Re: Regarding wasted time
Richard, should we expect a contribution to the project for the time that you and your minions have taken from all of us? I have no minions, and I cannot take time from you. However, if you adopt the policy that you won't reply to my messages unless I pay you to, you will be within your rights.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers? I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
This has been discussed many times and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do not care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD. The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers. I can ask them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there is an easier way. For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to hunt for the answer. Thanks for stating the policy. If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to exclude such firmware.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
But what about the different case where the company permits redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case? Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at that point No, that description refers to a different case. so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since you refuse to explain it). It is just like micro code and a circuit. I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the hardware and users don't install software there. Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install. (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an operating system.) So that is not equivalent to a circuit.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
A few computer users are in a position manufacture hardware, but computer users in general do not have that capability. (Meanwhile, manufacturing does not work by copying a sample; copying as such is not doable.) A few software users are in a position to code software.. but not many code software very well. The analogy doesn't work. The reason why is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software. What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without truly reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it. They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware. Nobody's perfect. What matters is that they are doing their best, and that they fix problems that are reported to them. That's all I can ask of anyone. Gilles' message seems to say that OpenBSD policy is to allow binary-only firmware. Is that correct?
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to all paragraphs. People raise many issues in these messages. My idea of politeness does not say I have to respond to every question that someone asks. I also don't think I have an obligation to be polite to you after the hostility you have shown.
Re: Richard Stallman...
Except, sir, at some point, someone made a mistake. And this mistake has blown up in to this thread with this ongoing argument. Their report was either not as accurate as you seem to think, or you're very badly expressing the contents of the report (which has not been made available to the OpenBSD community). Their report was that OpenBSD contains ports for non-free programs, and that is what I tried to say in the interview. I made a mistake in the way I said it: I used words which were subject to misunderstanding. I have acknowledged this mistake here, and had it corrected, and said so here. Did you miss those messages?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
http://torrent.gnome.org/ Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you found those quotes? That is a host; I figured it would have lots of pages. Your message today hinted that maybe you meant the front page. So I looked there, and found them there. Thanks. I will raise the issue with the Gnome developers, and I hope they will change it.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs is in the recipes for installing them. Oh, no URL? I could ask someone to find a specific URL, but why take the trouble? The OpenBSD developers have acknowledged that contains ports for non-free programs. There is no dispute about that question. In gNewsense the recommendation for certain non-free programs is in the _inclusion_ of such non-free parts in their distribution You have not presented any evidence that there are non-free programs in gNewSense. If you could supply the URL of one, that would really change something, because the gNewSense developers would get rid of it. My supplying the URL or name of a non-free program's port in OpenBSD would do no good, because the developers are happy to have such ports and would not remove it. I am not going to spend the time, or ask someone else to do so, just for an idle request. If the OpenBSD developers were to undertake to remove such ports, then I would get you some names.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
As long as this thread has been running, the only plausible reasons I can think of for you not to repeat your claimed accurate conclusion is either that you do not remember what this claimed accurate conclusion was or that this claimed accurate conclusion wold now be yet another falsehood. I've said it here so many times that I have decided not to repeat it every time someone doesn't know.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD? If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Isn't this attitude more than a bit short-sighted? I certainly understand the benefits of reserving one's resources for dealing with issues that can happen, but many of the technology-related problems we have today are arguably due (at least in large part) to people ignoring them as not possible until they had already become established practice (and so, almost impossible to undo). I agree that it is useful to begin thinking about these issues now. I don't think that we need to start rejecting non-free hardware today, because the issue is moot now. But that day may come. With luck, by the time that is necessary, it will also be feasible.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context, anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about within an acceptable level of error. I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any area, the meaning of freedom involves filling in details which are not obvious in advance. It seems simple while you stay at the abstract level; it becomes hard when you address the details. But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain my freedom to BSD license my code. Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license. This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to release the combination under the GPL.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods? My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too. However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. The problems that have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly, corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with them. You contradict yourself. You say it's efficient and accurate and then point out its inefficiency inaccuracy. I find it stunning that you can reconcile this. There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't come from me. When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and we have not seen any errors in it. In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do research. I might have just taken the developers' word that the system is free. It was years ago and I do not know what happened. However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to endorse a program. Research can only check the present, not the future. For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past. (It is possible that this happened with AROS too.) Likewise for the GNU/Darwin problem. I think this occurred in several others too. My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible problems and how to avoid them.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't usually install software on it? Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open hardware development? I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs some day when I have some time.
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
You have done a pretty good job of summarizing my position. The sex education analogy is quite clear and valid. (I'm in favor of teaching people how to use contraception, because I'm in favor of encouraging sex.) Thank you for helping to explain. In this discussion I have stuck to correcting misstatements about my views, and refuting criticism. I have defended and explained my ethical views in response to attacks, and only for that reason. If others let that question drop, so will I.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion here) to be something that most people would express as not deliberately erect barriers against. The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description for what I am saying. Many of the people on this list were told that I want OpenBSD to erect barriers against installing non-free programs. And their words show that they think this means designing the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible. (I have not suggested such a thing.) My usage of the recommend fits in normal usage. If you include program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider. Perhaps implicitly recommend would be a clearer description of this particular case.
Re: Open Source Article Spawns Interesting Ethical Question
But it also perpetuates serious problems (totalitarian surveillance,...) Are you seriously that paranoid? Do you wear a tin foil hat by any chance? :-) Cell phone systems keep track of the location of the phone, and they can record the information permanently. They can do this even when the phone is switched off, because it still transmits. That information comes from the Palestine Information Technology Association. In Palestine, being tracked often means you get killed by a missile that wounds or kills other people passing by. If you consider this a joking matter, the joke will be on you. The cases are similar, and my view on the two cases is similar. So answer this question, did you ask to use the phone? or did the fact someone had one lure you into the dark side by using proprietary software? Do you think it is wrong to borrow someone's computer if it has proprietary software in it? If so, your position is much more extreme than mine.
Re: Richard Stallman...
