, from all the users of gnewsense or ututo, how
many of them have some of: non-free blobs, firmwares, drivers,
aplications, codecs, java, flash, or other shits... and how many
OpenBSD have any... compared in percent. B?is recomendable one, the
other or bot?Greetings
Mine is more free than yours is usually a pointless discussion, even
more so when the participants cannot even agree on the definition of
free. Stallman conveniently omits the fact that his definition of free
was, is and will be at odds with that of a significant portion of the
free software community. It logically follows that so too will his
definition of non-free.If a few millenia of written debate have failed to come up with an
unambiguous definition accepted by all, I sincerely doubt this thread
will. But hey, whatever, the "Theo is unfriendly" quote is pretty
priceless in itself.
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 talkingOpenBSD 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 haveUnlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the
distribution. Unlike linux OpenBSD does not have a HAL. I can go onHere is one, the code isn't bloated and doesn't mostly suck. I find it
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".
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.Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too?There is
not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD
on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents.Maybe that is true, but it's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm not
a supporter of open source anyway; I fight for free software.Ututo and gNewSense have the policy not to include non-free programs,
not even in a ports system. Thus, they don't do anything that
contradicts the philosophy of free software. That's why I can
recommend them.Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the
distribution.Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software, for this reason.
Ututo and gNewSense include a version of Linux which remove the
firmware blobs, in order to make it free software.
Where's the freedom in not being able to use (under your definition of
non-free software) non-free or otherwise "restricted" software?Freedom is about being free to make your own choice, no matter what the
content of that choice is. Even if that choice inhibits freedom.Glenn
Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz
you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
& c., all of which are free. OpenBSD's ports system
depends on programs in the base system which are free.
On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible,
even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl,
sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate
the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free)
software. Your asking the question indicates that you
might have done better to exclude OpenBSD from the
scope of your remarks. When one does not know, the
most appropriate statement is 'I don't know.'Loosely speaking, you can get away with saying
pretty much anything that suits you at the time.Loosely speaking is the problem.
William is right.
The OpenBSD ports tree is just a scaffold, and that scaffold is 100%
free. It contains no non-free parts.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?
Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?Richard -- you spoke out of line. You are wrong.
> > Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
> > system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too?
>
> Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz
> you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
> & c., all of which are free.I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system
includes instructions for fetching, building and installing specific
non-free programs. I usually simplify that to "includes" because I
figured anyone who knows about the ports system understands those
details, and because they don't change anything.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.
How comes I can boot Windows XP and compile with gcc code that was written
with emacs ? Why is it so hard for you to answer that question and tell us
why there are specific portions of code to add support for Windows in code
supposed to be free software and *endorsed* by the FSF (by endorsed I mean
that YOU provide more than Makefiles with urls) ?You failed to answer these several times already, yet you keep on bragging
and bragging. Can you please take your incoherent propaganda elsewhere ?--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
Why is it so hard for you to answer that question...
To answer the question was not hard. To answer it before I saw it
would have been very hard.You failed to answer these several times already,
When you said that, it was 21:00 here. At that time I had not even
seen any of those messages; they were not in my computer. They
arrived in my next mail transfer, today at 12:00. Subsequently I saw
them and wrote an answer. You will get the answer in my next
transfer, which is likely to be at 22:00. That will be 25 hours after
the first of those messages was sent. I regret the delay, but it is
inevitable.It must be quite common that a person doesn't answer in 2 hours. You
may not know the details of how I transfer mail; but there are many
other reasons why someone may not answer so fast. He might be
sleeping, which many people do for 8 hours at a stretch. He might be
checking some facts before before responding. These are things you
know about.So what does it indicate, that just 2 hours after the subject was
first raised, you said I had "failed to answer", as if it were proof
that I am bad, disregarding what you know?I think it indicates that you are looking for excuses to put me in the
wrong. If something happens which you can interpret as putting me in
a bad light, you seize on that interpretation, ignoring the other
possibilities.Such an attitude can be seen in many of the messages on this list.
It is not one you should want to adopt into your heart.
Sorry, but i find it hard to believe that you couldn't take a minute to
answer my simple question and that you did find the time to put up with
this mail that further delays an explanation.Checking which facts ?
