List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-10 15:18:47
Message-ID: E1J1kP9-0005Vw-Qa () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 think,
I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.
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.
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 recommend
are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
non-free software.
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 BSD variant that I could
recommend. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.
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.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Marco Peereboom < slash () peereboom ! us>
Date: 2007-12-10 16:59:11
Message-ID: 20071210165911.GR15738 () peereboom ! us
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 superfluous,
> even inconvenient. However, if anyone wants to know what I do think,
> I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
> In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.
*yawn*
>
> 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.
What you recommend is quite boring what is not boring is your lack of
research into this topic. It's ok to not know what you are talking
about; it is not ok to make blanket statements based on hearsay.
>
> 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 recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.
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. There is
not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD
on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents. We actually have
standards.
>
> 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 BSD variant that I could
> recommend. I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the
distribution. Unlike linux OpenBSD does not have a HAL. I can go on
for a while.
>
> I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
> I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
> am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
> to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.
Here is one, the code isn't bloated and doesn't mostly suck. I find it
unethical to recommend a steaming pile of crap to someone.
>
> 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 strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones
intelligence. You are basically saying: "you are retarded if you don't
let me tell you what you want".
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Nick Guenther" < kousue () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-10 17:12:46
Message-ID: 98f5a8830712100912x59a6bb69n202c1c763c689c91 () mail ! gmail ! com
On 12/10/07, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> 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.
>
> 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 recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.
>
> 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 here.
> 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.
Sir, it was brought up that the linux distributions you do suggest do
often include in their ports systems non-free software. See e.g.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119726055819074&w=2
What do you say to that? Was that a lie or a mistake?
Respectfully,
-Nick
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Steve Shockley < steve.shockley () shockley ! net>
Date: 2007-12-10 17:45:05
Message-ID: 475D7B21.5050204 () shockley ! net
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 recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.
Is the list at:
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
the list of operating systems that meet your criteria? It appears that
gNewSense includes LAME in binary format, and BLAG "recommends" it at
https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Lame in much the same way OpenBSD does.
In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar
(https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is
non-free.
Since I have time to rant but don't have time and resources to download
and install two new operating systems, feel free to correct me if my
impressions are wrong.
> I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
I don't think anyone is particularly upset that OpenBSD isn't among the
software you recommend, but to claim that OpenBSD includes "non-free"
software in its ports collection (using your definition of "free") while
claiming that gNewSense meets your criteria is disingenuous at best.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Jan Stary < hans () stare ! cz>
Date: 2007-12-11 13:01:24
Message-ID: 20071211130124.GA12035 () ns ! stare ! cz
> In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.
yeah, right.
> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial,
LOL
> I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others. Therefore,
> if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation 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)
> non-free software.
Therefore, you don't recommend linux. Oh wait ...
> From what I have heard,
(and carefully checked on the project's official
website to make sure I don't spread bullshit),
> OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure
> whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs).
Unlike linux, it does not.
> However, its ports
> system does suggest non-free programs,
No it doesn't "suggest" non-free programs in any way;
it just makes it possible and easy to install them.
As you well know.
> or > at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.
Hm, you was told. Now one paragraph above you was told
the opposite. Does that confuse you?
> I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
Good for you! Your freedom of speech was once again in jeopardy,
perhaps forcing you to include OpenBSD in the list of "software
recommended by RMS." But it's over now, don't worry. Write a book
about it instead.
> 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.
As not being recommended byt RMS basically means an EOL
of any sytem, I will deinstall tonight to be on the safe side.
(I think I can guess a line or two of the 4.3 song)
Jan
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-11 19:00:14
Message-ID: E1J2AL0-0004E8-15 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape. Everything that
ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it.
Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too?
There is
not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD
on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents.
Maybe that is true, but it's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm not
a supporter of open source anyway; I fight for free software.