I wrote: I hope that you have not arranged in effect to cause our web site to be attacked. You responded: It was a recommendation of OpenBSD rather than an attack. It was neither a recommendation of OpenBSD nor an attack. Your message did not talk about OpenBSD, but if it had, that would not be an excuse. If you post information about an exploit through which someone's site can be attacked, you can't evade the responsibility by including some opinions in the message. I would not call your message an attack, because encouraging attacks is not the same thing as making an attack. It is not the same, but it goes in the same direction. I hope that the other OpenBSD developers will repudiate such conduct. Surely we can disagree without resorting to encouraging sabotage.
Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
BUT I WILL STILL GO ON SPREADING THE LIE THAT OpenBSD CONTAINS NON-FREE SOFTWARE SO PEOPLE ARE MISLEAD I never intentionally said such a thing. It was a misunderstanding, because I chose words that were subject to misinterpretation. I appreciate having been informed about the unclear statement. To prevent any further misunderstanding, I have had a clarifying note posted in the page with the interview. I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general. How about OpenBSD ports system a general purpose tool given by developers to the users? I think the general-purpose ports system framework is fine. What I do not want to recommend are the specific ports for specific non-free programs.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than just plain free. That's often true. (And even if it doesn't cost you money, it may take some of your time.) But I don't think that changes the issue. Zero-cost or small cost isn't the crucial distinction. The crucial point is that copying software is practical and feasible for computer users in general. We can and do copy software, unless someone goes out of his way to stop us. In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy... which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive? When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight about it. When something is feasible to copy, then the question of whether we are free to do so makes a real difference.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words ) to use or continue using that non-free platform. There are two issues here: the practical effects, and the message conveyed. The practical effects are mixed. Making free apps run on non-free systems paves the way for some users to migrate to free systems, and for some users eliminates a motivation to migrate. So it has both good and bad effects. I don't know which effect is bigger, but I speculate that the good effect is bigger over all. The negative effect is limited to power users, people who might switch systems as if it were an easy thing to do. Most users are reluctant to change operating systems at all. The part of the practical effect that is negative is something we cannot prevent. If we were to delete the Windows support from Emacs or GCC, that would not stop people from running Emacs or GCC on Windows. The sort of people that would choose an operating system on this basis could easily maintain and redistribute such code. The other issue is the message we convey. That is something we can control, but it also shows the difference between these two cases. Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and clear support for its use. Making your free program work with something non-free if that's already installed is not such a direct message of support. It makes sense to treat the two cases differently.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
ReactOS is a free software operative system with a support database that indicates which programs it can run. If I understand you weird meaninig of promotion, then you'll find this a bad thing too, right? Yes. Thank you for showing me those specific problems. I will discuss them with the developers of ReactOS.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
What is an operating system? An OS could be considered an application, You could consider an OS an application, and you could consider hardware software, just as you could consider the Earth a pumpkin. My response is that you're starting from assumptions I find questionable, so I don't accept the conclusions.
Re: Richard Stallman...
Dude... it is on the endorsement list on gnu.org you talked about in the beginning how you cannot include OpenBSD in it... http://gnu.org/links/links.html Thank you. Now I know where to remove the link if it comes to that. I have a feeling that list is maintained by your 'FSF staff' and you don't have much of an idea of what's included in it? I don't personally do most of our web site maintenance, of course. But I take responsibility for removing this link if it should not be there.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't recommend the installation of those non-free platforms. But free systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free apps. I hope you do realize how much this reminds us of _1984_ ? Surely you jest. When I decide what I will say, that is not censoring you.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by recommend non-free software, I explained it earlier in this thread. so if you could, please, give an example by showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free software and the URL. In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs is in the recipes for installing them.
Re: Open Source Article Spawns Interesting Ethical Question
You shouldn't use them, because of the software, but also, because your cell phone is a tracking device, even when it is turned off, Stallman said. Interestingly, in the minutes before the talk began, Stallman padded up one aisle in his stocking feet talking into what looked like a mobile telephone. I don't carry a mobile phone, but I don't see anything wrong in borrowing one from someone to make a call. In the same sense, I would consider it wrong for me to have a machine with Windows on it, or to use one regularly, but I see nothing wrong in using someone else's Windows machine for a few minutes. I don't think the words quoted are my exact words. Reporters often change quotations.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
By using and endorsing gNewSense??? It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now and the project goals are not met for the foreseeable future. I don't read the gNewSense discussion lists -- I don't have time. But I did read the pages that someone forwarded to this list yesterday, and I saw nothing shocking in them. They simply acknowledge that mistakes are possible. I spoke with the developer of GNU/Darwin, and he said that the presence of ports for non-free programs was a mistake and he will remove them. Thanks to whoever mentioned the problem here.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Run GNOME in a **VMWare Player** in a Linux virtual machine. Or: Run GNOME on a virtual machine using QEMU on Linux or **Parallels** for **Mac** or Linux. promoting the use of non-free software? This is a case of running a free program on non-free platforms. Nonetheless, I think it is more of a problem than running on Windows, because those non-free platforms are optional add-ons to the system. Thanks for telling me about this. I have not visited this site myself: http://torrent.gnome.org/ Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you found those quotes? If not, I will look for someone else who will do that for me.
Re: Richard Stallman...
I doubt I would have looked at the AROS web site myself. To find out the status of the BSD systems, recently, I asked the FSF staff to check for me. Wait, you have someone else do the research, and this persons opinions get reflected in what you say? Absolutely. FSF staff checked the BSD versions and told me what found. I do not redo their work after they do it; I trust that they did it well. Their report about OpenBSD was accurate.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I appreciate the work that OpenBSD has done in this area. It is an important contribution to our community. Curious that it should take this long to obtain that admission from you. Why do you think it took a long time? I said it a couple of weeks ago too. I also said it a couple of years ago.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
- vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware - OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the hardware work out of the box - vendor A says if a customer wants the firmware, he must go to out website and fill a registration form online. - OpenBSD does not ship the firmware because it is not free enough. In that case, it would be illegal for you to distribute the firmware, so naturally you don't. No argument there. But what about the different case where the company permits redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and governments uses computers as well, so they are too computer users, thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every computer users in general. A few computer users are in a position manufacture hardware, but computer users in general do not have that capability. (Meanwhile, manufacturing does not work by copying a sample; copying as such is not doable.)
