1. Stallman states that Linux current version is partially non-free. *1
A program can't be partially non-free. A program is free if users have
the four freedoms, if not, it is non-free. The users of Linux does not
have the freedom to access the source code of parts of it (freedom 1).
2. Stallman
On Jan 12, 2008 1:49 AM, Reid Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under
> > the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a
> > license for my project that I d
--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under
> the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a
> license for my project that I don't want.
>
> We require you to use, for your program that contains ou
Sunnz ha scritto:
2008/1/12, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.
It is normal for
2008/1/12, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In that case, buying a Windows computer would be Ok, as long as you
> don't update the version of Windows software that is on it... when you
> want a newer version of Windows, just get a new computer.
>
> It is normal for users to insta
2008/1/9, Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> | Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will
> | automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You
> | can choose another operating system that d
"[...] Linux is not free software".
"[...] Linux [...] is on the ok side of the line".
Therefore: if there's only one popular kernel that GNU can use in its
project, then it's OK to use it, even if it's not free software.
Unpopular stuff like gNewSense have to be thought about, probably by a
mark
On 1/9/08 1:49 AM, Steve Shockley wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I don't think so. We check for this before we buy hardware.
I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.
I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria
for "free" (like a cell phone
On Jan 8, 2008 6:47 PM, Andris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when "Torvalds' version of Linux
> is not free software"! And let me put this perfectly clear to you:
> Linus Torvalds develops _Linux_. Period. GNU/Linux means GNU
> (http://gnu.org/ packages, free soft
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:03PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Man you are hard to talk to. You keep making stuff up and don't reply
> to questions people ask you. I even tried to ask you politely.
>
> "You keep making stuff up" is a rather harsh accusation. (Also, it
> isn't true.
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
>You've apparently been reading a very different set of responses from
>the ones I've read. AFAICT from their messages, most of the people
>responding here to this issue agree with me.
>
>Most of the people responding here, yes, but that doe
On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing,
>
> In Linux terminology, "blobs" means firmware and only firmware. It
> appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology.
> Thus, we had a failure of commun
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| Now you have found a second reason for not recommending OpenBSD. It
| (legally) distributes binary firmwares for certain pieces of hardware.
| Again, you make a distinction that many here say does not exist.
|
| The di
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
>>should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>
>I don't recall seeing any of them claiming that.
>
>Many of the messages have argued (or even demanded) t
On Jan 8, 2008 8:07 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This may be *your* "usual interpretation of the revised BSD license"
>
> Eben Moglen says that it is nearly universal among lawyers.
> As this is a legal issue, I have confidence in him.
>
Yeah, yeah. You have confidence in E
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I don't think so. We check for this before we buy hardware.
I'd bet money that you have hardware that requires driver assist.
I doubt it; if he needs to use a device that doesn't meet his criteria
for "free" (like a cell phone), he just has someone else carry it aroun
On Jan 8, 2008 9:07 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing,
>
> In Linux terminology, "blobs" means firmware and only firmware. It
> appears that the word has a different meaning in OpenBSD terminology.
> Thus, we had a failure of commun
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:14:59 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> 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
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:11 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> 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 peopl
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:31:16 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > 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?
>
>
On Jan 9, 2008 12:36 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes but after your list of recommended OSes and Software please give a
>list of Software and OSes you *actually use* for example like debian.
>
> I use gNewSense.
Nothing else?
Be Frank.
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:16:04 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> 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 m
On 01/07/08 18:16, Richard Stallman wrote:
> When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and
> we have not seen any errors in it.
And what about the research that should have made gNewSense up to your
standards?
The intention of good research is enough to prevent any errors
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:02PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> No it does not. During boot a Linux kernel will check AND UPDATE
> microcode to CPUs if necessary.
>
> I did not know that. That is not good. I will have to think about
> what we should do about this. Perhaps remove th
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 21:52:18 +0530, "Karthik Kumar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
> > on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
> > indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
>
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:09:42 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > > - 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 t
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:18:10 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> 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 c
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:47:10 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> 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
>
"Gobuntu also has the problem that its name is so close to Ubuntu that
people would get them confused. Practically speaking it is not
feasible to recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu."
But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when "Torvalds' version of Linux
is not free software"! And let me p
On Jan 8, 2008 5:09 PM, Janne Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> L wrote:
> > Karthik Kumar wrote:
> >>> Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
> >>> allow them to be redistributed with the system.
> >> You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If
On 06/01/2008, at 9:47 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you
found those quotes? If not, I will look for someone else who
will do that for me.
You know that saying, "if you want something done right, you do it
yourself"?
I'd be adhering
L wrote:
Karthik Kumar wrote:
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be redistributed with the system.
You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad.
The GNG foundation spe
On Jan 08 00:13:19, Reid Nichol wrote:
> --- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 a
--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 p
--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On Jan 8, 2008 3:10 AM, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dusty wrote:
>
> > WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
> > on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
> > research?!?!?!?!!?
>
> Honestly I am not interested why this moron
Jason Dixon wrote:
Everybody
on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?
Plausible deniability.
More like deniable plausibility.
