Richard, should we expect a contribution to the project for the time
that you and your minions have taken from all of us?
I have no minions, and I cannot take time from you. However, if you
adopt the policy that you won't reply to my messages unless I pay you
to, you will be within
Since plants can be easily replicated, why are we buying food from farmers?
I'm not against buying software from developers (as long as it is free
software). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.
This has been discussed many times
and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do
not
care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.
The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers. I can ask
them to look for something, but I
But what about the different case where the company permits
redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
code. Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at
that point
No,
A few computer users are in a position manufacture hardware, but
computer users in general do not have that capability. (Meanwhile,
manufacturing does not work by copying a sample; copying as such is
not doable.)
A few software users are in a position to code software..
Those quotes do not show gNewSense includes non-free software.
What's interesting is that they admit they cannot find all blobs without
truly
reading and understanding the code, they lack people for it.
They say they can't reliably find all the binary-only firmware.
Nobody's perfect.
I find it impolite that you partially removed my questions and only
responded to some of them. I asked you if you please could respond to
all paragraphs.
People raise many issues in these messages. My idea of politeness
does not say I have to respond to every question that someone
Except, sir, at some point, someone made a mistake. And this mistake
has blown up in to this thread with this ongoing argument. Their
report was either not as accurate as you seem to think, or you're very
badly expressing the contents of the report (which has not been made
http://torrent.gnome.org/
Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you
found those quotes?
That is a host; I figured it would have lots of pages.
Your message today hinted that maybe you meant the front page.
So I looked there, and found them there.
In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs
is in the recipes for installing them.
Oh, no URL?
I could ask someone to find a specific URL, but why take the trouble?
The OpenBSD developers have acknowledged that contains ports for
non-free programs. There is no
As long as this thread has been running, the only plausible reasons
I can think of for you not to repeat your claimed accurate conclusion
is either that you do not remember what this claimed accurate conclusion was
or that this claimed accurate conclusion wold now be yet another
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and
the
FSF for OpenBSD?
If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
Isn't this attitude more than a bit short-sighted? I certainly
understand the benefits of reserving one's resources for dealing with
issues that can happen, but many of the technology-related problems we
have today are arguably due (at least in large part) to people ignoring
But, when people use the word free, even within a particular context,
anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
within an acceptable level of error.
I don't think so -- that is too much to ask. In any area, the meaning
of freedom involves filling in
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
checked.
So... 'ethically' the TiVo ma as well be a circuit, since users don't
usually install software on it?
Users did install software on it, and that's why Tivo tivoized it.
Should you do more then say that, maybe put a webpage encouraging open
hardware development?
I mean to write an article about the issue of free hardware designs
some day when I have some time.
You have done a pretty good job of summarizing my position.
The sex education analogy is quite clear and valid.
(I'm in favor of teaching people how to use contraception,
because I'm in favor of encouraging sex.)
Thank you for helping to explain.
In this discussion I have stuck to correcting
IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say recommend in
this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
here) to be something that most people would express as not
deliberately erect barriers against.
The evidence of this discussion shows that's
But it also perpetuates serious problems (totalitarian surveillance,...)
Are you seriously that paranoid? Do you wear a tin foil hat by any
chance? :-)
Cell phone systems keep track of the location of the phone, and they
can record the information permanently. They can do this even
I wrote:
I hope that you have not arranged in effect to cause our web site
to be attacked.
You responded:
It was a recommendation of OpenBSD rather than an attack.
It was neither a recommendation of OpenBSD nor an attack.
Your message did not talk about OpenBSD, but if it had,
BUT I WILL STILL GO ON SPREADING THE LIE THAT OpenBSD CONTAINS
NON-FREE SOFTWARE SO PEOPLE ARE MISLEAD
I never intentionally said such a thing. It was a misunderstanding,
because I chose words that were subject to misinterpretation.
I appreciate having been informed about the
From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying
software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than
just plain free.
That's often true. (And even if it doesn't cost you money, it may
take some of your time.) But I don't think that changes the
Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big
encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words
) to use or continue using that non-free platform.
There are two issues here: the practical effects, and the message conveyed.
The practical
ReactOS is a free software operative system with a support database
that indicates which programs it can run.
If I understand you weird meaninig of promotion, then you'll find this
a bad thing too, right?
Yes. Thank you for showing me those specific problems.