- gcc runs on windows because it has code that specifically makes it
work on that system.
- the fsf distributes that code.
- you *know* that gcc works on windows.What fact that you don't already know prevents you from answering my
You looking good or bad is not something that particularly matters to
me, what matters is that you were not honest and people need to make
an opinion based on facts.The facts are as follow:
- you say that OpenBSD is not free and you don't encourage
it's use. I could care less but the reasons that
you mention are wrong and misleading for users.- you and your project actually encourage the use of many
applications on proprietary systems. There is an
long list of gnu tools that I have used on a
Windows computer.- you refuse to admit you were wrong and you refuse to explain
why your own rules don't apply to you. Why does OpenBSD
providing optional makefiles for those who explicitely
want a non-free application is bad because it encourages
users to install non-free applications, and why is it ok
for the fsf to support Windows and MacOSX ?There is no bad attitude, I am frustrated that I don't get an answer
to a very simple question that doesn't call for long research. It is
your foundation and your projects after all ...--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
...
This philosophy disturbs me, and reminds me of the rationale for
censorship in dictatorships and police states. Admitting the
existence of something.... even referencing it.... does not give it
legitimacy. Should we remove any reference to nazi germany from our
history books in order to avoid legitimizing the nazi point of view?Seems rather absurd to me. Perhaps you disagree.
-Jonathan
This philosophy disturbs me, and reminds me of the rationale for
censorship in dictatorships and police states. Admitting the
existence of something.... even referencing it.... does not give it
legitimacy. Should we remove any reference to nazi germany from our
history books in order to avoid legitimizing the nazi point of view?They're not the same kind of question. Talking non-free software as a
phenomenon is different from telling people about specific non-free programs
they might want to use.Having recipes for non-free programs in the ports system is more like
including present-day neofascist web sites in the list of "interesting
links" in your web site. I am against censorship, so I do not believe
in closing down those neofascist web sites. But I won't refer people
to them.
On 12/13/07, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
Dadgummit! Now we're going to have to tell everybody to stop using
emacs! I hate that, since I love using emacs! But I had no idea that
the FSF was leading me into software slavery! Look!
http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/emacs/windows/! And can you believe the
README?"This directory contains source and precompiled distributions for GNU
Emacs on Windows NT/2000/XP and Windows 95/98/Me. This port is a
part of the standard GNU Emacs distribution from the Free Software
Foundation; the precompiled distributions are provided here for
convenience since the majority of Windows users are not accustomed
to compiling programs themselves."I just can't believe it. I'm crushed - crushed, I tell you! - to
discover that the great Richard M. Stallman and his FSF have been
actively encouraging me all these years to imperil the very
foundations of a free society - not to mention the moral purity of my
immortal soul! - by using non-free software. It would be bad enough
if they had only provided a url, but - a precompiled binary? O
misery! O shame! O, betrayal!
there are reasons for the saying about rules being meant to be
broken. it's great to have morals, if you can afford them, but if
you stick to rules too rigidly (for example about what you should
and should not recommend), sooner or later you'll end up arguing
to justify your stance, rather than because you believe it to be
correct.in the case of this thread, you are arguing against recommending
openbsd based on criteria you have decided need to be met. i
understand that. we all need to draw a line somewhere...given what the openbsd project stand for, and do, i wonder whether
your stance is furthering the cause of promoting what we all want,
or harming it.jmc
--
Christopher Linn <celinn at mtu.edu> | By no means shall either the CEC
System Administrator II | or MTU be held in any way liable
Center for Experimental Computation | for any opinions or conjecture I
Michigan Technological University | hold to or imply to hold herein.
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.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.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.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.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.But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman,
and he is free to have that opinion.--
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so who
Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web site is
Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that
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
RMS has been on our lists before, spouting the same basic shit. He
hates what we do.If he really hated what we do, he should stop using OpenSSH. He says
he uses it. He should not. We are horrible people; he should not use
our software.The only way to make it clear to him that he should not come here to
our lists in the future, is to teach him a hard lesson, and that is
done by continually re-adding cc's back to him -- because the mails
talk about him -- even when his friends come our mailing lists and delete
the his address from the cc list.Like this message, which adds him hack in.
