Re-adding the original recipients. Please keep this on-list or out of
my mailbox.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:12:46AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
| Paul de Weerd wrote:
| > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 06:56:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| > | I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
| > | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
| >
| > Interesting, these linux distributions. They seem to be pretty new,
| > what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
| > these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
| >
| > A free and usable operating system was already well available back
| > then, and it still is today : OpenBSD.
| >
| OpenBSD is unwilling to even make it clear whether it does or does not
| meet RMS's criteria.
OpenBSD's criteria are crystal clear and spelled out on the website.
It's RMS's criteria that are being discussed (at least, that I tried
to discuss in the mail you replied to). Those are unclear, since he
goes against his own advice and clearly supports non-free operating
systems.
| Binary blobs are a relatively recent addition to Linux.
| And anyone can trivially eliminate them.
| Rolling your own Linux distro has been an option pretty much since day one.
| And while you can laugh GNU has been kicking Hurd arround for a long,
| long time.
The last time I looked, Hurd was not even close to being useable. I
just checked and the website says this :
"It is not ready for production use, as there are
still many bugs and missing features."
(from http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html)
OpenBSD, on the other hand, has been ready for production use for well
over ten years. I'm not claiming it doesn't have bugs, all software
does, but it's been ready for production use, and has been used, for
quite some time now.
| > You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views
| > with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft
| > software packages of emacs and gcc. By providing binaries for (for
| > example) the Windows family of operating systems on your web and/or
| > ftp servers (and I say 'your' to mean the servers of the foundation
| > you appear to represent, the FSF), you seem to go fully against your
| > recommendation of people to use free software.
| >
| A bridge from non-free software to free software
| is at the opposite ethical extreme from a bridge from free software to
| non-free software..
Basically, what you're saying is that a little pragmatism goes a long
way ? Is that what you're saying ? How should we interpret your
words ?
How about a little pragmatism in the other direction ? Let me pick one
simple example : Your environment depends on flash.
You've just seen the light and want to migrate to 'free software'. You
can install OpenBSD and tons and tons of free software and still be
able to use flash until such a time that you're ready to remove your
dependency on flash (or a free alternative is readily available).
However, this was not the point. The point was, as Richard Stallman
put it, giving legitimacy to non-free software. I, and others, pose
that supporting non-free operating systems in your free software
package (gcc, emacs) gives this same legitimacy to non-free software.
"Opposite ethical extreme" is a nice term, by the way. It is an
ethical extreme to claim that an OS endorses non-free software simply
because it eases its installation through the ports infrastructure. I
consider this quite 'extreme' indeed.
Please note that I'm not saying gcc or emacs should not support
windows, solaris, ultrix or any other non-free operating system. I do
not hold these extreme ethical views. I merely question RMS's ethics.
| > Ironically enough, providing the users of non free operating systems
| > with free software encourages them to keep using their non-free
| > software and thereby promotes the use of non-free software. How is
| > that for ethics ?
| >
| Maybe for you, but alot of the rest of us came from the M$ world
| and did not move in one single giant leap.
I too have used (and still use) non-free software. Not only from
Microsoft but also from providers such as IBM, Sun, Digital, SGI and
Apple. My personal preference is for free software, mostly OpenBSD.
Because of practical or pragmatic reasons, I still use non-free
software on a daily basis, yet I seek to replace these with free
alternatives.
| Discovering the free software exists and that its quality is excellent
| without
| taking a huge step into the abyss seems to me to be promotion,
| while anything from free software back towards non-free software
| has entirely different ethical value.
Again, I hear you say 'a little pragmatism goes a long way'. Please,
if that is not what you're saying correct me if I'm wrong but note
that if it is what you're saying then I concur. A little pragmatism
does go a long way. I'm not taking the extreme view that non-free
software is evil and must be abolished. Non-free software is often
(yet, not always) the choice of the user. I do have an issue with
someone who takes a very extreme position but doesn't follow through.
I will question the ethics of these people, in this particular case
Richard Stallman.
Again, in his words :
Including a program by name in the ports system does
suggest using that program. It grants the program a
sort of legitimacy, and that is what I am opposed to.
Providing binaries for non-free operating systems suggests using those
binaries *on those non-free OS'es*, does it not ? It grants those
non-free OS'es a sort of legitimacy, does it not ? RMS states that
granting legitimacy to non-free software is what he is opposed to, yet
it is exactly what he does by providing support for non-free OS'es in
his copyleft software.
Please, explain to us how this is not true. Your argument of it being
at the other extreme ethical standpoint does not hold, since Richard
spoke of granting legitimacy to non-free software, not about a
direction to move from non-free to free or vice versa.
| > On the other hand, providing users of a free operating system (which
| > already provides users the ability to install and use non-free
| > software, as you've so eloquently pointed out) with an easy interface
| > to install *AND REMOVE* non-free software, might actually encourage
| > them to investigate other, free, alternatives to the non-free software
| > they sought to use.
| Huh ? Giving someone a gun does not encourage them to become pacifist,
| unless maybe by getting them to shoot their neighbor to see the error of
| their ways.
