> Here is the real issue, Richard. You go off and endorse OpenSolaris > without knowing the facts. You get confronted with them and you change > history. Sound familiar? > > What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place on a minor confusion.
We are not spinning any facts. Richard, three times now you have have failed to do research -- thus damaged the reputation of projects that write free software, and three times you have had your messages annotated. Because you were wrong. Are you really so retardedly careless? > But you have added a new false accusation of "changing history". No. We've accused you of being a either tremendously careless and reckless with other people's reputations. But there is an alternative that you are purposefuly spreading these things -- ie. lying. Meanwhile the FSF is doing exactly the same things in distributing Emacs and GCC with commercial support in their distributions. That is hypcrotical. You have been called on this issue, but you have told people that it would be too much work to delete that stuff from gcc and emacs. Yeah, right. That means you a hypocrite. > I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such, > so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was > the clarification. You should not have made the same type of mistake three times. If you can't make statements without errors you should say nothing. > Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that > you seek to apply to mine. I have said nothing which is hypocritical. OpenBSD does nothing wrong, unless emacs and gcc are doing something wrong. At the same time, OpenBSD developers are not going into the media and pointing out the falicy of your statements. Or, we are not doing so yet. Do you want a war in the press? > If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes > reading information about them and draw your own conclusions. > > I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information > that the ports system can install non-free software. emacs and gcc can be installed on non-free software, because of tens of thousands of lines of specific code written to suppor those commercial systems. Hypocrite. > Then I stated > that accurate information using words that were subject to > misunderstanding. That's bullshit, Richard. In your interview you said that OpenBSD *CONTAINED* non-free software. Your words were lies. Later on the mailing lists you have attempted to change history by saying that your words were being misunderstood. That's not true. You said OpenBSD *CONTAINS* non-free software. There is no way to misunderstand that. > You witnessed the words I said in the interview. However, you > make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended > which are based on pure speculation. No wonder yourclaims are mistaken. I do make claims about what you knew: You knew nothing because you did not research before you spoke, and you ended up telling a lie. Same as when you branded OpenSolaris free: You knew nothing because you did not research before you spoke, and you ended up telling a lie. Same as when you attacked the Subversion developers: You knew nothing because you did not research before you spoke, and you ended up telling a lie. > Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims? It's hilarious to see you try to accuse me of your greatest weakness. You are the one who three times now has said the wrong thing about freedom, because you don't investitate. I predict that your next posting will complain about how you don't use the web. Poo hoo, poor Richard always has an answer that will get him out of trouble.