Richard, you are a lying cheating hypocrite.
If he really hated what we do, he should stop using OpenSSH. He says
he uses it. He should not. We are horrible people; he should not use
our software.I don't hate what you do. I don't hate OpenBSD. I have a specific
criticism of one point about OpenBSD, but that is not hatred. I
appreciate many of the good things that OpenBSD does for free
software.I don't think that you are horrible. You are behaving rather badly to
me, but that's just a small part of what you are as a person; I would
not judge you overall based on that. (I also would not reject a free
program because of personal disapproval of its developer.)It looks like you really believe I hate you and really believe I think
the OpenBSD developers are horrible. But that does not come from me.
I wish you could see that.
Why Stallman comes here? I am not going to all mailing of different
operating systems that I don't like, saying "you're shit, use my OS" (ah,
no, RMS didn't write a code in the last 12 years?).Anyway you're insulting us, telling what I should use or not, I don't need a
mentor to tell me nothing and if I need, I will call you. Looks like the
encyclopedia's vendor when they come to your house once time more... and the
worse is that you don't have consistent argument (you're doing exactly the
opposite thing that you're saying and you're telling use 'don't do that'.I don't like GPL for one reason, I can read that in your website
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html"If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to
permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what
you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this
License."That does not mean 'freedom' to me, however I'm not going to gnu mailing
lists to tell that I don't like this license...Borja Tarraso
nope. From what I am interpreting, the OS should not (in any way)
recommend non-free software. Recommendations would be in the form of
acknowledging (in any way) how to install/use non-free software on theyes. again, from how I have interpreted his (distorted and often
personally.. I could care less about what he promotes and what he
doesn't.. and if individuals can't see through his garbage, that's too
bad. Stallman's influence, one way or the other, won't be stopping
OpenBSD's efforts.. not as I see it.Regards,
~J
Yes, that would be the truth. What you did say, however,
It does change one thing (at least). Namely, it changes a true
statement about OpenBSD into a lie about OpenBSD.Don't confuse my aims with those of others with whom you are
exchanging messages.I am not trying to convince you to recommend OpenBSD.
I want you to tell the truth.
Would everyone in the room who maintain a complete, working operating
system please raise their hands?would everyone who is forced to co-opt or recommend other people's
operating systems... because their own is unfinished... please go away
and write some code or something?thank you very much
This thread has gone off-track. (I don't mean Theo.)
It is extremely important for a very large number of
reasons, some of which I understand well and some of
which I understand hardly or not at all, that what
software is included in, and distributed by, OpenBSD,
is free software. This is well-known. It is a
serious consideration for many of OpenBSD's current
and potential users.About twenty-two minutes and ten seconds into the
bsdtalk interview, Richard Stallman says of the BSD's:"... all of them include, in their installation
systems---in some cases I believe it's called a
ports system, I don't know if they all use that
term---they all include some non-free programs,
and as a result I can't recommend any of them."It has been pointed out to Richard Stallman, more than
once, that this is not a correct statement about OpenBSD.
(See Theo's confirmation, above.) Whatever the practical
convenience of not telling the truth, it is not ethical to
aver that OpenBSD includes non-free software when it does
not. (Ignorance is not at issue here. Just as one can
say "I don't know" about the CDDL, one can say "I don't
know" about OpenBSD.)Since Richard Stallman has chosen to pronounce on the
matter, and to include OpenBSD in his pronouncement,
the ethical thing for him to do now is to acknowledge
clearly and unambiguously that OpenBSD does not include
non-free software. Full stop.The question of inclusion and/or distribution is clear,
precise and unambiguous. OpenBSD neither includes nor
distributes non-free software. This is not about Richard
Stallman's recommendation. This is about the truth.Questions that concern mention, naming, suggestion,
lending legitimacy, and so forth, and attempts to
persuade Richard Stallman to recommend OpenBSD,
form the material of another discussion.
I would like to ask Richard a question. It may seem off-topic, but it isn't:
Do you believe that The Pirate Bay is guilty of copyright infringement?