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
Really? All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need firmware, you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code and other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA? I am not a hardware expert; I don't know sort of hardware the firmware blobs run on. I will presume you're right. He is right. Hardware these days basically runs code. I think we are talking about different questions. The word firmware implies a program of some kind. I thought he was talking about what _kind_ of hardware that program runs on. Now you seem to be saying that all hardware is programmable. I don't know if that is true, but it's a different question (and doesn't seem crucial to the issue). Now what was a pure hardware device changes into a pure software device. I am not entirely sure what that means, but I am not surprised that an algorithm can be implemented in software or in hardware. I don't think that is relevant to my way of looking at the issue, though. This is just one example and there are many more beautifully blurred examples. Your argument is a fallacy with modern hardware. I don't see any fallacy. I do not assume that there is only one way to implement a given algorithm, so the fact that that isn't so is no problem. Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program. So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on that device? I am sure that at MIT they taught you that a finite sate machine can be moved from hardware to software and vice versa. It can, but that's not what I'm talking about. The reason why it is then later moved to silicon is for speed and marketing purposes (yes, you know making money with development). So you say that developing hardware is unethical until you have the physical hardware? No, I am not talking about how to develop anything. There seem to be many misunderstandings in this particular conversation. Also modern CPUs run microcode. Does this make them unethical? Not in my view. And this is why: Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program. So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on that device? If users don't normally install microcode in the CPU, then ethically it may as well be a circuit. It is not built as a circuit, but that's a different question. I really would like to understand how writing software for a living measures up with lets say war or rape. I have nothing against getting paid to write software, as such. I criticize non-free software, software that doesn't respect users' essential freedoms, but that has nothing to do with whether the programmer gets paid. Getting paid to write free software (which many people do) is fine. Writing non-free software is bad even if it is unpaid. But it is not as bad as killing or rape. If you were literally in a position where you would die if you don't write proprietary software, such as if someone pointed a gun at you and ordered you to do so, I would not hold it against you. But when people say they need to write non-free software in order to eat, they are generally exaggerating. Lots of people don't know how to write software at all, and the condition usually is not fatal. I also would like to understand a little bit better why hardware is exempt from being unethical (make sure you explain ethics first so that I can truly understand this). There are no copiers for hardware, so the question of whether you are free to copy it is moot. As for modification, in most cases you're allowed to modify a piece of hardware (if you own it) to the extent it is feasible, but that extent is rather limited.
Re: Richard Stallman...
Can you tell the FSF web programmers to do more checking for HTML/SQL injection vulnerabilities? I know nothing about that issue, but I will forward your message. Teaching the public about this issue is a good thing to. However, the way you did it was predictably bad. By publishing it, and telling only me--not anyone who could fix it--you made sure a day would go by when others know about the problem but our sysadmins did not. It would have been better practice to tell our sysadmins privately first, and give them a couple of days to do something before educating the public. I hope that you have not arranged in effect to cause our web site to be attacked.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Didn't you do that right from the start when you came to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your un-researched assumptions? That is not what happened. I stated an accurate conclusion based on recent research. I expressed it with words that were not clear. I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods? My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too. However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it. The problems that have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly, corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with them. Why are you replying on everybody else to point these things you to you? Because that's the efficient way to do it. This is a matter of fixing bugs. I don't read the source code of Emacs over again each month looking for bugs. That would be prohibitively difficult. So I wait for people to report bugs. It's the same for these problems. Pretty much everybody i know will check their email just before going to bed and pretty just after they wake up. Why do you take so long then? Why are you so disconnected from this computer world? I get so much email that the process of checking my email takes all day.
Re: Open Source Article Spawns Interesting Ethical Question
I don't carry a mobile phone, but I don't see anything wrong in borrowing one from someone to make a call. So if it is a new model of cell phone and if the owner teaches you how to use it and make life easy for you will that be 1) Wrong on his part to encourage you to using a device you don't use? 2) Wrong on your part to take his advice and help to use it? Yes, that is my view of things. Using the phone could be convenient for me. (I think it would be convenient for me.) But it also perpetuates serious problems (totalitarian surveillance, as well as proprietary software). These problems continue because people tolerate them. To solve them, we have to stop tolerating them. OpenMoko will make substantial progress on both problems. I might be willing to carry an OpenMoko phone, but I would keep its antenna switched off most of the time. But some where ( just like you use take help from the mobile phone owner to use it ) in the ports system are instructions to install a non-free software which is not mandatory for users to use. The cases are similar, and my view on the two cases is similar.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
No, but when you redefine free to mean something specific, you redefine your own language. It's normal to develop criteria for what free means in specific activities. Consider, for instance, free elections. Human rights organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria for what that should mean in practice. When you refuse to endorse some free OSes because they allow proprietary software to be installed, you are walking a damn fine line. That is not the reason why I do not endorse OpenBSD. I've explained several times, so I won't go into detail yet again.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them about this ASAP. I expect they will probably remove those. And ReactOS is next? Does ReactOS recommend non-free software? If so. please show me what it says, and the URL. I do not have a lot of influence with them, but I could at least remove the link to ReactOS if it comes to that. I am hoping to spend a few hours in a while auditing the other fringe projects that the [Free] Software Foundation recommends. Thank you. I very much appreciate the feedback that this list has provided, showing me things that need to be corrected. Specific problems identified in the free software directory, in BLAG, and in the Ututo web site, have been corrected already.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
You certainly don't live by what you preach. You are pointed at not one but various facts to the contrary. I do practice my own principles, but when you compare the two you have to be careful not to alter the principles in your own mind. If you do that, you could easily discover an apparent contradiction which doesn't really come from me. That is what you have done.