Your metaphor makes absolutely gNoSense; at all. Please try to stay on
topic in the discussion, no need for esoteric metaphors to make your
point.
Also, please have another look at the example I provided earlier about
the use of Flash.
| > As has been said before, the ports tree is just a
| > scaffold, used to force third party programs (be they free or non-free
| > and for whatever value of freedom you wish) to install into a sane and
| > known location within the filesystem, easing the task of installing
| > and uninstalling said program. This, in no way, encourages or promotes
| > the use of said software (free or non-free).
| >
| It is an expression of values. Personally it is a pretty clear one.
Apparantly, someone valued the program enough to warrant the effort of
writing a port for it. Others then valued this work enough to submit
the port to the tree. We can agree that there at least some people
expressed an interest in the port, but please do elaborate how it
encourages or promotes the use of said port (free or non-free).
| It also is a rejection of the value that the free software community
| can stand on its own. And actively discourages efforts to do so.
And the free software community can not stand on its own. Have another
look at flash. No viable free alternatives exist (although work is
progressing). I disagree violently with your observation that it
actively discourages efforts to do so : the mere fact that people work
on free alternatives for flash players contradicts you here. The lack
of a free flash player, the fact people are forced to use the non-free
player, is the major driving force to create an alternative.
| > Truly, OpenBSD is the most free operating system available to the
| > public at large today. If your system happens to contain an NVidia
| > videocard and you run any linux variant (including gNewSense), you
| > will be able to find, download and install the non-free binary blob
| > that allows using the advanced accelerated 3d features of this piece
| > of hardware. Some other BSD's also allow these to be used. OpenBSD
| > makes it virtually impossible to use such blobs. It is the ONLY OS (at
| > least to my knowledge, and I do try to stay informed on this
| > particular topic) that actively approaches hardware vendors to ask for
| > open and free (of NDA's) documentation so drivers can be written to
| > support that hardware, the only one to take a firm stance AGAINST
| > binary blobs and take positive action where other systems happily
| > accept loadable modules to support their hardware (as the linux kernel
| > in gNewSense and Ututo).
| >
| >
| Excellent, fantastic, so what is the logic that results in this
| absolutist position on binary blobs,
| and hardware, yet thoroughly rejects exactly the same position with
| respect to software ?
Please, read again the goals and policies of OpenBSD. The OS should be
free to be used an re-used by anyone, it has been said even for the
creation of baby mulching machines.
The OS is free software. The user is then allowed to do with it
however he or she pleases. If the user wants to install non-free
software (s)he can. It is not the objective of the project to tell
users what to do with it. This is free software, users are free to do
with it however they want. The developers work VERY hard to keep it
free.
The non-free software you speak of IS NOT PART OF OPENBSD. You can
jump high and low, but really : nobody is trying to force or persuade
you to install non-free software on OpenBSD.
| And RMS is supposed to be hypocritical ?
Ehm, no. RMS is supposed to stick to his ethics the way he claims he
does. If he does not do this, people call him a hypocrit.
| > There's a whole community of people who take very great care of using
| > free software out here and who are well aware of the rights (and
| > duties) that free software brings to the user. Your remarks are
| > considered out of place and even offensive by some who put very much
| > effort into creating a truly free operating system. I've been using
| > "free unix-like systems" for well over a decade now and after some
| > years of trying I've found the only system that is truly free and
| > actively fights for the freedoms it gives to its users is OpenBSD.
| >
| Go back and read RMS's posts.
I've read them.
| I do not recall a single disparaging post about OpenBSD.
He claims OpenBSD suggest the use of non-free software. After having
used it for quite some time, such a suggestion was never made to me.
In fact, developers have continuously suggested OpenBSD users to fight
for software (and documentation) freedom, leading by example in very
many cases. Fighting for software freedom and then being told you're
suggesting users to use non-free software is quite a stab, I'd say.
| Thee closest is the observation that Theo is unfriendly,
| which is an incredible understatement.
After having only recently met Theo I must say that I, once again,
violently disagree with you. He was very friendly. Even after I made
fun of him (a joke in relation to my employer), he kept smiling and
remained friendly (and made a bit of fun out of me).
However, I can not say I'm surprised he doesn't like being told he's
suggesting the use of non-free software. I suppose he also violently
disagrees with such statements and acts accordingly (but I'm not
speaking for him here, these are mere assumptions).
| Unless you are going to assert that truth is an insult,
| or that explaining, defending, and frankly fairly lightly advocating,
| his views is offensive, how do you reach offensive.
See here above. There's no truth in the "OpenBSD suggests the use of
non-free software". Claiming it is true, is an insult.
| Th most strongly neegative statement he has made is that OpenBSD does
| not reach the standard he requires to recommend.
That is fair. However, many here find his standards dubious,
especially in light of the support for non-free OS'es that his own
software sports.
| That appears to be the remark that is so offensive to the OpenBSD community.
I don't think so. I'm no developer and I can only speak for myself,
but I think the OpenBSD community really isn't seeking RMS's blessing
all that much.
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
