Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Hi About the ports tree, maybe you are right and OpenBSD should go kick out the possibly 50 ports that you have a problem with. Now, about BSD/GPL that's an other story. But that doesn't mean we can't learn from each other and help each other. I hope it has to do Richards efforts on the GNU/Linux side of the open-source world that even Ubuntu works on a completely free edition (Gobuntu) nowadays. 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. Unix is becoming mainstream again. You should all work together at educating new people. Kind regards, Tom Richard Stallman wrote: It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and then try to blame me for them. For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous, even inconvenient. However, if anyone wants to know what I do think, I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/. In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html. One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about what the system suggests to the user. Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore, if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of) non-free software. From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). 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. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public. I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense. The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Sir, please check my inline comments. On 12/11/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is the list at: http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions the list of operating systems that meet your criteria? It appears that gNewSense includes LAME in binary format, and BLAG recommends it at https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Lame in much the same way OpenBSD does. ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check. In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar (https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is non-free. What is the license of Unrar? I will try to access that page, but I cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me. I will see if it works with plain http:. I don't think anyone is particularly upset that OpenBSD isn't among the software you recommend, but to claim that OpenBSD includes non-free software in its ports collection (using your definition of free) while claiming that gNewSense meets your criteria is disingenuous at best. At best, it's an accurate statement. At worst, the gNewSense developers made a mistake, and will correct it. My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted. I just can't follow this. Let's see what's written in the OpenBSD ports page (http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html): Motivation OpenBSD is a fairly complete system of its own, but still there is a lot of software that one might want to see added. However, there is the problem of where to draw the line as to what to include, as well as the occasional licensing and export restriction problems. As OpenBSD is supposed to be a small stand-alone UNIX-like operating system, some things just can't be shipped with the system. So, an operating system can born free (free as in speech, in the GNU sense) and then, become non-free just because some users decided to create a way to ease installations of software that just can't be shipped with the system? Despite some OpenBSD kernel developers are also port mantainers, I'd believe that the vast majority of the latter don't do kernel programming, so IMO, they could be labeled as users (since they're working in user space). Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their mistakes. So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I trust the developers will remove it once they find out. Well, it seems that we have the following pattern: - gNewSense, if someone finds a non-free program in it, that's no disaster - anything else, if someone finds a non free program in it, that's surely a disaster Please, sir, clarify On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed, then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed. That's what gives me stronger concern. The presence of non-free programs in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional. As a last question. Will gNewSense become non-free if I start a ports-like software install package project for it? Thanks in advance.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: ... On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed, then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed. That's what gives me stronger concern. The presence of non-free programs in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional. Partitioning the non-free material from the free material in the ports would be a first step. There are many who might choose to put their efforts into a free tool (or start one if it is missing) if the licensing categories were more apparent. -Lars
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I have been reading this debate with interest, and am confused on one key point. RMS wrote: Ututo and gNewSense have the policy not to include non-free programs, not even in a ports system. According to http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/Features, Universe enabled by default Does selecting Ubuntu Universe category for packages include Main and Restricted? If so, Restricted is non-free software, per http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
El mar, 11-12-2007 a las 14:00 -0500, Richard Stallman escribiC3: My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted. So a distro that comes (de-binaryzed) from ubuntu, that comes from debian that any of them allow you to install a (nvidia) blob or any of the non-free ports of openbsd, is more convenient that a system that fight over all, about the freedom of the users, developers and of the code. Please, dear rms, you can use any thing like opera on ututo or gnewsense, also you can taint the kernel, or browse in emacs for a flash web (the last is a fake, i think ;). Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their mistakes. So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I trust the developers will remove it once they find out. Pretty, even if they could develop something on the O.S. to avoid the use of blobs, firmwares, and non gpl'ed software by the users, it could be a killer Linux distribution. On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed, then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed. That's what gives me stronger concern. The presence of non-free programs in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional. Yes, like all the really free developed drivers, like the fight for documentation of hardware, excellent code and better license, like the really hard decisions that OpenBSD has chose about software and licenses on his time line. It is intentional and appreciated :) But say that OpenBSD is not a recomendable distribution for people that wants freedom, is like say that it is insecure by default, and is better a popolulufufulunix that comes whit a firewall activated by default. Greetings, and have a nice day. IC1igo