Re: Is Visiting the gnewsense website or downloading it actively promoting the use of non-free software?
from the data I get from below http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.gnewsense.org I just wonder if the gnewsense OS is being distributed through the very non free OSes http://www.gnewsense.org/FAQ/FAQ#toc3 The words being distributed through are not entirely clear to me. Does that refer to the following? Perhaps the website is run by gnewsense itself and netcraft wrongly identifies it as Ubuntu. That could be so. Or perhaps their server is running Ubuntu. I think it would be a good idea for the gNewSense server to run gNewSense. However, I don't criticize people for running Ubuntu, just as I don't criticize people for running OpenBSD. You can make an all-free installation if you choose to.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to apply a label like not recommended because it supports non-free software to OpenBSD but not to FSF (emacs, etc.). As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't recommend the installation of those non-free platforms. But free systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free apps. I follow these principles without discriminating between people or groups. Thus, I think it is legitimate for apps to run on Windows, so I apply this to both GNU applications and OpenBSD-related applications such as OpenSSH. I recognize that this can have the negative effect of reducing the pressure for people to move away from Windows, but I don't think that alone is a reason to reject apps that can run on Windows. Meanwhile, for operating systems, I endorse the ones that don't recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free apps. I apply this principle to GNU/Linux distros and to BSD distros just the same. When people discover a recommendation for non-free software in a distro which is supposed not to have any, my first response is to show it to the distro developers and ask them to remove it. Everyone makes mistakes, so my aim is to get the mistakes corrected, not jump down their throats.
Re: Richard Stallman...
I note that Richard also says that AROS is a free operating system. I don't recognize the name AROS, but if it is an operating system, it is possible I said something about it at some point. Could you tell me where that statement appears? If I need to correct it, I need to know where it is. Oh really? Did he not notice the web page where AROS includes software which emulates an Amiga perfectly, I doubt I would have looked at the AROS web site myself. To find out the status of the BSD systems, recently, I asked the FSF staff to check for me. And did Richard even check their License page, to notice that it has numerous revocation clauses? I don't know if I ever looked for that page. Perhaps an AROS developer said it was free and I took his word for it. But since you say AROS isn't free, I should check it now. You may be right. What is the URL of that license page?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
The wget he uses is worse. You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn the user at all!!! I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general.
Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
I was a bit curious about what would someone who reads web-sites by using a wget daemon through e-mails whose own web-site looks like... well... Apache httpd 2.0.54 ((Debian GNU/Linux) DAV/2 SVN/1.2.0 PHP/4.3.10-22 mod_ssl/2.0.54 OpenSSL/0.9.7e) I use wget for personal reasons. I have nothing against running a web site. I don't endorse Debian, but I don't object to getting free software from Debian (or from OpenBSD) and installing it. As for Subversion, I don't know why it is mentioned there, but I have nothing against using Subversion. It is free software. This continues the pattern of straw men. Over and over, people on this list criticize me for doing something which neither I nor anyone else here actually thinks is wrong.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
But I think the FPGAs in products are more like the possible computer in my microwave oven: nobody installs software in them, so they might as well be circuits. Really? All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need firmware, you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code and other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA? I am not a hardware expert; I don't know sort of hardware the firmware blobs run on. I will presume you're right. Whether it runs on a computer or an FPGA, either way it's a program. So the next crucial question is, do users normally install programs on that device? For some devices, the answer is no. However, if the firmware is stored in a file on the disk, and the system downloads it into the device, the answer to that question is yes. That is the case where I object to the non-free firmware blobs.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Before you argue that ReactOS is merely a free implementation of Win32 API, let me clarify: if the purpose of ReactOS isn't to run some Windows-only software S, then what is the purpose of ReactOS? if S was free, it wouldn't be Windows-only as it would have ported to free OS's. I don't object to implementing free software to support APIs that users use. There is a lot of non-free software written for the Lose32 API, but there is also a lot of private (unreleased) software which runs on that API. Thus, its use is not only for running proprietary software. I would ask the developers of platforms that run the Lose32 API to tell the users that running proprietary Windows apps is not freedom.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
If something is harder to copy, it is ethically ok to have a different standard for this piece of technology. Seriously, that's what you're saying above. Because hardware may have to be copied by hand, you consider them ethically not the same. Yes, that's my position, for 20 years or more. I think that's the right place to make the distinction: between you can copy it yourself and somebody can build more of them. First of all, VHDL/Verilog are source code. Don't look anything like a plan. The crucial thing about source code is that you can compile it and run it. (And also that you can edit it -- which can be done with VHDL/Verilog code.) Also, you don't need your very own fab. There are plenty of fabs out there that will gladly take your source/plan and turn it into a nice chip or two for you. It's even semi-affordable if you stick to the larger feature sizes. I don't think this brings us to the point where hardware plans become morally equivalent to software. Perhaps in the future there will come a time when we can all copy computer hardware, or all produce computer hardware from plans (in VHDL or whatever form). At that point I will conclude that we should insist on making hardware from free plans. In the mean time, however, I don't think we need to do this.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved. If any of my friends were involved, they did not inform me. Good friends you have then. More likely they aren't my friends. You may have noticed that the Linux developers disagree with my philosophy. I know very few of them, and they wouldn't listen to me about anything. If you and they have a dispute about some legal issue, I will leave it to lawyers.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/ http://directory.fsf.org/project/wxwindows/ http://wxwindows.org/about/credits.htm see the acknowledgment from one of the softwares endorsed by FSF your favourite organization. == Thank you to Microsoft for donating a copy of Visual C++ 6.0 to help wxWidgets compile on this version of the compiler (for a Virginia Tech course). We do not refuse to list a program merely because it mentions a non-free platforms on which it runs. I've explained that already. I don't like the warm and positive attitude towards Microsoft expressed by that thank-you. If wxwindows were a GNU package I would ask the developers to change that. But wxwindows is not a GNU package, and I doubt I have veryx much credit with its developers. I'd rather not use it on this.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
I don't, however, I don't claim to live by the same free vs non-free rules, I use what works for me. I think you have misinterpreted the principles that I believe in and live by. I hope my explanations will help.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
The free software foundation shall not be called free software foundation.. it shall be called Stallmanist Foundation and the philosophies are to be outlined as Stallmanism.. not free software. If you want to campaign for a philosophical stand about software and trees, you are entitled to do so. I don't think we will change the name of the free software movement for you, though. Sorry.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