I will discuss them
What is an operating system? An OS could be considered an application,
You could consider an OS an application, and you could consider
hardware software, just as you could consider the Earth a pumpkin. My
response is that you're starting from assumptions I find questionable,
so I don't
Dude... it is on the endorsement list on gnu.org you talked about in
the beginning how you cannot include OpenBSD in it...
http://gnu.org/links/links.html
Thank you. Now I know where to remove the link if it comes to that.
I have a feeling that list is maintained by your 'FSF
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
recommend the installation of those non-free platforms. But free
systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free
apps.
I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by recommend
non-free software,
I explained it earlier in this thread.
so if you could, please, give an example by
showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free
software and the URL.
You shouldn't use them, because of the software, but also, because
your cell phone is a tracking device, even when it is turned off,
Stallman said. Interestingly, in the minutes before the talk began,
Stallman padded up one aisle in his stocking feet talking into what
looked
By using and endorsing gNewSense???
It seems you really don't read what's going on there, people working on it
more or less scream out it's an impossible mission the way it's setup now
and
the project goals are not met for the foreseeable future.
I don't read the gNewSense
Run GNOME in a **VMWare Player** in a Linux virtual machine.
Or:
Run GNOME on a virtual machine using QEMU on Linux or **Parallels**
for **Mac** or Linux.
promoting the use of non-free software?
This is a case of running a free program on non-free platforms.
Nonetheless, I
I doubt I would have looked at the AROS web site myself. To find out
the status of the BSD systems, recently, I asked the FSF staff to
check for me.
Wait, you have someone else do the research, and this persons opinions
get reflected in what you say?
Absolutely. FSF
I appreciate the work that OpenBSD has done in this area.
It is an important contribution to our community.
Curious that it should take this long to obtain that admission from you.
Why do you think it took a long time?
I said it a couple of weeks ago too.
I also said it a
- vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware
- OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware
to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the
hardware work out of the box
- vendor A says if a customer
That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I
know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and
governments uses computers as well, so they are too computer users,
thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every computer users in
general.
A
Really? All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need
firmware, you think they're not a mix of both microcontroller code
and
other binary bits that configure an ASIC or FPGA?
I am not a hardware expert; I don't know sort of hardware the
Can you tell the FSF web programmers to do more checking for HTML/SQL
injection vulnerabilities?
I know nothing about that issue, but I will forward your message.
Teaching the public about this issue is a good thing to.
However, the way you did it was predictably bad.
By publishing it,
Didn't you do that right from the start when you came
to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your
un-researched assumptions?
That is not what happened. I stated an accurate conclusion based on
recent research. I expressed it with words that were not clear.
I've
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it.
I don't carry a mobile phone, but I don't see anything wrong in
borrowing one from someone to make a call.
So if it is a new model of cell phone and if the owner teaches you how
to use it and make life easy for you will that be
1) Wrong on his part to encourage you to using
No, but when you redefine free to mean something specific, you redefine
your own language.
It's normal to develop criteria for what free means in specific
activities. Consider, for instance, free elections. Human rights
organizations and election monitors have worked out specific
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them
about this ASAP. I expect they will probably remove those.
And ReactOS is next?
Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?
If so. please show me what it says, and the URL.
I do not have a lot of influence with
You certainly don't live by what you preach. You are pointed at not one but
various facts to the contrary.
I do practice my own principles, but when you compare the two
you have to be careful not to alter the principles in your own mind.
If you do that, you could easily discover an
from the data I get from below
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.gnewsense.org
I just wonder if the gnewsense OS is being distributed through the
very non free OSes
http://www.gnewsense.org/FAQ/FAQ#toc3
The words being distributed through are not
I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to
apply a label like not recommended because it supports non-free
software to OpenBSD but not to FSF (emacs, etc.).
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that
I note that Richard also says that AROS is a free operating system.
I don't recognize the name AROS, but if it is an operating system, it
is possible I said something about it at some point. Could you tell
me where that statement appears? If I need to correct it, I need to
know where it is.
The wget he uses is worse.
You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn
the user at all!!!
I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general.
I was a bit curious about what would someone who reads web-sites by
using a wget daemon through e-mails whose own web-site looks like...
well...
Apache httpd 2.0.54 ((Debian GNU/Linux) DAV/2 SVN/1.2.0 PHP/4.3.10-22
mod_ssl/2.0.54 OpenSSL/0.9.7e)
I use wget for personal
But I think the FPGAs in products are more like the possible computer
in my microwave oven: nobody installs software in them, so they might
as well be circuits.