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it. Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too? There is not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents. Maybe that is true, but it's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm not a supporter of open source anyway; I fight for free software. In that case, if you are really fighting for free software Richard, and I very much respect that, regardless of licenses, or ideology, or what not. I have only one request/question for you and I hope you will consider it fair and in the interest of Free Software for all as you clearly put it. Why not advocate and request also from the FSF and from the GPL developers as you are the main person in the GPL license to extend the same hand and Free Software as you fight for and when a BSD write a great piece of software and that anyone in GNU, FSF or using the GPL find it worth to use and import, why not request to keep it under the same license as it's origin instead of locking it in the GPL at import time and then lock out the original developers of the BSD side. All fight aside, I really do not think it is asking to much is it? This way, what was given as Free Software will stay as free software of all and not exclude a big part of them. If you just sit back and think about this and about your goal in life of Free Software I would think you would fine it fare would you? You don't bite the hand that feed you and as such, I would think working together in the interest of Free Software would benefit all and having you also request the same would just be fair and fantastic in the interest of Free Software. Let a software be under it's license of choice by the author from it's birth to it's death. If a great GPL software is written and xBSD would love to use it, an in case of OpenBSD for example will have to re-write it under a BSD license if they want to have it in base and they will do so if worth the effort. However the GPL can just import it as is and as such the burning of the license choice is on the BSD side, not the GPL side. So, why not respect it and keep it as such and contribute back under the BSD, when the original BSD license software was taken. It's only fair and it is fully in the interest of Free Software. It sure in that case anyway allow for more users to fully use that Free Software and if your goal as clearly stated here is that Free Software then doing so, would actually spread that Free Software even more. Just something to think about in this holiday season. It sure would make a wonderful gift of Free Software to all if you would see it as such and not deviate from your goal, but fighting for it even more and respecting other introductions of Free Software Please, think about it before you reply if you do. It's important and is fully in line with your life time fight and goal of Free Software Best regards, Daniel
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Watching the latest flame war, I can't help thinking that as founders of their respective projects Theo and RMS are trapped in a jail of rigid consistency and absolutism demanded by children and utopians. Only at home, with the door locked, are they free to boot their home's sole computer, a Windows box, watch some Real Media streams and play a few Valve- controlled games. And late at night, when the ice weasels come, a hypnogogic fog provides cover for a last conscious thought: I wish, I wish, I wish... *I* had written OS X. -- Monty Brandenberg
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 11, 2007 11:00 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted. Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their mistakes. So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I trust the developers will remove it once they find out. just a layman here trying to make sense of it all. According to you, gNewSense, an ubuntu (debian) derivitave -- is free software. I use ubuntu on a laptop. According to gNewSense their policy supports use of the universe and main package repositories from ubuntu with the few mentioned changes. Apples to apples comparisons I say. I adjust my repositories in a repository browser and poke away. I find java, I find tools to work with many non-free pieces of software as well. So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Hi all, 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. Unix is becoming mainstream again. You should all work together at educating new people. http://www.fsf.org/news/freebios.html And especially : -- The FSF uses laptops donated by IBM over the past few years. This was one among several ways IBM cooperated with the GNU Project. But the cooperation is incomplete: when I asked for the specifications necessary to make LinuxBIOS run on these laptops, IBM refusedbciting, as the reason, the enforcement of trusted computing http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html Treacherous computing is, itself, an attack on our freedom; it is also, it seems, a motivation to obstruct our freedom in other ways. -- You can also help our campaign by writing to manufacturers such as Intel, saying they ought to cooperate with a fully free BIOS. Calm but strong disapproval, coupled with stating an intention to take action accordingly, is more effective than venting rage. Please send a copy of your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so we can monitor the support for this campaign. The more mail they get, the more effect, so please do add your voice to ours. -- For me BIOS, is mostly software embedded so i have to live with that 'closed source bios' (at least on peecee's ) i think i don't have to accept closed binary blobs at higher level ... Now, please, can we together stop feeding that awful troll ?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
mcb, inc. wrote: Watching the latest flame war, I can't help thinking that as founders of their respective projects Theo and RMS are trapped in a jail of rigid consistency and absolutism demanded by children and utopians. Well, yes and no. Theo's absolutism has kept OpenBSD pretty much the last blob-free OS in the Free Software world. RMS's absolutism has kept alive an ideal that launched the mainstream open source movement. So it's not non-functional. It's emotionally hard on the individuals concerned, and often emotionally hard on us who bask in the reflected glow of these geniuses :-). But it all seems to work out in practice. Has for a cuple of decades now, give or take a few years. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Darrin Chandler wrote: There seems to be a subtext in your message that one license is more free than the other, and that the more free license is the GPL. This is not true. I like both licenses and use software under both licenses. For software I write, I can easily see scenarios where I would use BSD, and others GPL. Offering something to someone as free with one hand, while taking back rights with the other is not free. BSD/MIT/ISC licenses retain a very minimal set of rights to the original author(s), and give away everything else. Whatever the merits of ISC v. GPL, there's really no debate on which is more free. Debate is inevitable: freedom is difficult to define. An individual's concept of freedom depends on their priorities and ideals. There just isn't one license that can meet everyone's requirements, or agree with everyone's ideology. The real value in these discussions for me lies in exploring what freedoms each license protects, and how they enhance the public good. Even stepping on each other's toes is good in a way: it means free speech is happening. In the end, I see licenses as tools, not dogma. As such, I refuse to be converted to either side. I can't be more even-handed than that. -Ken
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 11, 2007 2:55 PM, Josh Grosse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been reading this debate with interest, and am confused on one key point. RMS wrote: Ututo and gNewSense have the policy not to include non-free programs, not even in a ports system. According to http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/Features, Universe enabled by default Does selecting Ubuntu Universe category for packages include Main and Restricted? If so, Restricted is non-free software, per http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components Um, that first link says Restricted removed. So presumably they mean gNewSense = Ubuntu.Universe - Ubuntu.Restricted -Nick
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:41:27PM -0600, Ken Ismert wrote: Darrin Chandler wrote: Offering something to someone as free with one hand, while taking back rights with the other is not free. BSD/MIT/ISC licenses retain a very minimal set of rights to the original author(s), and give away everything else. Whatever the merits of ISC v. GPL, there's really no debate on which is more free. Debate is inevitable: freedom is difficult to define. An individual's concept of freedom depends on their priorities and ideals. There just isn't one license that can meet everyone's requirements, or agree with everyone's ideology. No, I'm not talking about what Freedom means to me. Freedom isn't difficult to define. Just look it up in a dictionary. BSD/MIT/ISC licenses are more Free than GPL. There's nothing to debate about that. It's just the way things are. The real value in these discussions for me lies in exploring what freedoms each license protects, and how they enhance the public good. Even stepping on each other's toes is good in a way: it means free speech is happening. If you stop saying free and freedoms and find a more accurate word I think your meaning will come through better. In the end, I see licenses as tools, not dogma. As such, I refuse to be converted to either side. I can't be more even-handed than that. You are correct. They are tools, and should be used as such. After having discussions with some people I have seen them *correctly* pick GPL, since it has the effects they desire. And, I've also seen people pick a BSD license even though they are GNU/Linux users. Good, in both cases, since the license represented their views. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:00:14PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it. Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too? Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists, c., all of which are free. OpenBSD's ports system depends on programs in the base system which are free. On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible, even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl, sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free) software. Your asking the question indicates that you might have done better to exclude OpenBSD from the scope of your remarks. When one does not know, the most appropriate statement is 'I don't know.' Loosely speaking, you can get away with saying pretty much anything that suits you at the time. Loosely speaking is the problem.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 11, 2007 3:21 PM, Karsten McMinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 11, 2007 11:00 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted. Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their mistakes. So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I trust the developers will remove it once they find out. So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages? It may be relevant to point out: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119731456628749w=2 Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports tree would be useful. PERMIT_*=(not Yes) The infrastructure is all there, it's just not emphasized. -Nick
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and then try to blame me for them. For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous, even inconvenient. However, if anyone wants to know what I do think, I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/. In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html. One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about what the system suggests to the user. Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore, if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of) non-free software. From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). 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. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public. I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense. The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros. You've got too much time on your hands.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 11, 2007 2:00 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it. Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too? There is not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents. Maybe that is true, but it's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm not a supporter of open source anyway; I fight for free software. Ututo and gNewSense have the policy not to include non-free programs, not even in a ports system. Thus, they don't do anything that contradicts the philosophy of free software. That's why I can recommend them. While I completely understand this point of view - and (more importantly) the motivation behind such decisions - what I am hearing from you is that an individual's (or project's) actions in fighting *against* proprietary and the closed-source mentality (whether it's a blob, no documentation, not considering NDA's etc..) is *less* important than whether or not users are allowed the *freedom* to add in software, that might possibly not follow these other goals.. This I simply don't understand. We are fighting for the same thing. And you cast the OpenBSD project out because there are users that invest the effort to provide other users ports that may or may not follow the *projects* goals and work? Mr. Stallman, it is with great respect that I say these things, as I believe your noble efforts in these areas are commendable and have had a great influence on our communities, but I do not understand the discrepancies here. Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the distribution. 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? is your project worthless because of these users 'actions? kind regards, Jason
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 14:00:43 Richard Stallman wrote: Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD? Because he tends to be unfriendly. Now *that* I find humorous. I find it Kafka-esque, your inability to reccomend OpenBSD because of some unfree items in the ports tree. Effectively you are taking away the right of people to choose the software they wish to use. Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the freedom of choice in the name of freedom. That is bizarre. --STeve Andre'
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:00:14PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it. Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too? Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists, c., all of which are free. OpenBSD's ports system depends on programs in the base system which are free. On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible, even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl, sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free) software. Your asking the question indicates that you might have done better to exclude OpenBSD from the scope of your remarks. When one does not know, the most appropriate statement is 'I don't know.' Loosely speaking, you can get away with saying pretty much anything that suits you at the time. Loosely speaking is the problem. William is right. The OpenBSD ports tree is just a scaffold, and that scaffold is 100% free. It contains no non-free parts. It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports tree has no non-free software in it at all. Does that make it non-free? Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software? Richard -- you spoke out of line. You are wrong.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I'm a very happy user of both OpenBSD and GNU/Linux systems, but what I don't get is, how is limiting a users choice in what he/she runs on his/her system more free than one that doesn't? Absolute freedom is to be able to do whatever the hell you want to with no limitations placed on you whatsoever. By this definition, public domain is the only truly free license. I understand and appreciate the freedom that is defined by both the BSD and GPL licenses; that of ensuring the authors continual right of ownership. However, in terms of true freedom, both have limitations in place. Not that I disagree with the limitations they have, in fact I support them both as the current systems in place require the need to protect your original copyright. It's Utopian for me to think this, but in an ideal setting, there would be no need for any licesnes and everything would be available in the public domain. But since we are arguing about which license ensures more freedom, I think they both fall short of what it actually means to be free.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Darrin Chandler wrote: ... BSD/MIT/ISC licenses are more Free than GPL. There's nothing to debate about that. It's just the way things are ... I don't doubt your claims one iota. But in saying that, don't believe you have convinced me that the other side somehow has less valid claims. And yes, that's inconsistent. Maybe it's because of growing older, world-weariness, or just plain mental inferiority, but I have come to a place where I realize I hold some inconsistent and contradictory views, and I've found that I'm OK with that. In this case, it's just pragmatic: I want both licenses, and argument seems pointless. -Ken