As for Intels use of non-ree software, I am sorry for them, and I hope that someday they will be able to move to free software. Yet you still support them, and require gNewsense users to use Intel/AMD hardware? I do not boycott companies for using non-free software. There is no reason why I should do so. Are you in favor of such a boycott? I encourage people to make gNewSense run on other computer architectures, but I don't think it is particularly urgent.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american lawyer but finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in public. I don't know who or what that refers to. I do know that my favorite organization is the Free Softwar Foundation, and I know it has not been involved in anything that fits that description. I suspect this is related to the harsh message Theo sent me a few months ago, which rebuked what you (was that me? the FSF?) had done. He mentioned the name Reyk (which I don't recognize) and said it had something to do with a license. But he did not go into details. The FSF was not involved in the matter. I could have investigated what he was talking about and determined what conduct he had criticized. Then, supposing I wanted to give them some advice, I could have asked someone to find the developers' addresses, and written to them. Then they might or might not have listened to me. I could have done all that, but I saw no reason to go so far out of my way for someone who was treating me rather badly. So I simply told him that the FSF was not involved in the matter. I know that one part of your description events is wrong--the part that says, that my favorite organization has lost the battle [publicly]. My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved. If any of my friends were involved, they did not inform me. Those errors make me skeptical of the rest of your claims. Did someone lose a battle? Did anyone really steal anything? I don't know, but I won't take your word for it. Did they try to go legal? If so, was it vainly? If they got legal advice, was their lawyer un-educated? Was the outcome embarrassing for someone? I don't know. Whoever would like to know the answers to these questions would do well to check on his own.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
As for Intels use of non-free software, I am sorry for them, and I hope that someday they will be able to move to free software. Is this hope reasonable or logical? Totally not. Intel just wants the best software they can afford to get their chips as fast and as good as possible to market. Since I do not make decisions for them, I can only say that I am disappointed with their values. But even if Intel does not value freedom very much, they may someday have freedom if free software is sufficiently accepted in the world around them.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin: http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports Who also contains instructions to install the such port system. Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them about this ASAP. I expect they will probably remove those.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it looks like the question had in mind a whole system. This miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an endorsement of a system. Huh? OpenSolaris is just a kernel That's what I thought. It _is_ free software, what there is of it. But it isn't a usable solution. That's what I meant at the time. Someone like you is not allowed to spread mistruths like this in the media. Spread mistruths is a distorted way to describe a couple of misunderstandings. And as far as I know there is no way to forbid anyone to do that. If I knew a way, I would do it. Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar. Mistakes are not lies. And these mistakes were misunderstandings anyway. And since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I am going to call you a hypocrite. I'm following the same principles that I apply to others. I've explained both these principles and my actions; the readers can judge all aspects for themselves.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open your big fat lying mouth. I am sure the readers can judge for themselves whether I am stupid. They will certainly see I am not perfect. I had learned the facts about OpenSolaris, but that was months before. By the time I did that interview my memory was incorrect. In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it looks like the question had in mind a whole system. This miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an endorsement of a system. Partly I had forgotten and partly I fell into a miscommunication. I am sure the readers can judge for themselves how grave that is. Lying is another matter. That is a grave accusation which you and others have made with absolutely no basis. Shouldn't you make sure of the facts before you accuse? As regards the size of my mouth, I got a testimonial from a dentist that it is rather small. If you won't take my word for it, I will ask my mother to send me a copy.
Re: [Fwd: Open-Hardware]
I'm curious how you can recomend an OS, like gNewSense that only runs on non-free hardware, that has required non-free software to be used in it's creation? How do you do these things? Perhaps I do them the same way. The term non-free hardware is misleading, because the issues that divide free software from non-free software do not apply to hardware. There are no copiers for hardware and it has no source code. As for Intels use of non-ree software, I am sorry for them, and I hope that someday they will be able to move to free software.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
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. But you have added a new false accusation of changing history. 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. Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that you seek to apply to mine. 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. Then I stated that accurate information using words that were subject to misunderstanding. 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. Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Thanks. Since you didn't answer soon, and since I did get other info about non-free software needed for OpenSolaris, I already asked for a correction in the interview. I made it general so that I won't have to go into these specifics. But I would like to know more about the need for Devpro: Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris. Someone else showed me some text which seems to say that you can also compile it with GCC. From http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/: You will then need to download the compilers specific to your platform . Choose either: * The Sun Studio Compilers (Recommended). NOTE: Sun Studio 11 is required for building Build 45 and higher -or- * The GCC Compiler found in Solaris Express, Community Edition build 22 or later. (Please see the gcc tools page for more information if choosing this option.) However, I don't know precisely what question that is the answer to. Maybe it doesn't apply to ALL the OpenSolaris software. Is there text that says that certain components can compile only with Devpro?
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
2) If supporting non-free software is bad, What I object to is referring people to non-free software as something to install. Supporting is a broader term, and includes various different practices. I don't object to all of them. I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for the second time and this is what I think: Richard explains in the interview that all BSD distributions (not OpenBSD specifically) INCLUDE non-free software in their ports system. Using the normal definition of include, this statement is incorrect. I've offered to ask them to post a note to clarify what I meant. I have not seen a response to that offer, but I have decided to ask them anyway. I do not want to misinform anyone.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. Fixed that for you. The GNU GPL does not require you to distribute copies to anyone, neither exact copies nor modified versions.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
As your views on open-source have become more and more extreme over time, you have become less and less relevant to a overall practical open-source community I've never agreed with open source at all; my community is the free software community. In 1998 part of the community started to speak of open source instead of free software--the part that doesn't consider freedom for users to be an ethical mandate. The free software movement continues to grow and win support around the world, focusing on areas other than the one you might call practical. You have also made, to be polite, inaccurate statements about OpenBSD which have been corrected in great detail. I expressed myself in a way that could be misunderstood, that is true. Why try to stretch it to something worse? Do you start from a desire to put me in the wrong? But, what I find most disturbing about your behaviour is that it you try to shove your views down other peoples throat with great vigour. I've said repeatedly that I don't insist that anyone here follow my views. I'm only explaining what they are (since others have misrepresented them). You have admitted as much on this list with regards to failed attempts with Ubuntu and Debain and you have now failed here. Actually what I said is that I tried to persuade Ubunu and Debian. You need to recognize the difference between what I said and what you think. You should also investigate the facts before making false statements. When I spoke with them I was polite and always recognized that they would make their own decisions. They would never have listened to me if I did not start by respecting them. I failed to persuade them, but I didn't fail here, because I never intended to try. I know that OpenBSD would not change anything for me. I just want to correct the incorrect statements about my views. Please go away, take your cronies with you and live in your own little pocket universe so the rest of us can live in peace. Please stop posting inaccurate statements of my actions and views, and I will stop correcting them.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. I have carefully avoided personal attacks in this discussion. I have not attacked OpenBSD either.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Although I'm sure it's convenient for most of the world to think that free software and open source originated solely in the Linux and GNU projects... They won't get that idea from me. I tell people regularly in my speeches that I found a free software operating system in use at MIT when I started working there in 1971. It is stated in print too. How about making an effort to find out the facts of what I do and say before you criticize?