Really? All those wifi/raid/cpu/etc cards/chips out there that need
firmware, you think they're not a mix of
Before you argue that ReactOS is merely a free implementation of Win32
API, let me clarify: if the purpose of ReactOS isn't to run some
Windows-only software S, then what is the purpose of ReactOS? if S was
free, it wouldn't be Windows-only as it would have ported to free
OS's.
If something is harder to copy, it is ethically ok to have a different
standard for this piece of technology.
Seriously, that's what you're saying above. Because hardware may have
to be copied by hand, you consider them ethically not the same.
Yes, that's my position, for 20
My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved. If
any of my friends were involved, they did not inform me.
Good friends you have then.
More likely they aren't my friends. You may have noticed that the
Linux developers disagree with my philosophy. I know very few of
http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/
http://directory.fsf.org/project/wxwindows/
http://wxwindows.org/about/credits.htm
see the acknowledgment from one of the softwares endorsed by FSF your
favourite organization.
I don't, however, I don't claim to live by the same free vs non-free
rules, I use what works for me.
I think you have misinterpreted the principles that I believe in and
live by. I hope my explanations will help.
The free software foundation shall not be called free software
foundation.. it shall be called Stallmanist Foundation and the
philosophies are to be outlined as Stallmanism.. not free software.
If you want to campaign for a philosophical stand about software and
trees, you are
As for Intels use of non-ree software, I am sorry for them, and I hope
that someday they will be able to move to free software.
Yet you still support them, and require gNewsense users to use Intel/AMD
hardware?
I do not boycott companies for using non-free software.
In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite
organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your
friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they
even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american
lawyer but
As for Intels use of non-free software, I am sorry for them, and I hope
that someday they will be able to move to free software.
Is this hope reasonable or logical?
Totally not. Intel just wants the best software they can afford to get
their
chips as fast and as good as
This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports
Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them
about this ASAP. I expect they will probably
In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it
looks like the question had in mind a whole system. This
miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an
endorsement of a system.
Huh? OpenSolaris is just a kernel
That's what I
Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open
your big fat lying mouth.
I am sure the readers can judge for themselves whether I am stupid.
They will certainly see I am not perfect. I had learned the facts
about OpenSolaris, but that was months before. By the time I
I'm curious how you can recomend an OS, like gNewSense that only runs on
non-free hardware, that
has required non-free software to be used in it's creation?
How do you do these things? Perhaps I do them the same way.
The term non-free hardware is misleading, because the issues that
Here is the real issue, Richard. You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
without knowing the facts. You get confronted with them and you change
history. Sound familiar?
What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place on a minor confusion.
But you have added a new false accusation of
Thanks. Since you didn't answer soon, and since I did get other info
about non-free software needed for OpenSolaris, I already asked for a
correction in the interview. I made it general so that I won't have
to go into these specifics. But I would like to know more about the
need for Devpro:
2) If supporting non-free software is bad,
What I object to is referring people to non-free software as something
to install. Supporting is a broader term, and includes various
different practices. I don't object to all of them.
I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for
Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others
Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified
versions
to others.
Fixed that for you.
The GNU GPL does not require you to distribute copies to anyone,
neither exact copies nor
As your views on open-source have become more and more extreme over
time, you have become less and less relevant to a overall practical
open-source community
I've never agreed with open source at all; my community is the free
software community. In 1998 part of the community
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there looking
sheepish, all covered with poop.
I have carefully avoided personal attacks in this discussion. I have
not attacked
Although I'm sure it's convenient for most of the world to think that
free software and open source originated solely in the Linux and GNU
projects...
They won't get that idea from me. I tell people regularly in my
speeches that I found a free software operating system in use at MIT
No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view
of freedom. Not *real* freedom.
The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential
freedoms:
Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change
OpenBSD refuses to accept it's users being forced into depending on
vendor binaries and pushes people to send a message that open support
for hardware matters.
I appreciate those actions. They help our community.
How does using non-free software, by your definition anything none
GPL'ed I gather, bring actual physical harm to anyone anywhere?
Physical harm is not the only kind of harm.
Losing your freedom is harm too. Social practices that lead
people into a life without freedom are harmful.
Richard, you can try to weasel your way all you can, saying you're `not
aware' of such and such. In the end, if you want to be true to your goals,
you should say you do not recommend ANYTHING. Heck, you should say to people
that they should not use computers at all, for obvious
RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far,
What I said is that the ports system contains recipes for installing
non-free software. In another message in this batch I address the
question of what words to use to refer to that relationship. For me,
the issue is that
For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I
also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I
send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not
install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists.
so much for free speech.