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it. Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too? There is not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents. Maybe that is true, but it's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm not a supporter of open source anyway; I fight for free software. Ututo and gNewSense have the policy not to include non-free programs, not even in a ports system. Thus, they don't do anything that contradicts the philosophy of free software. That's why I can recommend them. Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the distribution. 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. Where's the freedom in not being able to use (under your definition of non-free software) non-free or otherwise restricted software? Freedom is about being free to make your own choice, no matter what the content of that choice is. Even if that choice inhibits freedom. Glenn
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check. The source code of LAME is licensed under the LGPL; however, the mp3 format itself is patented and restricted. Further reading: http://www.mp3-tech.org/patents.html http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developers.html In short, the patents don't affect what you can do with the source code, they affect what you can do with the program after you compile it. So, you can modify, compile and distribute the program all you want, but if you actually execute the program you need a patent license. I suppose that could be considered Free Software, with a very narrow definition of Free. What is the license of Unrar? I will try to access that page, but I cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me. I will see if it works with plain http:. Unfortuately, several of the sites linked from the FSF page require viewing using their self-signed SSL cert for some reason. From license.txt in the unrar source archive: - The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary. - That seems to run completely counter to the ideals of the GPL, but I suppose you're the expert. On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed, then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed. That's what gives me stronger concern. The presence of non-free programs in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional. I'm not sure I see how this is an issue. With gNewSense, I can point to the Debian/Ubuntu repositories and install unfree software binaries. With OpenBSD, to run unfree software I need to check out the Ports tree, find the package I want to run, compile it, and install it. (Note the distinction between Ports, which contains all the third-party software, and Packages, which contains only Free software.) So, it would seem that (barring human error) the primary philosophical difference between the packaging systems of OpenBSD and gNewSense is that gNewSense tries to prevent you from seeing any packages they consider non-Free, while OpenBSD directly provides only Free software (Packages) but gives the user a choice of installing any software (Ports). So, from my point of view, OpenBSD provides the user with more freedom by not imposing artificial restrictions. After all, this removes the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what one is or is not entitled to do with it[1]. Do you disagree? [1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html, Why All Computer Users Will Benefit
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD? Because he tends to be unfriendly. Interestingly enough, if you specified that as the reason you recommend against using OpenBSD, this thread would have been a lot shorter. Somehow I think Theo is more interested in writing code and changing the world than making friends. Personally, I think he's made the right choice.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 01:49:19PM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote: mcb, inc. wrote: Watching the latest flame war, I can't help thinking that as founders of their respective projects Theo and RMS are trapped in a jail of rigid consistency and absolutism demanded by children and utopians. Well, yes and no. Theo's absolutism has kept OpenBSD pretty much the last blob-free OS in the Free Software world. RMS's absolutism has kept alive an ideal that launched the mainstream open source movement. his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a problem, a social failure. So it's not non-functional. It's emotionally hard on the individuals concerned, and often emotionally hard on us who bask in the reflected glow of these geniuses :-). But it all seems to work out in practice. Has for a cuple of decades now, give or take a few years. recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the BSD community is being petty to make an issue out of it. and all stallman says about it is basically, I am not familiar with the situation, leave me alone. I would like to see more cooperation between the free software developers. but IMO, stallman is the one being far more unfriendly and uncooperative. of course stallman is not directly responsible for the actions of the GPL community. but his opinions do wield power. didn't this whole thread start because of his opinions and recommendations? now stallman won't talk to theo, because theo is unabashed in stating his opinions? just look at the thread. between theo and stallman, who posted the most words, and who gave less misinformation/slant? in much fewer words: the gutless politician attempted to use his influence to snub and smear his opponent. when fallacies in his campaign were brought to light, he accused his opponent of being unfriendly. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore, if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of) non-free software. Therefore, you don't recommend linux. Oh wait ... I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs. However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, No it doesn't suggest non-free programs in any way; it just makes it possible and easy to install them. Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using that program. It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that is what I am opposed to. You may have a different interpretation of these facts. That's my interpretation of them.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 04:49:34PM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote: On Tuesday 11 December 2007 14:00:43 Richard Stallman wrote: Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD? Because he tends to be unfriendly. Now *that* I find humorous. I find it Kafka-esque, your inability to reccomend OpenBSD because of some unfree items in the ports tree. Effectively you are taking away the right of people to choose the software they wish to use. It is me, who finds it humurous that you consider a recommendation as taking away the right of people choosing the software they wish to use. If I recommend you not to jump into a well, am I taking your liberty to jump into it? It would be quite funny to see how bits bytes, my only interaction with you, could ever prevent you from a refreshing bath :) Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the freedom of choice in the name of freedom. That is bizarre... Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Setting Orange, the 53rd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Jacob Meuser wrote: his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a problem, a social failure. In everything, there is light and dark, interwoven :-) recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the BSD community is being petty to make an issue out of it. Well, sue 'em, if it's so. But no point in sulking. Like the ENTIRE PROGRAMMING COMMUNITY, we're a bunch of cantankerous, contentious, contumacious perfectionists. Stallman and Theo especially. And you, too. And me. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:00:14PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it. Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too? William Boshuck wrote: Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists, c., all of which are free. OpenBSD's ports system depends on programs in the base system which are free. On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible, even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl, sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free) software. On 11/12/2007, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William is right. The OpenBSD ports tree is just a scaffold, and that scaffold is 100% free. It contains no non-free parts. It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports tree has no non-free software in it at all. Does that make it non-free? I would like to ask Richard a question. It may seem off-topic, but it isn't: Do you believe that The Pirate Bay is guilty of copyright infringement? In case you're not familiar, The Pirate Bay ( http://thepiratebay.org/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay ) is a Swedish website that offers users the opportunity to upload metadata files that contain information about where and how data files can be downloaded. It also allows users to download the metadata files that users have uploaded. Some users (possibly even a large number) use this service to upload metadata files that contain info that can be used to obtain copyrighted material, possibly without the copyright holder's permission. This is IMHO very similar to the way the OpenBSD ports system is related to unfree software: - The unfree software is not hosted by OpenBSD. The ports tree effectively only contains metadata. - The individual ports in the ports system are maintained by (advanced) OpenBSD users. The inclusion of a port that users chose to submit and maintain does not imply an endorsement of the (possibly unfree) software that can be installed using the port metadata. - The use of the ports system is officially *discouraged* for average users. Average Joes are encouraged to *not* use ports but use OpenBSD _packages_ instead, which are precompiled binaries which are hosted by OpenBSD. ( See IMPORTANT NOTE here: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports ) There are no unfree packages. See for yourself: (caution: very long page and long load) http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html - Unlike the Pirate Bay, the OpenBSD ports system does itself distinguish between free and unfree content. See this comment by Nick Guenther: It may be relevant to point out: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119731456628749w=2 Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports tree would be useful. PERMIT_*=(not Yes) In addition, it is *considerably harder* to install unfree software on OpenBSD than on gNewSense. This eg. is what installing Skype entails: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.bsd.india/352 On gNewSense, it is *much* easier to install Skype. Just add an unfree repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so why expect more from OpenBSD? Richard, I you wrote: If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros. I suspect that your skepticism of OpenBSD stems from yourself being unfamiliar with the OpenBSD packages and ports system and not aware that the OpenBSD project does not in fact host unfree packages (and that ports for unfree programs such as users have submitted only contain metadata). In summary, I strongly feel that OpenBSD in fact does *not* suggest non-free programs. Despite the heated and sometimes personal nature of this thread, I think the honorable thing to do would be to be the bigger man and acknowledge the misunderstandings and make good on your offer to recommend OpenBSD. Thanks and regards, --ropers
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 11, 2007, at 6:56 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using that program. It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that is what I am opposed to. Where is your line in the sand? When does an operating system become free by your interpretation? When non-free ports frameworks are hosted outside the official OpenBSD cvs repository? On a server not owned by the OpenBSD project? What if I want to host it on my own server, but I also happen to be an OpenBSD developer? When does the disassociation satisfy your unpublished requirements? Your interpretation is vague and self-serving. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Is it April 2008 already, or what is happening on this mailing list ? I am about two weeks behind reading but out of curiosity I read a few emails in this thread and well, almost can't believe it. I better stop reading this list for a while and come back after doing something usefull, like installing my alphas and checking wether this damned AlphaBug is really gone gone... ;) Those are my computers and they will eat what I feed them, wether it's free, unfree, payed, unpayed, typed in, downloaded, zigzagged or whatever. I'm free they are not harharhar. That simple. n8, sm.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 11, 2007 3:48 PM, Siegbert Marschall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it April 2008 already, or what is happening on this mailing list ? No, but it is about the time for the monthly what is happening to misc comments ;) -B
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:11:25PM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote: Jacob Meuser wrote: his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a problem, a social failure. In everything, there is light and dark, interwoven :-) recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the BSD community is being petty to make an issue out of it. Well, sue 'em, if it's so. But no point in sulking. Like the ENTIRE PROGRAMMING COMMUNITY, we're a bunch of cantankerous, contentious, contumacious perfectionists. hmmm, I do/have done a fair amount of work adding/maintaining GPL software in the ports collection. I was working on a port for libcdio, an GNU project. there'a a file in NetBSD's pkgsrc that adds support for NetBSD/OpenBSD cd(4). that file is BSD licensed. the README.libcdio file in the libcdio sources mentions this file and says it can't be included because it's not GPL. I contacted the libcdio maintainer about this file, and he again said he could not include it because the BSD license is incompatible. whatever. so I contacted the author of said file, asking if he could change the license so it could be included upstream. he eventually agreed. I'm only posting this because I understand how easy it could be to look at my remarks and conclude I'm just another theo fan-boy BSD zealot. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I'd like to add two things I forgot earlier on, for Richards consideration: On 12/12/2007, ropers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is IMHO very similar to the way the OpenBSD ports system is related to unfree software: - The unfree software is not hosted by OpenBSD. The ports tree effectively only contains metadata. - The individual ports in the ports system are maintained by (advanced) OpenBSD users. The inclusion of a port that users chose to submit and maintain does not imply an endorsement of the (possibly unfree) software that can be installed using the port metadata. - The use of the ports system is officially *discouraged* for average users. Average Joes are encouraged to *not* use ports but use OpenBSD _packages_ instead, which are precompiled binaries which are hosted by OpenBSD. ( See IMPORTANT NOTE here: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports ) There are no unfree packages. See for yourself: (caution: very long page and long load) http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html - Unlike the Pirate Bay, the OpenBSD ports system does itself distinguish between free and unfree content. See this comment by Nick Guenther: It may be relevant to point out: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119731456628749w=2 Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports tree would be useful. PERMIT_*=(not Yes) - Here I'd like to add that the ports tree is *not* part of the OpenBSD operating system install. The ports tree is something the user has to actively look for and check out to their local system if they want it. This means that the OpenBSD OS and install CD are *completely free* of even the metadata repository that contains user-contributed metadata files, only a minority of which refer to unfree software. As far as I understand, the OpenBSD position appears to be that trying to police users by forbidding them to maintain and retrieve port metadata about unfree software via this adjunct service (that is not included in the OS) would be a restriction of the users' freedom. The Pirate Bay does not police torrents, or suppress certain torrents, and OpenBSD does likewise not police ports. If a user wants to be an ass and do something stupid and unethical, they can. They have the freedom to do that. But don't blame OpenBSD for that. It only has an adjunct facility that allows what is effectively the exchange of advanced semi-automated usage information, nothing more. And yes, it even allows users to exchange stupid usage information, such as how to install unfree-app-xyz. The choice whether to do something stupid is left up to the user, but the user is advised not to use ports in the first place, and hints that allow users to more easily distinguish halal from haram