And for all those people who keep trying to say that OpenBSD doesn't
support ports - we do. If we put it out, that's the support already.
But - seriously, as a project, do we need the validation from
FSF/Richard?
OpenBSD certainly doesn't need my permission for anything.
If people don't care what I think, they can ignore me.
I posted the first message on this list, a few days ago, because
people had published inaccurate statements about my views towards
OpenBSD. My aim is to explain what those views really are. Once that
is done, the readers of this list may agree or disagree with me, but
at least they won't criticize me for views which are not mine.
Now, on the other hand, the question for Richard is this - if OpenBSD
includes ports (on the CD), which is not an installable option, which
the FAQ discourages you from using, how different/worse is this from a
linux kernel that allows blobs to be installed?
I don't know any details about what part of Linux "allows blobs to be
installed", so I can only guess that it is a general feature which
permits installation of firmware into devices, and that it works
regardless of whether the firmware is free or non-free.
I don't see anything wrong with general features that can install or
build any sort of software. Thus, for instance, I don't think it is
bad that OpenBSD and gNewSense have general-purpose features that a
user might employ to install a non-free program. I don't think it is
bad that GCC can compile a non-free program, or that you can use Emacs
or VIP to edit one. (It's inevitable that general purpose facilities
can operate on non-free code.)
The ports system may contain a general facility which could build and
install any program. (I don't know if it does.) If so, I have
nothing against that. But it certainly contains specific recipes for
installing specific non-free programs. That's what I object to.
