On 12/13/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
and thus contradicts the idea that software should be free.
Dadgummit! Now we're going to have to tell
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:51:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a problem, a
social failure.
If some people think that, they did not get it from me. I do not call
BSD either of those things. I say that releasing free software under
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:59:27PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard, you are a total hypocrite. You are in here creating a fuss about
our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same
thing yourself.
Please see
Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
I don't think it is wrong in general to relicense code from BSD to
GPL. However,
On Dec 13, 2007 5:52 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Freedom means having control of your own life; Freedom of choice is
a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and
taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions.
Thus, I say I advocate
On 12/13/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html
And
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
Not to mention:
http://directory.fsf.org/project/reactOS/ - ReactOS is a project to
create a free operating system
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:30:28 +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
Richard,
while we do provide a free operating system,
http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar.
(while others promise the moon, we deliver.)
- Marc
Ooooh! That one is
This is what I've learned - and how my perspective has changed - In
following this thread, over the last two days:
- Stallman cares more about appearances and outward responses than actions
- Stallman is a hypocrite, circles himself within his words, and
attempts to confuse others in the
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:30:28PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
while we do provide a free operating system,
http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar.
And makes it total clear that you are the hypocrite and a liar.
Choice quotes from
Now the answer is...
Stallman, why did you start this thread? It is totaly absurd, it does
not make any sense...
Borja Tarraso
Marc Balmer wrote:
Richard,
while we do provide a free operating system,
http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Theo de Raadt wrote:
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.
Thus, we should not steer people towards non-free software.
Both those software
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
...
Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
and thus contradicts the idea that software should be free.
...
This philosophy disturbs me, and
Borja Tarraso wrote:
Stallman, why did you start this thread? It is totaly absurd, it does
not make any sense...
Sounds like the first three lines for Ty's next song!
Stallman, why did you start this thread?
It is totaly absurd,
It does not make any sense
OpenBSD is as free as the wind
On 12/13/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:51:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
If such an issue arises for a GNU package, and people think it is not
doing the most useful thing, I will look at the issue and then if
necessary discuss it with the
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:09:21PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Emacs *binaries* for *Windows*
Supplied right by Richard's http and ftp mirrors.
Yes, Emacs for people who aren't as fortunate as you or I am.
Richard, I may be unfriendly, but you are a lying hypocritical
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
[...]
Does that make it non-free?
Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
and thus contradicts the idea that software should be
Hey, we could all use the same arguments and call OpenBSD hypocritical:
say no to blobs (it's even on the nvidia-wallpaper!) but say yes to
libflashplayer.so (which is of course secure because it's obscure, but
more than that it's a necessity for so many users which makes it
ethical to use it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
This is what I felt; All comments are welcome.
If both parties were at fault for somehow giving the user the wrong
idea that flash player is great on BSD OR windows is great coz it runs
emacs, is this the right way to settle it?
The honest way
On Dec 13, 2007 12:30 PM, bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But - seriously, as a project, do we need the validation from
FSF/Richard?
This is a topic I would like covered. If we were to decide to adhere to
Richard's requirements for inclusion on his free software list, what are the
benefits,
2007/12/13, Gregg Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 12/13/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html
And
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
Not to mention:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 06:56:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
| in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
Interesting, these linux distributions. They seem to be pretty new,
what did you recommend
On Dec 13, 2007 11:59 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard, you are a total hypocrite. You are in here creating a fuss about
our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same
thing yourself.
Please see
perhaps using pcc as a gcc replacement in openbsd doesn't settle well
with rms and this is all a smokescreen?
this was someone else's suggestion and they will remain unnamed.
--
Someone already mentioned Hitler.
Can we let this thread die.
--- Marina Brown
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:15:08 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:30:28PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
while we do provide a free operating system,
http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar.
And makes it
On Dec 13, 2007 10:58 AM, Tom Rosso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 10:30 AM, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good people of MISC land, could we please drop this thread, its lasted
way longer than really needed.
I'm enjoying watching RMS struggle and fail to make any
snip
If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free
software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port
tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some
other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:50:39PM -0700, Tom Rosso wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 12:30 PM, bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But - seriously, as a project, do we need the validation from
FSF/Richard?
This is a topic I would like covered. If we were to decide to adhere to
Richard's requirements
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:59:08PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
I don't think
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:02:45 +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Hey, we could all use the same arguments and call OpenBSD hypocritical:
say no to blobs (it's even on the nvidia-wallpaper!) but say yes to
libflashplayer.so (which is of course secure because it's obscure, but
more than that it's a
[troll]
WARNING: Thread Parody.
Original: Keanu Sausage
skit from the episode Operation: Rich in Spirit
Operation: Rich in Spirit is the sevententh episode of
season one of the television comedy series Robot Chicken.
To see the original, simply google for
robot chicken keanu and you will find
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:30:28PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
while we do provide a free operating system,
http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar.