software are in place. In addition, it is *considerably harder* to install unfree software on OpenBSD than on gNewSense. This eg. is what installing Skype entails: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.bsd.india/352 On gNewSense, it is *much* easier to install Skype. Just add an unfree repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so why expect more from OpenBSD? Also, the installation of unfree software is *extremely* frowned upon by the OpenBSD user community. To stay with the Skype example: http://www.nabble.com/Skype-on-the-OpenBSD-td14113398.html http://www.nabble.com/Skype-on-the-OpenBSD-td14113398i20.html Richard, I you wrote: If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros. I suspect that your skepticism of OpenBSD stems from yourself being unfamiliar with the OpenBSD packages and ports system and not aware that the OpenBSD project does not in fact host unfree packages (and that ports for unfree programs such as users have submitted only contain metadata). In summary, I strongly feel that OpenBSD in fact does *not* suggest non-free programs. Despite the heated and sometimes personal nature of this thread, I think the honorable thing to do would be to be the bigger man and acknowledge the misunderstandings and make good on your offer to recommend OpenBSD. Thanks and regards, --ropers
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
* ropers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-12 01:17:32]: *snip* In addition, it is *considerably harder* to install unfree software on OpenBSD than on gNewSense. This eg. is what installing Skype entails: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.bsd.india/352 On gNewSense, it is *much* easier to install Skype. Just add an unfree repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so why expect more from OpenBSD? I agree, In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL software is to basically only distribute binaries for say, atleast the kernel, and only allow cryptographically hashed binaries to run, or something of that sort. That would not stand up long, you could say, offline replace the kernel, or hell, just fork the distribution, or any other myriad of ways. The point is that is very difficult to force people to behave in certain ways, such as only using GPL software. However, if they _want_ to only use GPL software, then that's what they will do. You _can_ run OpenBSD without non GPL, non BSD licensed software. That's how it ships, (save for firmware which we have the rigths to distribute.) Just as you can also run it with something not open and not free. Attempts to force users to do otherwise would be futile. This is the exact same case with the 100% FSF-approved linux distributions Stallman suggested. People do not run non free software on these distributions. It's not because they can't, it's because they don't want to. An aside: The GPL does its job, but only if people put that license on their software. So remember--people's wills, not the license. -- Travers Buda
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Jacob Meuser wrote: the README.libcdio file in the libcdio sources mentions this file and says it can't be included because it's not GPL. I contacted the libcdio maintainer about this file, and he again said he could not include it because the BSD license is incompatible. Yes, our community of people who generally believe in free software and open source find many ways to roll bowling balls at each other's ankles. We're very silly sometimes. Idealists do tend towards intolerance, especially of other idealists. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Real men don't attack straw men
It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and then try to blame me for them. For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous, even inconvenient. However, if anyone wants to know what I do think, I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/. In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html. One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about what the system suggests to the user. Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore, if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of) non-free software. From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). 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. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public. I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense. The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 12/10/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about what the system suggests to the user. Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore, if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of) non-free software. From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 We're on the same side here. The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros. Sir, it was brought up that the linux distributions you do suggest do often include in their ports systems non-free software. See e.g. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119726055819074w=2 What do you say to that? Was that a lie or a mistake? Respectfully, -Nick
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and then try to blame me for them. For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous, even inconvenient. However, if anyone wants to know what I do think, I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/. In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html. *yawn* One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about what the system suggests to the user. What you recommend is quite boring what is not boring is your lack of research into this topic. It's ok to not know what you are talking about; it is not ok to make blanket statements based on hearsay. Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore, if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of) non-free software. OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it. There is not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents. We actually have standards. From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). 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. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public. Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the distribution. Unlike linux OpenBSD does not have a HAL. I can go on for a while. I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense. Here is one, the code isn't bloated and doesn't mostly suck. I find it unethical to recommend a steaming pile of crap to someone. The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros. Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones intelligence. You are basically saying: you are retarded if you don't let me tell you what you want.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Nick Guenther wrote: From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39 We're on the same side here. He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host machine's processor. Browse around under: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/ For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be redistributed as object code only.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Marco Peereboom wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros. Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones intelligence. You are basically saying: you are retarded if you don't let me tell you what you want. marco, you're forgetting that this is what freedom is all about in the US: i tell you what free is... and what the definition of is is... claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here. the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;) --