In case you're not familiar, The Pirate Bay ( http://thepiratebay.org/
, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay ) is a Swedish website
that offers users the opportunity to upload metadata files that
contain information about where and how data files can be downloaded.
It also allows users to download the metadata files that users have
uploaded. Some users (possibly even a large number) use this service
to upload metadata files that contain info that can be used to obtain
copyrighted material, possibly without the copyright holder's
permission.This is IMHO very similar to the way the OpenBSD ports system is
related to unfree software:
- The unfree software is not hosted by OpenBSD. The ports tree
effectively only contains metadata.
- The individual ports in the ports system are maintained by
(advanced) OpenBSD users. The inclusion of a port that users chose to
submit and maintain does not imply an endorsement of the (possibly
unfree) software that can be installed using the port metadata.
- The use of the ports system is officially *discouraged* for average
users. Average Joes are encouraged to *not* use ports but use OpenBSD
_packages_ instead, which are precompiled binaries which are hosted by
OpenBSD. ( See "IMPORTANT NOTE" here:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports ) There are no unfree
packages. See for yourself: (caution: very long page and long load)
http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
- Unlike the Pirate Bay, the OpenBSD ports system does itself
distinguish between free and unfree content. See this comment by NickIn addition, it is *considerably harder* to install unfree software on
OpenBSD than on gNewSense. This eg. is what installing Skype entails:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.bsd.india/352
On gNewSense, it is *much* easier to install Skype. Just add an unfree
repository to /etc/apt...
Do you believe that The Pirate Bay is guilty of copyright infringement?
That is a legal question, not an ethical question. I do not know what
the law of any given country would say about the Pirate Bay. You
would need to ask a lawyer.Instead of that legal question, we could ask an ethical question: is
The Pirate Bay's activity right or wrong?In general, I think people have a moral right to share copies of
published works, so I see no reason to criticize the Pirate Bay in
general. However, I would not recommend that as a place to look for
software, both because some of the software might be non-free, and for
security reasons.If OpenBSD could spin off the ports system (perhaps people could put
it on the Pirate Bay), and break off connection with it, then it would
cease to convey any message from OpenBSD to the users. Then I could
recommend OpenBSD while not recommending its ports system. Currently,
that option does not exist.
I have OpenBSD running on my machine, but I do not use the ports tree.
Therefore the option of having OpenBSD without ports exists. You could
still recommend OpenBSD except for its ports tree.I realise, though, that the reason for you recommending something or
not is rather subjective and discussing it usually doesn't lead to
anything useful. What I oppose is to say that OpenBSD "recomends"
nonfree software.When you say "OpenBSD recommends non-free software" it leads people to
think that the project tries to convince people to use non-free
software. That's not true at all. The project doesn't support it and
it doesn't try to tell the user he should use it. OpenBSD's port
system merely acknolowdges the existence of non-free software and
makes it easier for the people who chose to install it. That's hardly
recommendation. Moreover, and this is subjective highly subjective, I
think we all should try to make people's life easier and acknowledge
others efforts, even if we think differently. Letting people maintain
non-free packages is giving space to people who think differently than
the OpenBSD developers. And that's a positive thing.
That option does exist. Ports tree is not installed by default. Users
are not required to install the ports tree. When installing software,
the ports tree is viewed as a last resort by both users and developers
of OpenBSD. So if you refer someone to use OpenBSD, and tell them not
to use the ports tree, they'll do just fine without using it.C.
* ropers <ropers@gmail.com> [2007-12-12 01:17:32]:
I agree,
In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
software is to basically only distribute binaries for say, atleast
the kernel, and only allow cryptographically hashed binaries to
run, or something of that sort. That would not stand up long, you
could say, offline replace the kernel, or hell, just fork the
distribution, or any other myriad of ways.The point is that is very difficult to force people to behave in
certain ways, such as only using GPL software. However, if they
_want_ to only use GPL software, then that's what they will do.
You _can_ run OpenBSD without non GPL, non BSD licensed software.
