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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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,
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
801 - 856 of 856 matches
Mail list logo