Free speech means you are free to tell people about the Adobe flash
plug-in, and also free to decide not to tell them.
I doubt someone who is truly unfriendly could organize a hackathon, a
friendly social event.
He may be perfectly friendly to others. What is relevant is that he
tends to be unfriendly to me.
The same argument could be made about your unfriendliness. We could not
talk to you
Come oh dilbert of gnu, stamp your licence upon all who code. Propegate your
gnu legacy through the universe down to the plank scale. Install your agenda
near and far. Come and spread the evangalistic word.
All I can do personally is bless your computer. But if it has
non-free
Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software, for this reason.
Ututo and gNewSense include a version of Linux which remove the
firmware blobs, in order to make it free software.
that's awesome, can users add these back in if they choose?
I suppose so. I don't see
This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
choices,
Convincing people to switch to free software is just one part of what
we need to do to establish a society in which users are free. We also
have to
Please note that I'm not saying gcc or emacs should not support
windows, solaris, ultrix or any other non-free operating system. I do
not hold these extreme ethical views. I merely question RMS's ethics.
Is there anyone here that actually believes it is wrong for free
programs to have
Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first.
Neither one.
What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports
system suggests non-free programs. That's neither faulty nor foul.
It is factually accurate: the ports system does contain recipes to
install
| As has been said before, the ports tree is just a
| scaffold, used to force third party programs (be they free or non-free
| and for whatever value of freedom you wish) to install into a sane and
| known location within the filesystem, easing the task of installing
|
He claims OpenBSD suggest the use of non-free software. After having
used it for quite some time, such a suggestion was never made to me.
I will not argue with your statement about your personal experience.
The point is that OpenBSD distributes the ports system, and the ports
system
There is a difference between I have no obligation to answer each and
every message and I cannot find a coherent answer to several messages.
One difference is that the first one is true, and the second one is
false. As you've seen by now, people were looking for something
sinister in a
You said Real men don't attack straw men. Yet this is *EXACTLY* what
you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write that OpenBSD
recommends the ports system to its users, *which it does not*. Let me
say that once again: OpenBSD recommends that EVERYBODY USE PACKAGES,
NOT
It also seems silly to me this idea between tainted and clean
oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively. Take for example
a user that runs Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux but proscribes to your free-only
philosophy. They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin
(which I believe
It's total BS. If you don't want to pay for software, fine don't, but
don't go on some religious crusade trying to get me to believe it's
unethical so I won't either.
When you buy a copy of a non-free program, you pay with your money and
with your freedom. You apparently don't assign
An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports
tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to.
You're right, but I don't think that difference matters for this
issue. Giving just the URLs for non-free software is referring people
to them.
running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH,
whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if
my memory serves).
Richard,
please stop spreading lies (or looking like a fool) by not doing research.
The license of OpenSSH is
Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to
compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,
you are a slimy hypocrite.
I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.
There is a big practical difference between making a free system
If OpenBSD could spin off the ports system (perhaps people could put
it on the Pirate Bay), and break off connection with it, then it would
cease to convey any message from OpenBSD to the users. Then I could
recommend OpenBSD while not recommending its ports system.
Why is it so hard for you to answer that question...
To answer the question was not hard. To answer it before I saw it
would have been very hard.
You failed to answer these several times already,
When you said that, it was 21:00 here. At that time I had not even
seen any of those
However, if distribution D includes this easier way to install in
its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
the ethical responsibility for it.
We all know that the linux kernel (on which gNewSense is based) has an easy
way to install binary blobs,
So have you sent these types of unrecommendations to other OS'
mailing lists or just OpenBSD's?
I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time.
I did not start this discussion. I posted on this list because people
were making inaccurate statements about my views.
In
other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't
exist.
And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the
very right to exist. How free is that?
It is much freer than a world in which non-free programs entice many
people into
I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system
includes instructions for fetching, building and installing specific
non-free programs.
Yes, that would be the truth. What you did say, however,
is not the truth.
What I said was the same thing, in different
If he really hated what we do, he should stop using OpenSSH. He says
he uses it. He should not. We are horrible people; he should not use
our software.
I don't hate what you do. I don't hate OpenBSD. I have a specific
criticism of one point about OpenBSD, but that is not hatred.
This philosophy disturbs me, and reminds me of the rationale for
censorship in dictatorships and police states. Admitting the
existence of something even referencing it does not give it
legitimacy. Should we remove any reference to nazi germany from our
history
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