And makes it total
Richard, I may be unfriendly, but you are a lying hypocritical
asshole.
this pretty much sums up everything. can we all stop now? (-:
aaron.glenn
Nah, it's too much fun... seriously though, even though ultimately
pointless, I think it's a worthy public debate. Let him expound his
$ uname -a
OpenBSD moobile.peereboom.us 4.2 GENERIC#7 i386
$ locate libflashplayer.so
$
what the fuck are you talking about?
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:51:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
If such an issue arises for a GNU package, and people think it is not
doing the most useful thing, I will look at the issue and then if
necessary discuss it with the developers.
I forgot, dictator do create rules for others to
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:59:08PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
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
* Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 05:02:45]:
Hey, we could all use the same arguments and call OpenBSD hypocritical:
say no to blobs (it's even on the nvidia-wallpaper!) but say yes to
libflashplayer.so (which is of course secure because it's obscure, but
more than that it's a
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork
Richard would surely approve of.
Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
I have no doubt that in some context Richard is
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork
Richard would surely approve of.
Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
I have no doubt that in some context
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:23 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this
thread
down.
Nobody here asked for or WANTS his endorsement. He started the
thread. We could give a shit
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:23 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this
thread
down.
Nobody here asked for or WANTS his endorsement. He started the
thread. We could
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork
Richard would surely approve of.
Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
I have no doubt
ropers wrote:
This site uses ABLOBE Flush*, but it's TEH FUNNAY:
http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GBword1=OpenBSDword2=Richard+Stallman
*) But it's also lynx(1) compatible: Follow the IFRAME: content link
to see the gist of things. In the Flush version there's also a winning
stick
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork
Richard would surely approve of.
Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
I
This site uses ABLOBE Flush*, but it's TEH FUNNAY:
http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GBword1=OpenBSDword2=Richard+Stallman
*) But it's also lynx(1) compatible: Follow the IFRAME: content link
to see the gist of things. In the Flush version there's also a winning
stick figure knocking the
For kicks, I headed over to gnewsense.org.
I really encourage people to check out the forums there (
http://wiki.gnewsense.org/ForumMain/ForumMain ) and see the kinds of
quality discussions going on there:
http://wiki.gnewsense.org/ForumMain/GNewSenseIsUgly
On Dec 14, 2007 9:23 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Securing the RSM seal of approval may or may not appeal to you.
OpenBSD does not, pardon the french, give a shit about RMS' seal of approval.
But that still begs the question of OpenBSD's stance on non-free
software.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
:
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
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
:
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
Richard Stallman wrote:
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
Because he tends to be unfriendly.
Assuming and/or judging that someone is unfriendly, is an unfriendly act
itself. Publicly stating on a mailing list that someone 'tends' to be
unfriendly is a
As a last question. Will gNewSense become non-free if I start a
ports-like
software install package project for it?
If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would
promote non-free software.
If it were included in or recommended by gNewSense, then gNewSense
would
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?
You've formulated a very broad description, which
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
The words I posted before ought to
On Dec 12, 2007 9:37 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If some users write a way to ease installation of some non-free
program, and distribution D doesn't include this way in its
distribution or publicize it, then those users have done something bad
but distribution D is not
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, 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.
If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
imply
On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a last question. Will gNewSense become non-free if I start a
ports-like
software install package project for it?
If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would
promote non-free software.
If it were
On 12/12/2007, ropers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a last question. Will gNewSense become non-free if I start a
ports-like
software install package project for it?
If your install package has ports for non-free software,
On 12/12/07, ropers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/2007, ropers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a last question. Will gNewSense become non-free if I start a
ports-like
software install package project for it?
If
2007/12/12, ropers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
that there is a ports.tar.gz file on the CD.
HOWEVER, that file is not installed by default, and the OpenBSD
install program *does not even give the user the option* to install
ports.tar.gz, be it from CD or otherwise. See here:
On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would
promote non-free software.
If it were included in or recommended by gNewSense, then gNewSense
would promote non-free software. I trust they wouldn't do that,
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 06:37, Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical
Mattieu Baptiste wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:37 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If some users write a way to ease installation of some non-free
program, and distribution D doesn't include this way in its
distribution or publicize it, then those users have done something bad
but
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 03:37:31AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
Nope.
Users have responsability for what they do. We do
To: list
Richard's words are the essence of the Free Software Foundation and
the GNU General Public License: people _must_ use free software,
people _can_ decide whether to use free software or not, but people
_must not_ be free to exercise that desire. I will explain that last
statement, since
Mine is more free than yours is usually a pointless discussion, even
more so when the participants cannot even agree on the definition of
free. Stallman conveniently omits the fact that his definition of free
was, is and will be at odds with that of a significant portion of the
free software
On 12/12/07, Rodrigo V. Raimundo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 06:37, Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:47:00PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:00:14PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
... I was also told that OpenBSD's ports system includes
non-free programs. Is that accurate too?
[William Boshuck replied:]
Strictly speaking, no.
