El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 16:36 -0500, Richard Stallman escribiC3:
I suppose so. I don't see how anything could stop them. Whatever the
changes gNewSense has made in the source code of Linux, a user could
revert them if he wants to.
Change te code to the point that it doesn't accept tainted
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on
gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on
Windows.
I am surprised by this statement, because in general I don't expect
On Dec 15, 2007 7:09 PM, Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The single benefit of distributing free Windows software that comes to
mind is to introduce a user to the idea that free software can be a
viable alternative. I can't think of another reason at all. And the $200
Walmart Linux PC
El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 16:36 -0500, Richard Stallman escribiC3:
Remember all the people who accused me of lying because at some time
I described the presence of these recipes as the ports system
includes non-free software? That whole tangent was based on taking
my words out of context.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Not at all. The point is to avoid things to lead users to install
non-free software, and/or grant ethical legitimacy to non-free
software. gNewSense doesn't lead users to install blobs, and doesn't
kegitimize them.
then you
Some day in the future, RMS will die while having sexual intercourse with an
android running proprietary software... and on that day, I will buy everyone a
round of beers.
Sure I'm terrible, but he's just crazy... ;)
(I may be drunk, but you are ugly, and tomorrow I'll be sober.)
-Nix
On Sunday 16 December 2007 02:28:12 Marc Balmer wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
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
bofh wrote:
I respectfully disagree. Linux was definitely the enabler for this to
happen. How much of Linux's success was because of the GPL is
something only historians can tell us, but without FSF/GNU/GPL.
Unfortunately, right at that time, bsd was involved in the ATT
lawsuit, or it could
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 05:16:54PM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:05:16 -0800
Ryan Corder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand and appreciate the freedom that is defined by both the
BSD and GPL licenses; that of ensuring the authors continual right of
On 12/15/07, Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should I take this that you don't endorse Debian, and thus also Ubuntu
and other deriviatives, either, as you are now stating that these
contain 'recipes for non-free software'?
Correct. RMS does not recommend Debian or Ubuntu.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:08:16 -0700, L [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jack J. Woehr wrote:
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.
On 15/12/2007, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Convincing people to switch to free software is just one part of what
we need to do to establish a society in which users are free. We also
have to teach them to appreciate their freedom, and recognize that
non-free would deny them
On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that
*rely* on
gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available
on Windows.
I am surprised by
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
On 14/12/2007, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a big practical difference between making a free system
suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a
non-free system. We treat the two issues differently because they are
different.
The only practical
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 04:16:47PM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
Sounds like the first three lines for Ty's next song!
Perhaps this thread of the year will be source
of inspiration for Ty and his wonderful next stickers
to come.
--
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ;
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:55:10PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
Just a quick question then: what about
The software is still gratis; one paid for the media.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:10:02PM -0500, bofh wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 7:03 PM, Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And while I can't think of any instances where money exchanged hands
per the GPL off the top of my head, gratis could be
Then you can talk to me. Every single piece of firmware that goes
though my hands these days was written in gcc on windows. Or on gcc on
cygwin. Arches I used in the past were gcc on solaris and gcc on Linux
(everything prior to that was proprietary). The only reason gcc is
being run on
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a
free program run on it is small. However, it is our practice when
doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and
bad for your
How,... boring...
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:39:15PM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
On 12/15/07, Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should I take this that you don't endorse Debian, and thus also Ubuntu
and other deriviatives, either, as you are now stating that these
contain 'recipes
Theo de Raadt wrote:
What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports
system suggests non-free programs.
On the bsd talk show you did not withhold your recommendation because
the ports system suggests non-free programs. No way, that's not what
you said on that show.
After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
polices page lists software licenses that are acceptable, and a few that
are not, but I
On Dec 15, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Marc Balmer wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
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
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
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
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Marc Balmer wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
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
Can someone just kill this thread PLEASEonly a few posts were
actually good, the rest is filling my inbox
Jason Dixon wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I know of at least four companies
I beleive the URL
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions%20.
has been referenced in other messages declaiming Richard's
recommendation of
this or that Distro.