That's how it ships, (save for firmware which we have the rigths
to distribute.) Just as you can also run it with something not open
and not free. Attempts to force users to do otherwise would be
futile. This is the exact same case with the 100% FSF-approved
linux distributions Stallman suggested. People do not run non free
software on these distributions. It's not because they can't, it's
because they don't want to.An aside: The GPL does its job, but only if people put that license
on their software. So remember--people's wills, not the license.--
Travers Buda
In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
softwareIs there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH,
whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if
my memory serves). It is free software, so why not use it?Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-free software? Not I. I think that software is
unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone. But I
have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.If no one is in favor, why argue against?
So you support the freedom to install whatever the hell you want?
However, the OS should not suggest that to the user?I guess everything is fine unless the secret gets out...
Especially since it's pretty easy to add new repositories on many
ports systems.I think that if you do get what you want,
Stallman, it's going to be because the user wants that too. It's
their choice, and _I don't see how operating systems should be
incharge of morality._The people who ought to be incharge of morality are people themselves.
Every person needs to make a conscious decision to act in such and
such a manner. You can certainly advise them, but heavy-handed
action such as gNewSense is a bit too much for me.It also seems silly to me this idea between "tainted" and "clean"
oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively. Take for example
a user that runs Ubuntu Linux but proscribes to your free-only
philosophy. They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin
(which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not
to. If they are choosing not to do it because of ideological
grounds, they are probably well-informed. The only difference in
the end is choice. It's the choice that matters, not what the
distribution ships with. Hell, still on this example user, adobe
flash could even come installed and they never use it, what's the
difference between that and gNewSense? Is it the orientation of
the bits on their hard drive that matters? How about their neighbor's
hard drive?Where do you draw the line?
--
Travers Buda
It also seems silly to me this idea between "tainted" and "clean"
oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively. Take for example
a user that runs Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux but proscribes to your free-only
philosophy. They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin
(which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not
to.The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not
install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists.
That Firefox offers to install it is a very bad thing.I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version
of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we
don't have enough people to make this work very well. If you would
like to help, please let me know. It is an important project.
One last question..
simple: how is this a useful venture of "engineering" effort?
more involved remarks: The people who'll use an application such as
this, with these restrictions, won't be installing said non-free
software any way... and trying to provide other folks (i.e. the
general public, who wouldn't otherwise know better...in that they'll
use whatever application they're given) with this type of software is
simply upsetting and frustrating for them (what?! no youtube??),
resulting in them not wanting to use "open source stuff" (because they
don't know the basic difference in what you've provided versus what
opensource, or free software, or whatever we're trying to provide the
world, is about, etc).. and *avoiding* applications *they* label as
such.Why does that matter? well.. it would seem to me, that it should
matter to you because this would effectively work against the software
world you are trying to create.Regards,
~Jason
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:09:46 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
It's only a "Very Bad Thing" to nutjobs like you.
Now please go away and spew your nutjob nonsense somewhere else.
Give it up Richard, your 15 minutes is over.
This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
choices, but they instantly switch when free software becomes a
compelling replacement - look at Apache or OpenSSH.Rather than wasting effort trying to make firefox unusable for an
unfortunately large proportion of its userbase and on insulting
OpenBSD developers with spurious accusations, why not spend the
energy on making a usable flashplayer replacement? or on getting
Adobe to open their source/specifications?-d
Richard,
please stop spreading lies (or looking like a fool) by not doing research.The license of OpenSSH is here:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/LICENCE?rev=HEAD
According to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
this is GPL-compatible (modified BSD license or better).Best
Martin
> running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH,
> whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if
> my memory serves).Richard,
please stop spreading lies (or looking like a fool) by not doing research.The license of OpenSSH is here:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/LICENCE?rev=HEAD
According to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
this is GPL-compatible (modified BSD license or better).Thanks for correcting me about that point. I was not sure about it,
which is why I said "(if my memory serves)" in the text you quoted.What puzzles me is why you think this mistake was a lie, or that it
might make me "look like a fool". People normally don't call someone
a liar, or a fool, because of a little (and tangential) mistake like
this.