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view of freedom. Not *real* freedom. The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential freedoms: Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish. Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it so it does what you wish. Freedom 2: the freedom to distribute exact copies to others when you wish. Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others when you wish. That's what I think is real freedom in regard to using a program. Whether or not you agree, at least you know what my views are.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
OpenBSD refuses to accept it's users being forced into depending on vendor binaries and pushes people to send a message that open support for hardware matters. I appreciate those actions. They help our community.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
How does using non-free software, by your definition anything none GPL'ed I gather, bring actual physical harm to anyone anywhere? Physical harm is not the only kind of harm. Losing your freedom is harm too. Social practices that lead people into a life without freedom are harmful.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard, you can try to weasel your way all you can, saying you're `not aware' of such and such. In the end, if you want to be true to your goals, you should say you do not recommend ANYTHING. Heck, you should say to people that they should not use computers at all, for obvious reasons. Exaggerating my position is not a valid way to criticize it. You end up criticizing your own exaggeration rather than my position.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far, What I said is that the ports system contains recipes for installing non-free software. In another message in this batch I address the question of what words to use to refer to that relationship. For me, the issue is that that relationship exists, not which word to call it. and the intention was to detract from OpenBSD - no matter how much sugar coating it came with. My intention was to explain my views and reasons for deciding not to recommend OpenBSD. Based on this, I see no hypocrisy from OpenBSD. I do not say that OpenBSD is hypocritical. I only say it does something that I think systems should not do. If RMS had made the statement that OpenBSD doesn't actively prevent the user from running non-free software then I think there wouldn't be an issue here - what operating system does? The idea that I want systems to actively prevent running non-free software is a straw man. Since the first message I posted, I have told people that I do not want that. When people disregard my actual views and attack this straw man they are simply misrepresenting my views. Then again, it wouldn't have the same impact as claiming that OpenBSD contains and endorses non-free software. What I said is that the ports system suggests installing non-free programs. That's accurate, and it's also the issue at hand. RMS, on the other hand, comes in with a half baked idea that OpenBSD endorses non-free software, AND he openly endorses censorship of all non-free software. I do not advocate censorship of software, or anything else. I advocate making all software free, and that's something different.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me. It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. so much for free speech. Free speech means you are free to tell people about the Adobe flash plug-in, and also free to decide not to tell them. I exercise my freedom of speech by not telling people about the Adobe flash plug-in. I think you should, too. But I will not try to force you to do that, because I respect your freedom of speech.
Re: Real men don't attack sign men
I doubt someone who is truly unfriendly could organize a hackathon, a friendly social event. He may be perfectly friendly to others. What is relevant is that he tends to be unfriendly to me. The same argument could be made about your unfriendliness. We could not talk to you since you have *proven* to be unfriendly: http://z505.com/images/gnu-sign.png I criticized ATI firmly when it refused to release the specs for its chips. I'm happy to say that in October another ATI speaker came to MIT and announced that ATI was supporting development of free drivers. I shook his hand. I was also told that my protest had made an impression at ATI, so I think it played a role in bringing about the change in policies. However, that was nothing on the scale of unfriendliness compared to what Theo has said to me -- both in this discussion, and previously. I used the word unfriendly as a deliberate understatement, because I did not want to start an argument about that side issue. (Others chose, in a hypersensitive fashion, to do so anyway.) I reserve my unfriendliness, such as it is, for the enemies of the free software movement -- which does not include OpenBSD. I have never urged people not to use OpenBSD. I do not campaign against OpenBSD and never did.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Come oh dilbert of gnu, stamp your licence upon all who code. Propegate your gnu legacy through the universe down to the plank scale. Install your agenda near and far. Come and spread the evangalistic word. All I can do personally is bless your computer. But if it has non-free software installed, it needs an exorcism.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software, for this reason. Ututo and gNewSense include a version of Linux which remove the firmware blobs, in order to make it free software. that's awesome, can users add these back in if they choose? I suppose so. I don't see how anything could stop them. Whatever the changes gNewSense has made in the source code of Linux, a user could revert them if he wants to. is your project worthless because of these users 'actions? Not at all. The point is to avoid things to lead users to install non-free software, and/or grant ethical legitimacy to non-free software. gNewSense doesn't lead users to install blobs, and doesn't kegitimize them. It's not the point to _stop_ users from doing anything. Thus, while it's a fact that gNewSense users can reinstall the blobs if they want to, that doesn't affect the point.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their choices, Convincing people to switch to free software is just one part of what we need to do to establish a society in which users are free. We also have to teach them to appreciate their freedom, and recognize that non-free would deny them their freedom. That way they will take actions to protect their freedom. Messages of acceptance of non-free software undermine the efforts to teach people that appreciation, and that is why I have decided to reject them. As for words like hectoring and hamfisted attempts, I think that reflects your feelings toward me more than the reality of what I do. Rather than wasting effort trying to make firefox unusable for an unfortunately large proportion of its userbase and on insulting OpenBSD developers with spurious accusations, why not spend the energy on making a usable flashplayer replacement? We are doing that too. It is called Gnash. However, if all we do is replace each non-free plug-in when it appears, I don't think we will ever catch up with them. We need to address this problem from both ends: developing free plug-ins, and discouraging the acceptance of non-free plug-ins.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
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. Is there anyone here that actually believes it is wrong for free programs to have code to run on non-free systems? Such a person could honestly criticize me for thinking that is acceptable. But I have a hunch that nobody on the list holds those extreme ethical views. In other words, you and others are attacking me for agreeing with all of you on this point. Everyone has to draw lines between cases that are partly similar, and that is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a contradiction between one's stated views and one's actions -- for instance, criticizing someone else for doing that which you do not think is wrong. 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. I appreciate that you make efforts to replace them with free software. Many others who prefer free software, or say they do, make no efforts to bring their use of non-free programs to an end. They leave the job to others and do not try to shoulder even part of it. 