Ututo and gNewSense have the policy not to include non-free programs,
not even in a ports system. Thus, they don't do anything that
contradicts the philosophy of free software. That's why I can
recommend them.
Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the
distribution.
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.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-11 19:00:17
Message-ID: E1J2AL3-0004Ea-W4 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Is the list at:
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
the list of operating systems that meet your criteria? It appears that
gNewSense includes LAME in binary format, and BLAG "recommends" it at
https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Lame in much the same way OpenBSD does.
ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check.
In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar
(https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is
non-free.
What is the license of Unrar? I will try to access that page, but I
cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me.
I will see if it works with plain http:.
I don't think anyone is particularly upset that OpenBSD isn't among the
software you recommend, but to claim that OpenBSD includes "non-free"
software in its ports collection (using your definition of "free") while
claiming that gNewSense meets your criteria is disingenuous at best.
At best, it's an accurate statement. At worst, the gNewSense
developers made a mistake, and will correct it.
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 of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I
trust the developers will remove it once they find out.
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.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-11 19:00:43
Message-ID: E1J2ALT-0004JZ-M9 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
Because he tends to be unfriendly.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-11 19:01:29
Message-ID: E1J2AMD-0004S4-Bp () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
We're on the same side here.
That is good. (gNewSense and Ututo are also against blobs.)
Sir, it was brought up that the [GNU/]linux distributions you do suggest do
often include in their ports systems non-free software. See e.g.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119726055819074&w=2
What do you say to that? Was that a lie or a mistake?
What they have told me is that they do not.
I will send mail to try to fetch the page at that URL and see what you
are talking about.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Marcus Andree" < marcusandree () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-11 19:36:37
Message-ID: d4e5a5af0712111136i78f1ea26oa23c8943eb3bb270 () mail ! gmail ! com
Sir, please check my inline comments.
On 12/11/07, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> 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 format, and BLAG "recommends" it at
> https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Lame in much the same way OpenBSD does.
>
> ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check.
>
> In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar
> (https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is
> non-free.
>
> What is the license of Unrar? I will try to access that page, but I
> cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me.
> I will see if it works with plain http:.
>
> I don't think anyone is particularly upset that OpenBSD isn't among the
> software you recommend, but to claim that OpenBSD includes "non-free"
> software in its ports collection (using your definition of "free") while
> claiming that gNewSense meets your criteria is disingenuous at best.
>
> At best, it's an accurate statement. At worst, the gNewSense
> developers made a mistake, and will correct it.
>
> My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted.
I just can't follow this. Let's see what's written in the OpenBSD ports
page (http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html):
"Motivation
OpenBSD is a fairly complete system of its own, but still there is a
lot of software that one might want to see added. However, there is
the problem of where to draw the line as to what to include, as well
as the occasional licensing and export restriction problems. As
OpenBSD is supposed to be a small stand-alone UNIX-like operating
system, some things just can't be shipped with the system."
So, an operating system can born "free" (free as in speech, in the GNU sense)
and then, become "non-free" just because some users decided to create a way
to ease installations of software that "just can't be shipped with the system"?
Despite some OpenBSD kernel developers are also port mantainers, I'd
believe that the vast majority of the latter don't do kernel programming, so
IMO, they could be labeled as "users" (since they're working in user space).
>
> 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 of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I
> trust the developers will remove it once they find out.
>
Well, it seems that we have the following pattern:
- gNewSense, if someone finds a non-free program in it, that's no disaster
- anything else, if someone finds a non free program in it, that's
surely a disaster
Please, sir, clarify....
> 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.
>
As a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like"
software install package project for it?
Thanks in advance.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "mcb, inc." < mcbinc () panix ! com>
Date: 2007-12-11 20:10:23
Message-ID: Pine.NEB.4.64.0712111458180.19372 () panix1 ! panix ! com
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 Windows
box, watch some Real Media streams and play a few Valve-
controlled games. And late at night, when the ice weasels
come, a hypnogogic fog provides cover for a last conscious
thought: "I wish, I wish, I wish... *I* had written OS X."