Richard,
you might have noticed that this discussion is mirrored on a public
mailing list, where a lot of people are grilling you. :-) You should
try very hard to be precise then. And I'm surprised that you don't
know the license of OpenSSH, which you probably use daily. Please stop
this "if my memory serves". It makes you look as either incompetent or
malovelent.Best
Martin
or senile really... I still did not get an answer because of apparent
mail-batch-or-checking-the-facts-or-whatever issues, I don't know why
he won't answer, maybe he has conveniently forgotten that question ?I still know of many companies that did not switch to Linux because a
free software foundation provided them with a version of gcc that can
run on their proprietary OS and Richard still did not tell me why the
fsf promotes the use of proprietary software by porting free software
to it.Gilles
--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
One of the advantages of old age is a convenient memory.
(At least it makes a good excuse.)
Doesn't always work, though ;-)You'd think the great RMS would be able to handle email better
than this old <expletive-deleted> using Microsoft Outlook.
Yet you were in an interview where you argued against using OpenBSD,
because it permits users to run non-free software.Your argument was that OpenBSD contains non-free parts in it's
ports tree.This has been proven to be false.
Here, go have a look
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/poerts.tar.gz
It's just an entirely free scaffold of Makefiles and little patches.
Nothing more. It is 100% source, and it is 100% free.If you are going to go around making pronouncements from your pulpit,
you might want to go educate yourself.But once again, you failed to educate yourself before you opened your
big fat mouth on a talk show and stated utterly uneducated and false
statements . You have had ample opportunity to say "I was wrong", yet
you have not done so yet.You keep argueing, and that is because you are a coward.
The correct URL is:
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/ports.tar.gz (~13.5M)
I'd like to add two things I forgot earlier on, for Richards consideration:
- Here I'd like to add that the ports tree is *not* part of the
OpenBSD operating system install. The ports tree is something the user
has to actively look for and check out to their local system if they
want it. This means that the OpenBSD OS and install CD are *completely
free* of even the metadata repository that contains user-contributed
metadata files, only a minority of which refer to unfree software.As far as I understand, the OpenBSD position appears to be that trying
to police users by forbidding them to maintain and retrieve port
metadata about unfree software via this adjunct service (that is not
included in the OS) would be a restriction of the users' freedom.The Pirate Bay does not police torrents, or suppress certain torrents,
and OpenBSD does likewise not police ports. If a user wants to be an
ass and do something stupid and unethical, they can. They have the
freedom to do that. But don't blame OpenBSD for that. It only has an
adjunct facility that allows what is effectively the exchange of
advanced semi-automated usage information, nothing more. And yes, it
even allows users to exchange stupid usage information, such as how to
install unfree-app-xyz. The choice whether to do something stupid is
left up to the user, but the user is advised not to use ports in the
first place, and hints that allow users to more easily distinguishAlso, the installation of unfree software is *extremely* frowned upon
by the OpenBSD user community. To stay with the Skype example:
http://www.nabble.com/Skype-on-the-OpenBSD-td14113398.html
While I completely understand this point of view - and (more
importantly) the motivation behind such decisions - what I am hearing
from you is that an individual's (or project's) actions in fighting
*against* proprietary and the closed-source mentality (whether it's a
blob, no documentation, not considering NDA's etc..) is *less*
important than whether or not users are allowed the *freedom* to add
in software, that might possibly not follow these other goals..This I simply don't understand.
We are fighting for the same thing.
And you cast the OpenBSD project out because there are users that
invest the effort to provide other users ports that may or may not
follow the *projects* goals and work?Mr. Stallman, it is with great respect that I say these things, as I
believe your noble efforts in these areas are commendable and have had
a great influence on our communities, but I do not understand thethat's awesome, can users add these back in if they choose? is your
project worthless because of these users 'actions?kind regards,
Jason
I have been reading this debate with interest, and am confused on one key
point.According to http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/Features, "Universe enabled
by default"Does selecting Ubuntu "Universe" category for packages include Main and
Restricted? If so, Restricted is non-free software, per
Um, that first link says "Restricted removed". So presumably they mean
gNewSense = Ubuntu.Universe - Ubuntu.Restricted-Nick
In that case, if you are really fighting for free software Richard, and
I very much respect that, regardless of licenses, or ideology, or what
not. I have only one request/question for you and I hope you will
consider it fair and in the interest of "Free Software" for all as you
clearly put it.Why not advocate and request also from the FSF and from the GPL
developers as you are the main person in the GPL license to extend the
same hand and "Free Software" as you fight for and when a BSD write a
great piece of software and that anyone in GNU, FSF or using the GPL
find it worth to use and import, why not request to keep it under the
same license as it's origin instead of locking it in the GPL at import
time and then lock out the original developers of the BSD side.All fight aside, I really do not think it is asking to much is it?