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 believe that all software should be free -- what you call a very extreme position -- and I have spent 24 years working for this goal. Free operating systems exist today because of the campaign which I started in 1983. I am also very pragmatic in how to campaign for this; otherwise I would never have got this far. My only method for achieving this goal is by convincing people, and it is clear it will take many years to succeed (if we ever do). Many people do not yet want to migrate all the way to free software, and the possibility of migrating partially as a bridge is very helpful to the progress of free software. I recognize this as much as anyone. I also recognize that we cannot keep moving towards a distant goal without keeping it in our minds and upholding it with our actions. Otherwise, it will be forgotten, or turned into a purely theoretic Sunday-school principle which people do not follow in life. To reconcile these two needs, I concluded that I should generally accept compromises and part-way measures that are beneficial in the short term, as long as they don't undermine the long-term goal. However, we must not advocate part-way measures that imply rejection of the goal. More concretely, this means that I can grant legitimacy to installing free software, even if they don't go all the way and erase all the non-free software on their machines. But I cannot grant legitimacy to installing a non-free program, because that would be treating the problem as a solution. Thus, I can encourage installing Emacs, GCC or OpenOffice on Windows, but I should not encourage installing non-free programs on GNU/Linux or BSD, just as I should not encourage installing Windows. It sounds like you disagree with these conclusions, and also with the goal that they are based on. I respect your right to your views, but I strive to act according to my views.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first. Neither one. What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports system suggests non-free programs. That's neither faulty nor foul. It is factually accurate: the ports system does contain recipes to install non-free programs. It is civil in tone, not harsh or nasty. Yes it is a criticism, but not a foul criticism. I do not hate OpenBSD and I don't speak as if I did. You and several others seem to perceive hostility which is not present in my words. Richard then came to the OpenBSD mailing lists looking for a fight. I did not desire a fight and I did not start one. Others have tried to, but their fight remains one-sided: they attack me, but I do not attack them; instead I remain civil and stick to the issues.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
| 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. I think you and he are talking past each other. You're talking about value; he's talking about values. When you talk of seeing value in a non-free program, that word presumes a certain set of values, values that value convenience more and freedom less. Lots of people have those values; they are the ones that lead people to develop, distribute, and use non-free software. And the practice of developing, distributing, and/or using non-free software promotes those values. I abhor those values; I want to teach people to value freedom enough to reject non-free software. To do this, I must conspicuously avoid acting the way those values would lead me to act. That is the reason for many of my decisions, including the decision not to recommend distros that lead people to non-free software.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
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. I will not argue with your statement about your personal experience. The point is that OpenBSD distributes the ports system, and the ports system contains installation recipes for various non-free programs listed by name. That in itself is a suggestion to install those programs. That is the suggestion I am talking about. I said so explicitly in my first message: However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could recommend. If you don't like the word suggest, we could say it leads people to or refers people to or helps people install that software. The point that I'm concerned about is not which word we use, but rather the facts, which we now all know. The issue is what we make of them ethically. I disapprove of that practice, but my goal in talking about it here was not to argue about that. My aim was to state what my real views are, and thus correct inaccurate statements already about them. Remember all the people who accused me of lying because at some time I described the presence of these recipes as the ports system includes non-free software? That whole tangent was based on taking my words out of context. My first message had already made it clear what I was talking about. The people who created this tangent chose one way I described the facts, and picked a wrong interpretation, which my first message had already shown was not right. In other words, they raised an imaginary issue, and denounced me for a claim they should have known I did not make.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
There is a difference between I have no obligation to answer each and every message and I cannot find a coherent answer to several messages. One difference is that the first one is true, and the second one is false. As you've seen by now, people were looking for something sinister in a simple delay. I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on Windows. I am surprised by this statement, because in general I don't expect that very many users would switch to a different operating system just to use GCC. Nonetheless, I would be interested in talking with them to see what they say about this.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
You said Real men don't attack straw men. Yet this is *EXACTLY* what you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write that OpenBSD recommends the ports system to its users, *which it does not*. Let me say that once again: OpenBSD recommends that EVERYBODY USE PACKAGES, NOT THE PORTS TREE. OpenBSD distributes the ports tree. In my book, that's recommending all the programs that are in it, referring people to those programs. I believe what you say about the other facts, but those facts don't override these facts. For instance, the statement urging people to use the binary packages doesn't cancel out the fact that the ports tree refers them to the non-free programs. The statement, as you quoted it, does not say Never use the ports! Obviously the ports are provided so people can use them. The statement urges people to try the binary packages first. That makes sense, but it isn't relevant to this question. conversation, where I will be happy to explain to you exactly the nature of the OpenBSD ports and packages systems. But let's do that off-list, Ok, let's do so. But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119741909911558w=2 I have no obligation to answer each and every message that people post, or address every issue anyone else raises. Some issues don't seem to need answers. However, because of your offer, I will send mail to try to find the message that URL refers to, and then send you a private answer if I have not posted one already.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
It also seems silly to me this idea between tainted and clean oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively. Take for example a user that runs Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux but proscribes to your free-only philosophy. They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin (which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not to. The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. That Firefox offers to install it is a very bad thing. I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we don't have enough people to make this work very well. If you would like to help, please let me know. It is an important project.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
