Dear Richard and others It was I who started this discussion in the first place. It was I who posted the question about non-free in OpenBSD, because I had the understanding, that OpenBSD only contains non-free. After I heard you on the BSDTalk I posted to [email protected] in order to get som clarification because I got confused.
I respect your work and opinion strongly, and I must apologize if this has lead to any misbehaviour directed against you or others. I do feel however, than in order to get this discussion ended, in a good and kind manner, that you should comment on the statement below from Theo d. Raadt. To clarify everything and wrap this up I do believe that the following is the truth: 1. OpenBSD does not contain any non-free software, but does have some Makefiles in the ports system which contains urls that point to non-free. The ports tree is just a scaffold. 2. Richard Stallman does not consider an OS to be non-free when it contains urls, links or guides that will help people install non-free. Futher he considers this to be un-ethical. This is an oppinion to be respected. Hence OpenBSD is "un-ethical" in the intrepretation of Richard. 3. Richard Stallman did make a mistake on BSDTalk that he should admit, because OpenBSD does not contain ANY non-free software, it only contains urls in Makefiles to non-free software - there is a BIG difference. The following comment from Theo is true: > 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. Lets wrap this up in a nice manner. Best and kind regards. Rico Secada.
