Marco,
I can definitely see another angle:
RMS spoke about OpenSolaris without getting his facts straight. When his
bullshit was exposed he backtracked and had the author of the article
post this correction:
"[RMS added this comment later:] Since that interview I've learned that
not all of OpenSolaris is free software; it is distributed with many
non-free programs. I am not sure that the free parts can even run on
their own. I cannot endorse OpenSolaris in its present form as a system
to use."
RMS has an agenda and he has been spewing sincere misinformation for a
while now to try stay in the spotlight. Check out this link for another
example of RMS badmouthing a project without checking his facts first:
http://fitz.blogspot.com/2007/07/stallman-shoots-free-software-movement.html
RMS can get away with running at the mouth because when he is wrong he
dodges the criticism and twists his original statements to try and
squirm out of taking responsibility for them. It is exactly what he
tried to do here recently, but thankfully some of the OpenBSD developers
got quite vocal about it. Even so, I still wouldn't call it a decisive
victory against hypocrisy, misinformation, and slimy tactics.
Given that it has been voiced on this list that RMS "makes the rounds"
badmouthing projects with little to no justification, and that this
isn't the first time he has done it to OpenBSD (and he is likely to come
back in a year and do it again), maybe it is time that his exploitation
of free software projects be chronicled in a single location on the
Internet. He counts on his positive publicity to lend credence to his
endorsements, so a counter balance of centrally available bad RMS
pontification might cause him to do some research before opening his
mail program or mouth in the future. At the very least, it may cause
some journalists to actually fact check his statements before publishing
them.
For example, his Wikipedia article is one sided propaganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_stallman
Unfortunately, I do not know what central repository should be used for
this purpose. If there are any Wikipedia editors on this list then they
might want to update the article so that it properly reflects the
criticism RMS has generated when he has spoken on subjects which he
understood only poorly.
It might seem like a smear campaign, but at least it would be ACCURATE -
which is more than can be said of RMS' smearing.
Breeno
Marco Peereboom wrote:
These messages somehow did not make it to misc@ so I am resending them.
My reply to RMS did make it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I basically asked RMS why he endorses Solaris which is not even remotely
free.
I encourage people to try to understand the FSF reasoning for this
endorsement. I can't come up with anything else but a bought
endorsement.
Original message:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:07:15 -0600
From: Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Richard, can you please educate me why you endorse Solaris?
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3717476_3
Per that interview you are endorsing an OS that basically won't run
without proprietary drivers. I love Solaris as an OS but it isn't free.
The CDDL clashes with the GPL; or can you explain why suddenly CDDL is
GPL compatible? Did someone tell you its free?
Might it have something to do with money?
http://www.fsf.org/donate/patron/index_html
We are talking about the same Sun that rejects open source drivers for
proprietary reasons. Like this beautiful piece of software written by
David Gwynne: http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~dlg/mfi/
This was rejected in favor of LSI's proprietary driver that adds nothing
over David's driver.
Eagerly awaiting your answers,
/marco
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMS' answer:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on
mail.peereboom.us
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0
tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS
autolearn=ham version=3.2.2
From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: misc@openbsd.org
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (message from Marco
Peereboom on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:07:16 -0600)
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:42:08 -0500
Per that interview you are endorsing an OS that basically won't run
without proprietary drivers.
I did not know that. Can you send me a URL for the precise details?
Once I know the details, I will ask them to post a correction in the
interview.
The CDDL clashes with the GPL; or can you explain why suddenly CDDL
is GPL compatible?
The CDDL is not GPL-compatible, but it is a free software license.
The source code of OpenSolaris is indeed free software, just as the
source code for OpenBSD is free software. If your information is
correct, OpenSolaris has a serious problem, and should not be endorsed,
Those are two different questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