It's total BS. If you don't want to pay for software, fine don't, but don't go on some religious crusade trying to get me to believe it's unethical so I won't either. When you buy a copy of a non-free program, you pay with your money and with your freedom. You apparently don't assign much value to the freedom that you would give up. I respect your right to your views.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to. You're right, but I don't think that difference matters for this issue. Giving just the URLs for non-free software is referring people to them.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH, whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if my memory serves). Richard, please stop spreading lies (or looking like a fool) by not doing research. The license of OpenSSH is here: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/LICENCE?rev=HEAD According to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html this is GPL-compatible (modified BSD license or better). Thanks for correcting me about that point. I was not sure about it, which is why I said (if my memory serves) in the text you quoted. What puzzles me is why you think this mistake was a lie, or that it might make me look like a fool. People normally don't call someone a liar, or a fool, because of a little (and tangential) mistake like this.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free, you are a slimy hypocrite. I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}. There is a big practical difference between making a free system suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a non-free system. We treat the two issues differently because they are different. People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it. Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a free program run on it is small. However, it is our practice when doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and bad for your freedom. If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows don't say this, I'll make sure to add it. By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything else you do. Thus, even telling people about a non-free application could very well lead them to install it. I've published both of these positions before, but in this discussion I only mentioned the one that is relevant to my views about OpenBSD. Is that hypocrisy? Is that lying? No, just sticking to the point. But now that people have raised the other issue, here is my position on it.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
If OpenBSD could spin off the ports system (perhaps people could put it on the Pirate Bay), and break off connection with it, then it would cease to convey any message from OpenBSD to the users. Then I could recommend OpenBSD while not recommending its ports system. Currently, that option does not exist. That option does exist. Ports tree is not installed by default. Users are not required to install the ports tree. When installing software, the ports tree is viewed as a last resort by both users and developers of OpenBSD. So if you refer someone to use OpenBSD, and tell them not to use the ports tree, they'll do just fine without using it. When speaking privately to someone I know is not likely to install non-free software, that is true. I can say to him, You could use OpenBSD, as long as you take care, if you use the ports system, to check that the programs you install are free. When speaking to the public, that is not a real option; if I tried to do that, it would get simplified in transmission down to Use OpenBSD, and that would lead people to use OpenBSD including the ports system. It's much like the situation for Debian. When speaking privately to someone who is not likely to install non-free software, I can recommend the official Debian GNU/Linux system and warn him to avoid the nonfree section which is also on the Debian servers. But if I said that to the public, it would get simplified in transmission down to recommending everything on Debian's servers. Thus, I don't recommend Debian.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Why is it so hard for you to answer that question... To answer the question was not hard. To answer it before I saw it would have been very hard. You failed to answer these several times already, When you said that, it was 21:00 here. At that time I had not even seen any of those messages; they were not in my computer. They arrived in my next mail transfer, today at 12:00. Subsequently I saw them and wrote an answer. You will get the answer in my next transfer, which is likely to be at 22:00. That will be 25 hours after the first of those messages was sent. I regret the delay, but it is inevitable. It must be quite common that a person doesn't answer in 2 hours. You may not know the details of how I transfer mail; but there are many other reasons why someone may not answer so fast. He might be sleeping, which many people do for 8 hours at a stretch. He might be checking some facts before before responding. These are things you know about. So what does it indicate, that just 2 hours after the subject was first raised, you said I had failed to answer, as if it were proof that I am bad, disregarding what you know? I think it indicates that you are looking for excuses to put me in the wrong. If something happens which you can interpret as putting me in a bad light, you seize on that interpretation, ignoring the other possibilities. Such an attitude can be seen in many of the messages on this list. It is not one you should want to adopt into your heart.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
However, if distribution D includes this easier way to install in its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on the ethical responsibility for it. We all know that the linux kernel (on which gNewSense is based) has an easy way to install binary blobs, like nvidia binary drivers. You've taken my words out of context. I was talking about a specific thing, the inclusion in the ports system of a recipe to install a particular non-free program. Someone else described such a recipe as an easier way to install that non-free program. I responded using his words, in quotation marks. By attributing his words to me, and by disregarding the context, you misunderstood the point of my message. I'm not talking about any and all things that make installation of anything easier. Just about giving recipes for installing particular non-free programs. That's what the issue is. OpenBSD non-free packages are not in the base system and not even available... That's true, but the ports system gives recipes for installing them. Moreover, this facility to install blobs that the linux kernel *provides* comes with the base gNewSense system... Could you tell me the name of that facility, or something else about it? If it is specifically and only useful for blobs, perhaps it should be remove from gNewSense. On the other hand, if it is a general purpose feature and blobs are merely one thing it could be used for, then I probably don't have anything against it. I don't criticize general facilities merely because someone could use them to do things with non-free software.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
So have you sent these types of unrecommendations to other OS' mailing lists or just OpenBSD's? I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time. I did not start this discussion. I posted on this list because people were making inaccurate statements about my views.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't exist. And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the very right to exist. How free is that? It is much freer than a world in which non-free programs entice many people into surrendering their freedom.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system includes instructions for fetching, building and installing specific non-free programs. Yes, that would be the truth. What you did say, however, is not the truth. What I said was the same thing, in different words. When the ports system contains a recipe to build and install P, it's natural to say that P is included in the ports system. You are interpreting the word included in a very literal sense, but that's not the only normal usage of the word. As a courtesy to the OpenBSD developers, and avoid the risk of confusion, I will try from now on to state this in a more precise way.
Re: : Real men don't attack straw men
If he really hated what we do, he should stop using OpenSSH. He says he uses it. He should not. We are horrible people; he should not use our software. I don't hate what you do. I don't hate OpenBSD. I have a specific criticism of one point about OpenBSD, but that is not hatred. I appreciate many of the good things that OpenBSD does for free software. I don't think that you are horrible. You are behaving rather badly to me, but that's just a small part of what you are as a person; I would not judge you overall based on that. (I also would not reject a free program because of personal disapproval of its developer.) It looks like you really believe I hate you and really believe I think the OpenBSD developers are horrible. But that does not come from me. I wish you could see that.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
This philosophy disturbs me, and reminds me of the rationale for censorship in dictatorships and police states. Admitting the existence of something even referencing it does not give it legitimacy. Should we remove any reference to nazi germany from our history books in order to avoid legitimizing the nazi point of view? They're not the same kind of question. Talking non-free software as a phenomenon is different from telling people about specific non-free programs they might want to use. Having recipes for non-free programs in the ports system is more like including present-day neofascist web sites in the list of interesting links in your web site. I am against censorship, so I do not believe in closing down those neofascist web sites. But I won't refer people to them.