This way, what was given as "Free Software" will stay as free software
of all and not exclude a big part of them.If you just sit back and think about this and about your goal in life of
"Free Software" I would think you would fine it fare would you?You don't bite the hand that feed you and as such, I would think working
together in the interest of "Free Software" would benefit all and having
you also request the same would just be fair and fantastic in the
interest of "Free Software".Let a software be under it's license of choice by the author from it's
birth to it's death.If a great GPL software is written and xBSD would love to use it, an in
case of OpenBSD for example will have to re-write it under a BSD license
if they want to have it in base and they will do so if worth the effort.
However the GPL can just import it as is and as such the burning of the
license choice is on the BSD side, not the GPL side.So, why not respect it and keep it as such and contribute back under the
BSD, when the original BSD license software was taken. It's only fair
and it is fully in the interest of "Free Software".It sure in ...
marco, you're forgetting that this is what "freedom" is all about in the
US: i tell you what free is... and what the definition of is is...claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free
than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list
lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here.
the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;)--
Has nothing to do with what "freedom is all about in the U.S."...how
about keeping this apolitical and on subject; that being RMS's
comments as an individual.
how about keeping this on subject and including my directly relevant
comment in your response claiming that my response is not relevant:"claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free
than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list
lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here.
the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;) "the initial comment is an obvious tie-in to the second one i made: by
choosing how to define free, rms twists the issue at hand and spins it
as he sees fit, in this case to support his own interests and projects
he likes. i am merely pointing out the connection between the tack that
many US institutions take and his, IMO, acutely misleading comments. in
this context the analogy is directly relevant. if such blatantly
self-serving comments were to come from me, another US citizen, i would
not be one bit surprised if i were criticized on the same grounds.--
Actually, I'm not claiming that your response is irrelevant and In
fact, I agree with your points concerning the rms spin doctor
techniques and misleading comments. The only contention was with the
"this is what freedom is all about in the US".RMS' comments really do not relate to what freedom (whatever
definition one chooses to employ) is all about; in the US or anywhere
else. RMS's philosophy is "citizenship" neutral, and in order to
properly counter his (misguided) concepts, opposing arguments should
be politically neutral as well.From RMS' comments, it is obvious that he has not used OpenBSD and his
position is based on a "From what I've heard..." His obvious lack of
research and preparation prior to posting to this list, and his subtle
comparision of OpenBSD and gNewSense confirms that a hard grasp of
reality is missing. For, while it is admirable that the gNewSense
folks are putting together a "blob-free" distribution (on the backs of
the Debian & Ubuntu Projects), comparing the gNewSense project to the
OpenBSD Project is akin to comparing a glider to the space shuttle; in
terms of functionality, complexity, and the overall knowledge,
experience and professionalism of the developers.Regards,
df
You're misrepresenting his argument. RMS does not recommend OpenBSD
because it distributes binary firmware without source code and
includes non-free software in the ports system. His position has
nothing to do with BSD/ISC vs. GPL.That being said, the OpenBSD developers have given their arguments why
they include firmware and non-free ports, and RMS has given his
arguments why he doesn't recommend systems that do. I don't see this
thread leading to reconciliation of the two sides.
Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39Sir, 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
What do you say to that? Was that a lie or a mistake?Respectfully,
-Nick
Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
We're on the same side here.That is good. (gNewSense and Ututo are also against blobs.)
Sir, it was brought up that the [GNU/]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
What do you say to that? Was that a lie or a mistake?What they have told me is that they do not.
I will send mail to try to fetch the page at that URL and see what you
are talking about.
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/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
... 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
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Michal Piotrowski | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc4 |
| Joe Peterson | Re: 2.6.25.3: su gets stuck for root |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Emil S Tantilov | Re: WARNING: at include/net/sock.h:417 udp_lib_unhash |