--
Monty Brandenberg
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Karsten McMinn" < tenyou () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-11 20:21:09
Message-ID: 8ea73e530712111221t538174e9x9a51ccb55f6cae18 () mail ! gmail ! com
On Dec 11, 2007 11:00 AM, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> 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 of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I
> trust the developers will remove it once they find out.
just a layman here trying to make sense of it all. According to you,
gNewSense, an ubuntu (debian) derivitave -- is free software. I use
ubuntu on a laptop. According to gNewSense their policy supports use of
the universe and main package repositories from ubuntu with the
few mentioned changes. Apples to apples comparisons I say. I adjust
my repositories in a repository browser and poke away. I find java, I
find tools to work with many non-free pieces of software as well.
So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column
that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Jack J. Woehr" < jwoehr () absolute-performance ! com>
Date: 2007-12-11 20:49:19
Message-ID: 475EF7CF.5040707 () absolute-performance ! com
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 last
blob-free OS in the Free Software world.
RMS's absolutism has kept alive an ideal that launched
the mainstream open source movement.
So it's not non-functional. It's emotionally hard on the
individuals concerned, and often emotionally hard on
us who bask in the reflected glow of these geniuses :-).
But it all seems to work out in practice. Has for a cuple
of decades now, give or take a few years.
--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@absolute-performance.com
303-443-7000 ext. 527
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: William Boshuck < boshuk () math ! mcgill ! ca>
Date: 2007-12-11 21:25:27
Message-ID: 20071211212527.GA13479 () prism ! math ! mcgill ! ca
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 non-free programs. Is that accurate too?
Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz
you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
& c., all of which are free. OpenBSD's ports system
depends on programs in the base system which are free.
On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible,
even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl,
sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate
the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free)
software. Your asking the question indicates that you
might have done better to exclude OpenBSD from the
scope of your remarks. When one does not know, the
most appropriate statement is 'I don't know.'
Loosely speaking, you can get away with saying
pretty much anything that suits you at the time.
Loosely speaking is the problem.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-11 21:47:00
Message-ID: 200712112147.lBBLl0kN005653 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> 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 non-free programs. Is that accurate too?
>
> Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz
> you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
> & c., all of which are free. OpenBSD's ports system
> depends on programs in the base system which are free.
> On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible,
> even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl,
> sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate
> the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free)
> software. Your asking the question indicates that you
> might have done better to exclude OpenBSD from the
> scope of your remarks. When one does not know, the
> most appropriate statement is 'I don't know.'
>
> Loosely speaking, you can get away with saying
> pretty much anything that suits you at the time.
>
> Loosely speaking is the problem.
William is right.
The OpenBSD ports tree is just a scaffold, and that scaffold is 100%
free. It contains no non-free parts.
It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports
tree has no non-free software in it at all.
Does that make it non-free?
Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?
Richard -- you spoke out of line. You are wrong.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "STeve Andre'" < andres () msu ! edu>
Date: 2007-12-11 21:49:34
Message-ID: 200712111649.35102.andres () msu ! edu
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 tree. Effectively you are taking
away the right of people to choose the software they wish to use.
Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the
freedom of choice in the name of freedom.
That is bizarre.
--STeve Andre'
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Steve Shockley < steve.shockley () shockley ! net>
Date: 2007-12-11 22:21:53
Message-ID: 475F0D81.5050303 () shockley ! net
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
In short, the patents don't affect what you can do with the source code,
they affect what you can do with the program after you compile it. So,
you can modify, compile and distribute the program all you want, but if
you actually execute the program you need a patent license. I suppose
that could be considered Free Software, with a very narrow definition of
Free.
> What is the license of Unrar? I will try to access that page, but I
> cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me.
> I will see if it works with plain http:.