This link was also near the top of the bsdtalk page about the RMS interview.
The explanation - near the top, of why
L wrote:
For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that
doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't
fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my instinct
that openbsd is not about some idealistic freedom of speech.
OpenBSD
On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:21 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me
that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
polices page lists software
On Saturday 15 December 2007 23:42:06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
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
Bengt Frost wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through
portssystem.
If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to
On 12/15/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
Copyright law is complex,
On 12/15/07, Jon . [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The systems should inform users (or just flag to sys admins yo this is a
blob) with something along the lines of:
You and your system are now at the complete mercy of this vendor's
competence and self-interested wishes, expect to be degraded to the
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:02:45AM +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
Theo de Raadt 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
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
David H. Lynch Jr. 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
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
Richard Stallman a icrit :
I have no obligation to answer each and every message that people
post, or address every issue anyone else raises. Some issues don't
seem to need answers.
There is a difference between I have no obligation to answer each and
every message and I cannot find a
Edd Barrett wrote:
How do you browse the web?
emacs?
Hi Richard,
On 14/12/2007, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119741909911558w=2
I have no obligation to answer each and every message that people
post, or address every issue
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:18 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
snip
It is completely irrelevant to Stallman whether the OS he endorses is
actually useful. In his world view, his definition of free trumps
functional.
It is always possible to improve the quality of something, it is
may not
be
On Dec 14, 2007 9:09 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have turrets or aspergers or some other reason why you are
compelled to insult virtually everyone ?
Wow, now we're taking potshots at the handicapped. There goes that
fluffy PC do-gooder image then.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
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
Sorry, back to list, public debate.
On Dec 14, 2007 11:51 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael hamerski wrote:
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
michael hamerski schrieb:
Nah, it's too much fun... seriously though, even though ultimately
pointless, I think it's a worthy public debate. Let him expound his
theories and ethics and let's dissect them layer by layer. For the
record.
Wise remark :-)
--
Michael Schmidt MIRRORS:
David:
The OpenBSD position is best expressed in this rather rude statement:
Shut up and code. RMS is a philosopher of the evangelical sort. Folks
here are a bit more pragmatic and want to code. A lot of us are infuriated
by this discussion.
You suggested that Theo might have Asbergers. As
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
I am not out to get you. Richard is not out to get you. The FSF is
not out to get you. The world is not out to get you. But you appear to
Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first.
Richard then came to the OpenBSD mailing lists looking
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:09:46 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
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
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:37:02PM +1100, Damien Miller wrote:
This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
choices, but they instantly switch when free software becomes a
compelling replacement - look at Apache
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
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
Richard, you're being cc'ed because people speak in your name.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:35 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael hamerski wrote:
I think it's a worthy public debate. Let him expound his
theories and ethics and let's dissect them layer by layer. For the
record.
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Yet on Richard's side of this fence, emacs and gcc _directly
include_ code which lets users use those two pieces of software
on commercial operating systems.
He facilitates using something good on something bad, which helps
end users realize that open source products can
Why Stallman comes here? I am not going to all mailing of different
operating systems that I don't like, saying you're shit, use my OS (ah,
no, RMS didn't write a code in the last 12 years?).
Anyway you're insulting us, telling what I should use or not, I don't need a
mentor to tell me nothing
If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all:
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228
--
Karthik
http://guilt.bafsoft.net
How interesting,... *NOT*
Flash is about the worst thing that has ever happened to the internet.
I as a user do not use so what is your point again? Who cares that it
is in ports? I certainly don't. Why would I care if someone wants to
see ads shooting at them when they visit a site? Good for
On Dec 14, 2007 5:09 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119741909911558w=2
However, because of your offer, I will send mail to try to find the
message that URL refers to, and
Sorry Karthik but I prefer to keep misc@ cc-ed as it is archived and
people will later be able to know that you are a troll when they do a
lookup about you.
