> What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports > system suggests non-free programs.
On the bsd talk show you did not withhold your recommendation because the ports system suggests non-free programs. No way, that's not what you said on that show. What actually happened is that you withheld your recommendation because it CONTAINS non-free programs; that is what your words were. It turns out that the above assessment was based on a complete lack of research. It was uneducated, and you should have apologized for the error. You were really clear in your interview. And wrong. Later on, on this mailing list, you have changed your statements to say that your recommend against OpenBSD because it now... RECOMMENDS non-free software. We've made it quite clear that Emacs and gcc recommend the use of non-free software, by directly containing code to support those systems. The ports tree does not contain code to support non-free components. It simply provides URLs to a few select things which people might wish to use. Itself, it contains no non-free code and makes no recommendations. But gcc and emacs directly contain code which RECOMMENDS compilation on non-free systems, by actually compiling and running there. First you lied. Then you introduced new position that you cannot meet yourself. That is hypocritical of you. You are a hypocritical liar, Richard. Your lies taint the efforts of the entire FSF and GNU communities. Shame on you all for letting Richard mislead you so.