Unfortuately, several of the sites linked from the FSF page require
viewing using their self-signed SSL cert for some reason.
From license.txt in the unrar source archive:
-----
The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives
without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the
RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
-----
That seems to run completely counter to the ideals of the GPL, but I
suppose you're the expert.
> 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'm not sure I see how this is an issue. With gNewSense, I can point to
the Debian/Ubuntu repositories and install unfree software binaries.
With OpenBSD, to run unfree software I need to check out the Ports tree,
find the package I want to run, compile it, and install it. (Note the
distinction between Ports, which contains all the third-party software,
and Packages, which contains only Free software.)
So, it would seem that (barring human error) the primary philosophical
difference between the packaging systems of OpenBSD and gNewSense is
that gNewSense tries to prevent you from seeing any packages they
consider non-Free, while OpenBSD directly provides only Free software
(Packages) but gives the user a choice of installing any software
(Ports). So, from my point of view, OpenBSD provides the user with more
freedom by not imposing artificial restrictions. After all, this
removes "the overhead of considering who owns the system software and
what one is or is not entitled to do with it"[1]. Do you disagree?
[1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html, "Why All Computer Users Will
Benefit"
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Steve Shockley < steve.shockley () shockley ! net>
Date: 2007-12-11 22:31:01
Message-ID: 475F0FA5.6020207 () shockley ! net
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 interested in writing code and changing the
world than making friends. Personally, I think he's made the right choice.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Jacob Meuser < jakemsr () sdf ! lonestar ! org>
Date: 2007-12-11 23:53:55
Message-ID: 20071211235355.GB894 () SDF ! LONESTAR ! ORG
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, yes and no.
>
> Theo's absolutism has kept OpenBSD pretty much the last
> blob-free OS in the Free Software world.
>
> RMS's absolutism has kept alive an ideal that launched
> the mainstream open source movement.
his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a
"social failure".
> So it's not non-functional. It's emotionally hard on the
> individuals concerned, and often emotionally hard on
> us who bask in the reflected glow of these geniuses :-).
> But it all seems to work out in practice. Has for a cuple
> of decades now, give or take a few years.
recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.
and all stallman says about it is basically, "I am not familiar
with the situation, leave me alone."
I would like to see more cooperation between the free software
developers.
but IMO, stallman is the one being far more unfriendly and
uncooperative. of course stallman is not directly responsible
for the actions of the GPL community. but his opinions do wield
power. didn't this whole thread start because of his opinions
and recommendations?
now stallman won't talk to theo, because theo is unabashed in
stating his opinions? just look at the thread. between theo
and stallman, who posted the most words, and who gave less
misinformation/slant?
in much fewer words: the gutless politician attempted to use his
influence to snub and smear his opponent. when fallacies in his
campaign were brought to light, he accused his opponent of being
unfriendly.
--
jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-11 23:56:57
Message-ID: E1J2Ey9-0007Ya-Kk () fencepost ! gnu ! org
> 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)
> non-free software.
Therefore, you don't recommend linux. Oh wait ...
I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
> However, its ports
> system does suggest non-free programs,
No it doesn't "suggest" non-free programs in any way;
it just makes it possible and easy to install them.
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.
You may have a different interpretation of these facts.
That's my interpretation of them.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: ropers < ropers () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-12 0:17:32
Message-ID: 5ce044e40712111617m2302610u99392e52b2705dde () mail ! gmail ! com
> > 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 non-free programs. Is that accurate too?
> William Boshuck wrote:
> > Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz
> > you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
> > & c., all of which are free. OpenBSD's ports system
> > depends on programs in the base system which are free.
> > On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible,
> > even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl,
> > sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate
> > the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free)
> > software.
On 11/12/2007, Theo de Raadt < deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote:
> William is right.
>
> The OpenBSD ports tree is just a scaffold, and that scaffold is 100%
> free. It contains no non-free parts.
