Richard, you're being cc'ed because people speak in your name. On Dec 14, 2007 9:35 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > michael hamerski wrote:
> I think it's a worthy public debate. Let him expound his > > theories and ethics and let's dissect them layer by layer. For the > > record. > > David, Which term in public debate do you fail to get? I am not in the least interested in your private opinion. I am however willing to take the time to dissect the nonsense you and others spout on this list. For the record, it's a pleasure. And you've chosen the worst list ever to pick a fight on ethics. > There has been no debate. > I no of no reason why OpenBSD can not atleast decide one way or > another what their actual policy is on non-free software. http://openbsd.org/policy.html educate yourself and come back or shut up. > > If it is acceptable - that's fine, but then RMS was speaking the truth. > If not than get rid of it. > The remaining alternative is the Torvald's - it is a necescary evil way. Nothing to get rid of. Your free is not my free. Besides which I have absolutely no impact on the way OpenBSD is run. I am just a user. > > Theo is not even willing to state what the policy is - aside from > that it is settled and well known. > Well it's a well know secret then. Again read and educate yourself. It does wonders. > > I am having a hard time seeing why RMS is the hypocrit here. > > Yes, well that would figure wouldn't it? See, the funny thing is I had a lenient attitude towards the GPL, FSF, RMS before. Live and let live, and they're fighting for freedom so it's ok. Thank you for opening my eyes. The fact is that slander sticks, there is an agenda behind continuously repeating the nonsense that OpenBSD somehow promotes non-free software. mike