The page you are refering to mentions three new ports. If you had spent
your time doing something as productive as reading the faq instead
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:35:57 +0530, Karthik Kumar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all:
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228
Yes, of course it exists. But you stated that OpenBSD includes it.
It does not. It is not
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:57 PM
To: David H. Lynch Jr.
Cc: Theo de Raadt; OpenBSD-Misc; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
David:
The OpenBSD position is best expressed in this rather rude statement
Who cares? Opera is also in pots, who cares? I am sure we have more of
those things in there. It's exactly the same as having windows binaries
for emacs. Not interesting.
This is a non argument.
Stop lying and we'll stop telling you that you are a hypocrite.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at
-
This is a reply to David's email to me. I have left out his original
message since it was sent privately and without permission to repost to
the list.
-
This is all I have left to say on the matter. How you take it from here
is up to you.
OpenBSD only endorses OpenBSD. I have
On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, 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.
Put another way:
The presence of an OpenBSD port entry for opera encourages
Orthodoxy is EVIL no matter what god it's in service of.
Oh that's rich coming from OpenBSD land...
Karthik Kumar writes:
If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all:
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228
The irony there is that I stopped working on Gnash (an official
FSF project) for OpenBSD when they added a Windows developer as
a project
Re-adding the original recipients. Please keep this on-list or out of
my mailbox.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:12:46AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
| Paul de Weerd wrote:
| On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 06:56:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| | I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:48:44PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html
According to Sourceforge:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband
License: Other/Proprietary License
Bullshit.
If you had gone to the trouble of
On 2007-12-14 18:48, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
You too.
I still remember cheering when I read
http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
* From:
, December 14, 2007 6:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OpenBSD general usage list
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard, you're being cc'ed because people speak in your name.
On Dec 14, 2007 9:35 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael hamerski wrote
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
You too.
I still remember cheering when I read
http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
* From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001
* Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 21:35:57]:
If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all:
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228
--
Karthik
http://guilt.bafsoft.net
What's your point? Of course it exists... this is Open BSD
On Dec 14, 2007 5:43 PM, Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
This is a reply to David's email to me. I have left out his original
message since it was sent privately and without permission to repost to
the list.
-
Yeah, I have a bunch of emails from him, which despite my best
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
You too.
I still remember cheering when I read
http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
* From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
You too.
I still remember cheering when I read
http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
* From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600
* Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am just curious -
On 12/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped?
Precisely because of what the commit message says:
Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield
2001-08-14]
Sadly you're too quick to
Along with Godwin's law, there must be some rule of flame fests that people
forget
how it started or fail to note when they make ridiculous statements.
Example, how it started. Some recent comments:
RMS made statements first. RMS will pay for his lies.
Nobody here asked for or WANTS his
misc, Richard:
As someone from a relatively outside perspective, I find this
thread puzzling. My feelings have swung from one side to the
other as the thread has surged on. I just don't know the
players well enough to draw a firm conclusion.
The nub of the perceived slight is this: RMS can't
On Dec 14, 2007 8:33 AM, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
I think
I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version
of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we
don't have enough people to make this work very well. If you would
like to help, please let me know. It is an important project.
One last question..
Aaron Glenn wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 8:33 AM, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
You too.
I still remember cheering when I read
http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
* From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL
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
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
RMS wrote:
I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version
of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we
don't have enough people to make this work very well. If you would
like to help, please let me know. It is an important project.
Hahaha!!!
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!
That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
including distributing the code under other licenses. The only
requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.
Another message
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man.
Actually I'm not a man at all.
Not all people who are in software are men.
I've contributed in small ways to OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux
and Plan9.
--- Marina Brown
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
An anthology contains the actual
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, Ken Ismert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
So, I ask you respectfully, Richard: what is your intent in
making your original comments, and starting this thread?
That would be the deciding factor for me.
Self aggrandizement has been RMS's only agenda for a long time.
501 - 600 of 856 matches
Mail list logo