>
> It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
> knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports
> tree has no non-free software in it at all.
>
> Does that make it non-free?
I would like to ask Richard a question. It may seem off-topic, but it isn't:
Do you believe that The Pirate Bay is guilty of copyright infringement?
In case you're not familiar, The Pirate Bay ( http://thepiratebay.org/
, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay ) is a Swedish website
that offers users the opportunity to upload metadata files that
contain information about where and how data files can be downloaded.
It also allows users to download the metadata files that users have
uploaded. Some users (possibly even a large number) use this service
to upload metadata files that contain info that can be used to obtain
copyrighted material, possibly without the copyright holder's
permission.
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 only contains metadata.
- The individual ports in the ports system are maintained by
(advanced) OpenBSD users. The inclusion of a port that users chose to
submit and maintain does not imply an endorsement of the (possibly
unfree) software that can be installed using the port metadata.
- The use of the ports system is officially *discouraged* for average
users. Average Joes are encouraged to *not* use ports but use OpenBSD
_packages_ instead, which are precompiled binaries which are hosted by
OpenBSD. ( See "IMPORTANT NOTE" here:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports ) There are no unfree
packages. See for yourself: (caution: very long page and long load)
http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
- Unlike the Pirate Bay, the OpenBSD ports system does itself
distinguish between free and unfree content. See this comment by Nick
Guenther:
> It may be relevant to point out:
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119731456628749&w=2
> > Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports
> > tree would be useful.
>
> PERMIT_*=(not Yes)
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 install Skype. Just add an unfree
repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to
install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not
warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so
why expect more from OpenBSD?
Richard, I you wrote:
> If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
I suspect that your skepticism of OpenBSD stems from yourself being
unfamiliar with the OpenBSD packages and ports system and not aware
that the OpenBSD project does not in fact host unfree packages (and
that ports for unfree programs such as users have submitted only
contain metadata).
In summary, I strongly feel that OpenBSD in fact does *not* suggest
non-free programs. Despite the heated and sometimes personal nature of
this thread, I think the honorable thing to do would be to be the
bigger man and acknowledge the misunderstandings and make good on your
offer to recommend OpenBSD.
Thanks and regards,
--ropers
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Jason Dixon < jason () dixongroup ! net>
Date: 2007-12-12 0:24:39
Message-ID: 5C6BB839-7E53-4C8F-A38E-75DD95549652 () dixongroup ! net
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 your interpretation? When non-free ports frameworks are
hosted outside the official OpenBSD cvs repository? On a server not
owned by the OpenBSD project? What if I want to host it on my own
server, but I also happen to be an OpenBSD developer? When does the
disassociation satisfy your unpublished requirements?
Your interpretation is vague and self-serving.
---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 8:37:31
Message-ID: E1J2N5v-0004Vs-5F () fencepost ! gnu ! org
So, an operating system can born "free" (free as in speech, in the GNU sense)
and then, become "non-free" just because some users decided to create a way
to ease installations of software that "just can't be shipped with the system"?
You've formulated a very broad description, which applies to the act
of putting a non-free program in the ports system, and equally to many
other acts whose nature is different. For instance, the program might
or might not be free; the easier way might or might not be included in
OpenBSD. I might say the act was bad, or I might say it was good,
depending on the details not specified.
If "some users" write a way to "ease installation" of some non-free
program, and distribution D doesn't include this way in its
distribution or publicize it, then those users have done something bad
but distribution D is not responsible for what they did.
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.
I say "distribution D" because this is the same for any distribution,
whether it's a distribution of the BSD system, or a distribution the
GNU/Linux system, or whatever.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 8:37:32
Message-ID: E1J2N5w-0004Y6-H4 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Well, it seems that we have the following pattern:
- gNewSense, if someone finds a non-free program in it, that's no disaster
- anything else, if someone finds a non free program in it, that's
surely a disaster
Please, sir, clarify....