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman wrote: Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore, if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of) some non-free program, I do not recommend it. The systems I recommend are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of) non-free software. Is the list at: http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions the list of operating systems that meet your criteria? It appears that gNewSense includes LAME in binary format, and BLAG recommends it at https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Lame in much the same way OpenBSD does. In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar (https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is non-free. Since I have time to rant but don't have time and resources to download and install two new operating systems, feel free to correct me if my impressions are wrong. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public. I don't think anyone is particularly upset that OpenBSD isn't among the software you recommend, but to claim that OpenBSD includes non-free software in its ports collection (using your definition of free) while claiming that gNewSense meets your criteria is disingenuous at best.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 10, 2007 12:55 PM, Jacob Yocom-Piatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones intelligence. You are basically saying: you are retarded if you don't let me tell you what you want. marco, you're forgetting that this is what freedom is all about in the US: i tell you what free is... and what the definition of is is... Has nothing to do with what freedom is all about in the U.Show about keeping this apolitical and on subject; that being RMS's comments as an individual.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
RMS, Given what I've read, listened to, and specifically what you've said here: From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). 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. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public. ..maybe you should look into the OpenBSD project, methods, and the end result - not necessarily to promote OpenBSD in some way, because I don't believe anyone here sees value in that - but to educate yourself, rather than speak from what someone else has commented on, or little bits of cursory research. I think it's difficult getting a sense of what OpenBSD stands for without having used the OS itself, or what it provides. I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense. the ultimate freedom is that of free choice. As I've seen, the OpenBSD developers have fought tooth-and-nail, in many cases to the bitter end, to provide the cleanest and freest operating system available. It is coherent, and cohesive. In some cases, it's frustrating, simply because support for non-free entities are sketchy or flat-out aren't available. But at the same time, the opportunity remains open for folks to implement their non-free whatevers if they so choose, though they probably won't get the support of the developers, they may get support from other users.. all of us are working with varying levels of conviction and outside influences. That being said, I believe those of the developers, many openbsd users, are stricter and more focused any other single group of computer users. again.. my words come from my perspective, from what I've heard/read on this list and across the internet, as well as my experiences in using windows, linux, *BSD, and seeing the effects of these sorts of issues even in the non-technical areas of our lives. So again.. I think OpenBSD should be tried and explored before being labeled. Thank you for your time, ~Jason
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote: He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host machine's processor. Browse around under: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/ For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be redistributed as object code only. yes, but it is so stupid, the firmware is loaded into the device and not running in OpenBSD itself. in the past, the microcode was normally stored in non-volatile memory on the hardware device, let's say a NIC, but now most of the devices require to load the firmware into RAM. it is cheaper to do it this way, flash chips are just too expensive for the mass market. mostly all of the new ethernet and wireless cards require to load an external firmware image into the _card's_ RAM, it wouldn't be possible to support any of these chipsets without using their firmware. but again, there is a major difference between binary blobs and firmware images; the blobs are loaded as code into the OS kernel, but the firmware runs directly on the device on crappy embedded micro CPUs. asking the vendors for releasing their firmware source code is just ridiculous or a nightmare since I don't even want to see this code (we wouldn't even have the right compiler for this)... anyway, i'm clearly against binary blobs in the kernel, and in contrast to most of the GNU/Linux dudes i _did_ some against it by writing ar5k, instead of pointing into the wrong direction. this open firmware discussion is just a joke to make the relevant discussion, binary blobs in the OS kernel, irrelevant. reyk
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
2007/12/10, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). 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. Richard, do you still remember the 2004 FSF awards? http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html Theo's leadership of OpenBSD, his selfless commitment to Free Software ... Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD? Best Martin
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Doug Fordham wrote: On Dec 10, 2007 12:55 PM, Jacob Yocom-Piatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones intelligence. You are basically saying: you are retarded if you don't let me tell you what you want. marco, you're forgetting that this is what freedom is all about in the US: i tell you what free is... and what the definition of is is... Has nothing to do with what freedom is all about in the U.Show about keeping this apolitical and on subject; that being RMS's comments as an individual. how about keeping this on subject and including my directly relevant comment in your response claiming that my response is not relevant: claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here. the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;) the initial comment is an obvious tie-in to the second one i made: by choosing how to define free, rms twists the issue at hand and spins it as he sees fit, in this case to support his own interests and projects he likes. i am merely pointing out the connection between the tack that many US institutions take and his, IMO, acutely misleading comments. in this context the analogy is directly relevant. if such blatantly self-serving comments were to come from me, another US citizen, i would not be one bit surprised if i were criticized on the same grounds. --
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:58:40PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote: He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host machine's processor. Browse around under: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/ For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be redistributed as object code only. [...] anyway, i'm clearly against binary blobs in the kernel, and in contrast to most of the GNU/Linux dudes i _did_ some against it by writing ar5k, instead of pointing into the wrong direction. this open firmware discussion is just a joke to make the relevant discussion, binary blobs in the OS kernel, irrelevant. ... and oddly enough it is the most activist of the _GNU_/Linux dudes who did not care enough about your efforts in ar5k to raise his voice for the freedom of software and yet feels the urge to teach us all a lesson about the true meaning of free software. Gilles