2008/1/8, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:14:59PM -0500, Richard Salmon wrote:
> 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
> deliberat
On Jan 7, 2008 12:14 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
>deliber
>>> Richard Stallman 7-Jan-08 17:14 >>>
>
> 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 aga
I have had a short term memory problem almost my whole life. I have been on
medication because of it. This means I find it almost impossible to learn to
code and have to re-read any documentation when I have to do even the
simplest task.
I've been using openbsd for about 10 years now. Whenever up u
On 1/7/08, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We only want an apology Richard. You said things about our project that
> were very unfriendly and not true. Apologize and admit you were wrong
> and I promise I'll leave this alone.
So if Richard sends an email stating "I am sorry for usin
Dusty wrote:
WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
research?!?!?!?!!?
Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research.
He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.
In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote:
> > 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.
Please do what all researchers do. State the origin of where you g
In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote:
>
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.
Try or Do? So, if
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
>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 agai
On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Dusty wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I want research, I ask people to do it. That is efficient, and
we have not seen any errors in it.
Your conclusion should that you need to do your own research.
WHY, please rea
On 1/7/08, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>
Quite right. As far as I can tell, they're not interested in your
endorsement; I'm not sure what gave you
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
>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.
I don't re
On Jan 7, 2008 6:15 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
>statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
>my freedom to BSD license my code.
>
> Under the usual interpretation of th
Richard Stallman wrote:
But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
my freedom to BSD license my code.
Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
straightforward. You p
On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
> for what I am saying. Many of the people on this list were told that
> I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
> programs. And their words show that t
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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
Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>
Methinks this is an OpenBSD list not a FSF list
Are you always this obnoxious to people you are visiting?
>From what I've seen from yo
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
On Jan 7, 2008 7:16 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Howeve
> 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
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 detai
On 1/7/08, Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> > binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
> > why I should not endor
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.
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 fa
Richard Stallman wrote:
My supplying the URL or name of a non-free program's port in OpenBSD
would do no good, because the developers are happy to have such ports
and would not remove it.
I am not going to spend the time, or ask someone else to do so, just
for an idle request. If the OpenBSD de
dropped misc by accident
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 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 cas
equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing, it enables him to destroy the
good by comparing it to the perfect
Firmware runs on the hardware, not in the kernel.
On Jan 7, 2008 1:31 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This has been discussed many times
>and it shouldn't take
Marco Peereboom wrote:
Alberto Gonzalez is that you?
at least in this case the excuse is somewhat valid, as richard is
certainly old enough for the claim of "i cannot recall" to hold water.
perhaps he should see a doctor about this?
in the case that richard is not in the initial stages
On Jan 7, 2008 9:19 PM, Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh come on now THRUSH! You really are an irritating cunt.
>
> Can't you read?
>
> The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself,
> would have shown this page:
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:55:52AM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:44:48 +
> Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:39:35PM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:28:39 -0800 (PST)
> > > Reid Nichol <[
On Jan 7, 2008 8:31 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You have not presented any evidence that there are non-free programs
> in gNewSense.
gNewsSense bugs 31, 100, 103, 108:
31: license problems - cdrecord (no open date)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00031
100: Helix Player reco
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| > 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
On Jan 7, 2008 5:01 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such fir
Alberto Gonzalez is that you?
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:10PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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 stat
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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
> 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
On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to
exclude such firmware.
Then, sir, you
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firm
> 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. T
> 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,
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 tr
On Jan 7, 2008 12:44 PM, Reid Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 ac
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
>
> a. Don't find out about the person who is emailing
> b. Make assumptions about the person in a.
most of us fou
Stay on list or stay out of my inbox.
--- Karthik Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008 7:23 AM, Reid Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Which OpenBSD does. You have failed to show otherwise.
> >
>
> To show that OpenBSD follows them as goals? Ah, perhaps. :-)
And you've con
--- "Roberto J. Dohnert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
> Stallman and the
> FSF for OpenBSD? When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the
> FSF, I
> choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the
> desktop
>
Stay on list or stay out of my inbox.
--- Karthik Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of
> > > > > non-free software must come clean first: No clean, no talk.
> > > >
> > > > Sophistry. If there is problems in logic, etc then one
--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
--- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| @Paul: No matter how many fucking emails you send, you will never be
| able to reason it out, you moron.
I'm glad you've resorted to namecalling. That'll surely help you find
the non-free files in OpenBSD. Please remember to send
Ray Percival wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 22:54, "Roberto J. Dohnert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
> > Stallman and the
> > FSF for OpenBSD?
>
> Nobody involved in this thread wants this endorsement and it is not
> about get
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 off
On Jan 6, 2008, at 22:54, "Roberto J. Dohnert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
Stallman and the
FSF for OpenBSD?
Nobody involved in this thread wants this endorsement and it is not
about getting him to change his mind. The point is
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the
FSF for OpenBSD? When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the FSF, I
choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the desktop
(with all the non-free software that makes my heart sing), OpenBS
Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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 explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.
>
Funny thing about details
When they are accurate they can be re
2008/1/7, V. Karthik Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
>
No he does not see... he is not subscribed to misc...
Here's the rest of your message...
> a. Don't find out about the person who
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 c
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.
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 e
On Jan 6, 2008, at 20:02, "Tony Abernethy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
Curious, the contents indicate this is addressed to RMS.
The mail headers indicate otherwise.
This is obviously by one of the trolls.
Q
1 - 100 of 869 matches
Mail list logo