On Dec 12, 2007 10:25 AM, Marcus Andree [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A possible solution would be to...
Summary of this thread: RMS doesn't support OpenBSD.
Where here is there a problem waiting for a solution?
Marti
--
Systems Programmer, Principal
Electrical Computer Engineering
The
On Dec 12, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Marti Martinez wrote:
Summary of this thread: RMS doesn't support OpenBSD.
Where here is there a problem waiting for a solution?
Marti for chair of the next discussion!!!
+1
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
first place.
Someone else attacked me on this list for not discussing this with
In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
software
Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
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
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.
Could you explain what I adjust my repositories in a repository
browser means,
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?
If they are published by someone else,
Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
first place.
Someone else attacked me on this list for not discussing this
Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-free software? Not I. I think that software is
unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone. But I
have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.
Yet you were in an interview
2007/12/12, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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.
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.
Could you explain what I adjust my repositories in a repository
browser
Richard.
Belief systems are vital for living.
Every conscious act is the result of a belief.
Thoughts are the waters from which belief systems are distilled.
None of us know everything. We know very little.
In our desire to provide for ourselves a framework to live by, many ideas
we have are
it A LOT simpler to assume that you are
acting in bad faith, which is what Theo and many others have long
since resigned themselves to assuming (hence the reactions you're
getting).
You said Real men don't attack straw men. Yet this is *EXACTLY* what
you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write
* Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-12 17:52:29]:
In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
software
Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH,
whose license is
Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; misc@openbsd.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:38:07 PM
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
David, wonderful writeup!
there is a guy here at work, he is full of extra(sometimes called crap or
standup), nobody takes him seriously. He is always talking(trying
...
Love you all.
-BG
~~Kalyan-mastu~~
- Original Message
From: David Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: misc@openbsd.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:40:28 PM
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard.
Belief systems are vital for living
there is no moderator. the openbsd lists are not moderated.
except for some spam filtering.
cel
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:13:30PM -0800, badeguruji wrote:
Hello Moderator,
I would not like to publish my below (last) email to this mailing list. As i
do not want to offend anyone.
That is
On Dec 13, 2007 4:58 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-free software? Not I. I think that software is
unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone. But I
have not proposed that
On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Martin Schrvder wrote:
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
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:27:08PM -0500, Jason Dixon wrote:
Nobody is criticizing RMS over his opinion. They are criticizing him
for ignorance and misrepresentation of the facts regarding OpenBSD.
Actually, no, I am criticizing RMS over his opinion.
He's supposed to have dedicated his
On 11/12/2007, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've got a choice of:
1/ complete idiot
2/ senile old fool disconnected from reality
3/ dangerous political activist with a hidden agenda
Also I like the way he posts and disappears.
Marc Espie wrote:
...
You've got a choice of:
Or
4) not up on the OpenBSD projects goals and current licensing requirements
Some of that is probably due to the low profile of OpenBSD (low-profile
is good, though) and the yammering of the FreeBSD crowd (which both
includes a lot of MSFTers,
2007/12/11, Lars Noodin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
4) not up on the OpenBSD projects goals and current licensing requirements
You mean not interested. He got to meet Theo personally, so he could
easily stay informed -- if he wanted too.
Best
Martin
On Dec 11, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Lars Noodin wrote:
Marc Espie wrote:
...
You've got a choice of:
Or
4) not up on the OpenBSD projects goals and current licensing
requirements
Some of that is probably due to the low profile of OpenBSD (low-
profile
is good, though) and the yammering of the
Lars NoodC)n [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Articles and other means of providing information about OpenBSD will
increase knowledge of OpenBSD.
Yes. I was pretty determined to stay out of this thread entirely, but
I think you touch on an important point here. Like most people who
have been in the
In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.
yeah, right.
Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial,
LOL
I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore,
if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation
Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
Using OpenBSD we build the systems we need, and they work a helluva
lot better than most of the other stuff out there. OpenBSD is free
and lets us create reliable, high performance, low maintenance
networks and services, Stuff That Just Works. In fact it's so good
You've got a choice of:
(...)
3/ dangerous political activist with a hidden agenda
Or
4) not up on the OpenBSD projects goals and current licensing requirements
To quote Robert Steele (from memory):
Given a choice between incompetence and conspiracy, always go for
incompetence, because
From my perspective as someone outside the BSD and GPL cultures,
both camps seem to have many more similarities than differences.
I see both Theo and Richard as principled iconoclasts, stubbornly
creating and promoting software that meets their individual high
standards, meeting and overcoming
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:28:29PM -0600, Ken Ismert wrote:
It seems likely that no one license can preserve all possible
freedoms. In my view, both licenses have advantages the other
cannot possess. So I don't think reconciliation is required, or
even desirable (and, from a purely selfish
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
Because he tends to be unfriendly.
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.
That is good. (gNewSense and Ututo are also against blobs.)
Sir, it was brought up that the [GNU/]linux distributions you do suggest do
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
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
701 - 800 of 856 matches
Mail list logo
