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 On Dec 14, 2007 7:20 AM, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > > > : > > > > > > > > It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that > > > > knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire > ports > > > > tree has no non-free software in it at all. > > > > > > > > Does that make it non-free? > > > > > > > > Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those > > > > non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy, > > > > and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free". > > > > > > > > Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be > used > > > > to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software? > > > > > > > > No, that's a totally different question. > > > > > > > > Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program > FOO. > > > > Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO. > > > > > > > > The answer to Q1 is always yes. I'm concerned with Q2. > > > > > > It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line. > > > For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution > > > it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free > > > software does not exist, but just not point where to find it. > > > > > > OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free > software > > > but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step > by the > > > user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software. > > > Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view. > > > > I've been a user for years and could care less what Stallman thinks. > > > > > If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) > free > > > software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free > port > > > tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some > > > other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the > distribution > > > would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort. > > > > The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so > who > > cares? > > > > > If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation > > > about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that > > > would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher. > > > > Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web > site is > > Stallman kosher--I just hope Stallman can sleep at night. > > > > > But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list > > > of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a > > > completely different question. > > > > Who is Stallman that we as users should even care? > > > > > And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is > > > a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD > > > is already freer than most, and I also feel it is. > > > At least in spirit. > > > > Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that > > Stallman's licenses are *more* free than OpenBSD!? > > > > > But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman, > > > and he is free to have that opinion. > > > > He sure is (free to debate the merits of OpenBSD on *his* mailing > lists). > > > > I've been an OpenBSD advocate for years. This stuff gets rather tired > after a > > while (I can't even imagine what it must be like to be a core member of > the > > OpenBSD team and have to read this stuff). > > 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.
