RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far,
What I said is that the ports system contains recipes for installing
non-free software. In another message in this batch I address the
question of what words to use to refer to that relationship. For me,
the issue is that that relationship exists, not which word to call it.
and
the intention was to detract from OpenBSD - no matter how much sugar
coating it came with.
My intention was to explain my views and reasons for deciding not to
recommend OpenBSD.
Based on this, I see no hypocrisy from OpenBSD.
I do not say that OpenBSD is hypocritical. I only say it does
something that I think systems should not do.
If RMS had made the statement that OpenBSD doesn't actively prevent the
user from running non-free software then I think there wouldn't be an
issue here - what operating system does?
The idea that I want systems to actively prevent running non-free
software is a straw man. Since the first message I posted, I have
told people that I do not want that. When people disregard my actual
views and attack this straw man they are simply misrepresenting my
views.
Then again, it wouldn't have
the same impact as claiming that OpenBSD contains and endorses non-free
software.
What I said is that the ports system suggests installing non-free
programs. That's accurate, and it's also the issue at hand.
RMS, on the other hand, comes in with a half baked idea that OpenBSD
endorses non-free software, AND he openly endorses censorship of all
non-free software.
I do not advocate censorship of software, or anything else. I
advocate making all software free, and that's something different.