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about what the system suggests to the user. [...] From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs). 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. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public. [...] The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically important. If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros. You do realize that that specific stance is *completely* hypocritical. You do not recommend OpenBSD because its ports system states upfront that there *are* non-free pieces of software that works under it. But you recommend Linux distros, even though every one out there knows there are *more* pieces of non-software that work in it. Even though Linux contains hooks to allow for binary blobs, or is careful to stay compatible with binary drivers from nvidia and ATI for people to choose from. But n, linux distros are white as a cygnus, since they don't suggest out-right you can install non-free software. They just happen to make it very easy, and you can just simply run into extended distros and sites that make it *as trivial* to install non-free stuff as the OpenBSD ports system. Heck, *most linux distros out there* have a non-free section as well. You *do know* that the non-free section of the OpenBSD ports tree is labelled as such, don't you ? you do know we forbid redistribution on CD-Rom of various pieces of software. Hence, non-free stuff does not make it to the official CD-Rom. It does not even make it to the ftp site. This includes such prominent stuff as sun's java, which is not free... and which is probably one of the most commonly installed linux software out there... along with binary drivers for nvidia cards and other hardware. Hypocrit.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 12/10/07, Jacob Yocom-Piatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here. the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;) the initial comment is an obvious tie-in to the second one i made: by choosing how to define free, rms twists the issue at hand and spins it as he sees fit, You're misrepresenting his argument. RMS does not recommend OpenBSD because it distributes binary firmware without source code and includes non-free software in the ports system. His position has nothing to do with BSD/ISC vs. GPL. That being said, the OpenBSD developers have given their arguments why they include firmware and non-free ports, and RMS has given his arguments why he doesn't recommend systems that do. I don't see this thread leading to reconciliation of the two sides.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 10, 2007 3:31 PM, Jacob Yocom-Piatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Fordham wrote: On Dec 10, 2007 12:55 PM, Jacob Yocom-Piatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones intelligence. You are basically saying: you are retarded if you don't let me tell you what you want. marco, you're forgetting that this is what freedom is all about in the US: i tell you what free is... and what the definition of is is... Has nothing to do with what freedom is all about in the U.Show about keeping this apolitical and on subject; that being RMS's comments as an individual. how about keeping this on subject and including my directly relevant comment in your response claiming that my response is not relevant: claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here. the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;) the initial comment is an obvious tie-in to the second one i made: by choosing how to define free, rms twists the issue at hand and spins it as he sees fit, in this case to support his own interests and projects he likes. i am merely pointing out the connection between the tack that many US institutions take and his, IMO, acutely misleading comments. in this context the analogy is directly relevant. if such blatantly self-serving comments were to come from me, another US citizen, i would not be one bit surprised if i were criticized on the same grounds. Actually, I'm not claiming that your response is irrelevant and In fact, I agree with your points concerning the rms spin doctor techniques and misleading comments. The only contention was with the this is what freedom is all about in the US. RMS' comments really do not relate to what freedom (whatever definition one chooses to employ) is all about; in the US or anywhere else. RMS's philosophy is citizenship neutral, and in order to properly counter his (misguided) concepts, opposing arguments should be politically neutral as well. From RMS' comments, it is obvious that he has not used OpenBSD and his position is based on a From what I've heard... His obvious lack of research and preparation prior to posting to this list, and his subtle comparision of OpenBSD and gNewSense confirms that a hard grasp of reality is missing. For, while it is admirable that the gNewSense folks are putting together a blob-free distribution (on the backs of the Debian Ubuntu Projects), comparing the gNewSense project to the OpenBSD Project is akin to comparing a glider to the space shuttle; in terms of functionality, complexity, and the overall knowledge, experience and professionalism of the developers. Regards, df
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't recommend OpenBSD. It is not about what the system allows. (Any general purpose system allows doing anything at all.) It is about what the system suggests to the user. http://marc.info/?t=11965833192r=1w=2 http://forum.skype.com/lofiversion/index.php/t96248.html OpenBSD suggests non-free software? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:20:00 -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote: That being said, the OpenBSD developers have given their arguments why they include firmware and non-free ports, and RMS has given his arguments why he doesn't recommend systems that do. I don't see this thread leading to reconciliation of the two sides. Thanks, Matthew, for some balances in this thread. I don't see a need to reconcile the two sides. (It would be good if that was possible, though.) RMS wrote, why in his personal opinion, he does not recommend the use of OpenBSD. And some p*** at him. What a shame ! 'Freedom' is not only one's choice of software, but also one's choice of an own opinion. It would serve this list and the people on it well, to allow RMS to voice his own opinion. And, if in personal disagreement, argue. Like some actually did in here.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 10, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Uwe Dippel wrote: On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:20:00 -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote: That being said, the OpenBSD developers have given their arguments why they include firmware and non-free ports, and RMS has given his arguments why he doesn't recommend systems that do. I don't see this thread leading to reconciliation of the two sides. Thanks, Matthew, for some balances in this thread. I don't see a need to reconcile the two sides. (It would be good if that was possible, though.) RMS wrote, why in his personal opinion, he does not recommend the use of OpenBSD. And some p*** at him. What a shame ! 'Freedom' is not only one's choice of software, but also one's choice of an own opinion. It would serve this list and the people on it well, to allow RMS to voice his own opinion. And, if in personal disagreement, argue. Like some actually did in here. Nobody is criticizing RMS over his opinion. They are criticizing him for ignorance and misrepresentation of the facts regarding OpenBSD. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Jason Dixon wrote: Nobody is criticizing RMS over his opinion. They are criticizing him for ignorance and misrepresentation of the facts regarding OpenBSD. And the solution for that is to point out the factors which differentiate OpenBSD from the others, because it is these characteristics which RMS actually praised during the BSDTalk interview. Possibly there is a bit of confusion between FreeBSD which is oriented towards proprietary binaries and OpenBSD which requires full source code. -Lars
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
2007/12/11 Uwe Dippel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:20:00 -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote: I don't see a need to reconcile the two sides. (It would be good if that was possible, though.) Unfortunately, BSD and GNU come from different perspective, hence different philosophy of what free and open source software could/would/should be. In my opinion (and I welcome correction on this one), BSD historically came from the perspective of academically improving a proprietary ATT software while moving away from the original proprietary code and fully disclose the improved code while still providing for the proprietary software to incorporate those academic improvements with further option to keep their proprietary enhancement to themselves. This option for incorporating and optionally withholding those improvements is what many cite as BSD's more liberal licensing feature. GNU and GPL, on the other hand, comes from the struggle against proprietary software entities and ward off interest of incorporating free and open source code into the fold of closed-source proprietary software thus ensuring the availability of the source code for enhancement and oblige the availability of those improvements to all. This obligation on the part of those improving the source code is criticized as restrictive, but it guarantees full source code improvement/change disclosure. -- Tito Mari Francis H. Escaqo Computer Engineer and Free Software Proponent
