-----
This is a reply to David's email to me. I have left out his original
message since it was sent privately and without permission to repost to
the list.
-----
This is all I have left to say on the matter. How you take it from here
is up to you.
OpenBSD only endorses OpenBSD. I have never seen a single piece of
software outside of the OpenBSD base endorsed by OpenBSD.
It has a ports tree which makes it possible to run a large number of
software packages, some of which do not meet the definition of free
software put forth by the FSF.
However, this does not constitute endorsement. Merriam-Webster:
2 a*:* to approve openly </endorse/ an idea>; /especially/ *:* to
express support or approval of publicly and definitely </endorse/ a
mayoral candidate> b*:* to recommend (as a product or service) usually
for financial compensation <shoes /endorsed/ by a pro basketball player>
The ports tree offers a number of similar software packages of varying
licences. There is no endorsement by OpenBSD of any single package as
being better than any other package. Options are offered, and it is up
to the user to decide which one to use. OpenBSD doesn't define itself as
a censor of anything outside of the base system. The only reasons I have
ever seen for leaving something out of ports were based on legal issues,
which isn't censorship but merely covering the project's hindquarters.
RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far, and
the intention was to detract from OpenBSD - no matter how much sugar
coating it came with.
On the FSF side of the fence, gcc allows interoperability with non-free
systems and software. That hardly means the FSF endorses it, but Theo
has been using that example to illustrate the ludicrous and hypocritical
nature of RMS' statements.
OpenBSD surely tolerates and allows a broad range of software to be
installed through ports and executed on the system. This is not at odds
with the OpenBSD project goals:
http://openbsd.org/goals.html
Based on this, I see no hypocrisy from OpenBSD.
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? Then again, it wouldn't have
the same impact as claiming that OpenBSD contains and endorses non-free
software. That's far more accusatory. But it's wrong.
As for Theo being abrasive, it has never been my experience that he is,
but I have been fortunate to meet him in person, and so I don't fill in
the blanks left by email correspondence with images of this Theo-monster
everyone writes about. I read his emails for what they are -
uncompromisingly intolerant of ignorance and sincere misinformation,
which doesn't sit so well with the bleeding-heart majority. People
expect their sincere misinformation to be countered with polite
explanations. Nothing but wimpy social custom requires such - and the
older I get the more I've come to agree with Theo's stance of fighting
the ridiculous with ridicule. It is the most effective and reasonable
method of dealing with these people.
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 can't get behind that. If he isn't happy with the
landscape of non-free software then he should work on improving the
landscape of free software to compete with these non-free packages he
despises.
My opinion is that he has failed to convince the world that all software
should be free. He can't make his vision of free software stand on its
own two feet so instead he is trying to kick out the legs of everything
else which doesn't actively support his vision. Well, I for one have
never felt that censorship of any sort is a viable way of growing a
competing idea. Censorship ultimately leads down an evil path.
I'm out.
Breeno