The words I posted before ought to clarify this:
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 of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I
trust the developers will remove it once they find out.
What I said applies just the same to gNewSense and OpenBSD.
I think you misinterpreted it.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 8:37:33
Message-ID: E1J2N5x-0004bG-Rf () fencepost ! gnu ! org
As a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like"
software install package project for it?
If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would
promote non-free software.
If it were included in or recommended by gNewSense, then gNewSense
would promote non-free software. I trust they wouldn't do that,
because their policies are not to do that.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Mattieu Baptiste" < mattieu.b () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-12 9:30:05
Message-ID: e3f35aaa0712120130y64352748v8c17e737b598b85 () mail ! gmail ! com
On Dec 12, 2007 9:37 AM, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> If "some users" write a way to "ease installation" of some non-free
> program, and distribution D doesn't include this way in its
> distribution or publicize it, then those users have done something bad
> but distribution D is not responsible for what they did.
>
> 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.
Hi Richard,
gNewSense uses the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel facilitates utilization of
non-free blobs. By using the Linux kernel, every idiotic people can install
Nvidia binary drivers on Linux-based distributions, like gNewSense... So if
I follow your meanings, gNewSense can not be recommended, right ?
--
Mattieu Baptiste
"/earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can."
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: ropers < ropers () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-12 9:54:59
Message-ID: 5ce044e40712120154s6adce808oc52e27be2a46bb31 () mail ! gmail ! com
On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> As a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like"
> software install package project for it?
>
> If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would
> promote non-free software.
>
> If it were included in or recommended by gNewSense, then gNewSense
> would promote non-free software. I trust they wouldn't do that,
> because their policies are not to do that.
And I repeat again:
The OpenBSD ports tree is *neither included in nor recommended* by OpenBSD.
OpenBSD *Does. Not. Do. That.* because OpenBSD's policies are not to do that.
The OpenBSD packages system cannot be used install non-free software,
because there are none. However, it is trivially easy to use the
gNewSense apt system to install unfree software. This requires three
steps at most. From
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Skype#head-5c18cc60f56f7f5f651ee9abeca60f0ab62545f7
(Yes, this is an Ubuntu site, but AFAIK the exact same instructions
can be used on gNewSense.):
1. Add the Skype repository to /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free
2. Reload or update the package information
3. Install the skype package.
Richard, I am just asking you to be consistent and avoid the
impression of biased decisionmaking based on a conflict of interest.
Thanks and regards,
--ropers
PS:
Ok, and I *know* I should not be trolling, but I have to get this over with:
gNewSense -- nuisance ;o)
There. I feel better now. I had to get that off my chest. Sorry, Could
Not Resist. ;-)
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Kyle George < kgeorge () tcpsoft ! com>
Date: 2007-12-12 10:03:11
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0712120426020.9180 () patton ! tcpsoft ! net
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using
> that program. It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that
> is what I am opposed to.
If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the
book? Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect
the citizenry? Absolutely not.
Along these same lines, it doesn't make sense to try to hide what software
is out there. I think people can figure out which software they want to
use from ports after installing the base system, free or non-free.
Either way, a makefile to download and install a non-free piece of
software doesn't make the system any less free.
--
Kyle George
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Rodrigo V. Raimundo" < spyro () das ! ufsc ! br>
Date: 2007-12-12 15:22:52
Message-ID: 200712121322.52995.spyro () das ! ufsc ! br
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 06:37, Richard Stallman wrote:
> However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
> its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
> the ethical responsibility for it.
>
Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical because it allows
compilation of non-free software.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Marc Espie < espie () nerim ! net>
Date: 2007-12-12 17:01:29
Message-ID: 20071212170129.GA13234 () lain ! home
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 03:37:31AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
> its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
> the ethical responsibility for it.
Nope.
Users have responsability for what they do. We do not take responsability
for them. We give them enough information to make their informed decision.
In my opinion, that's the ethical way to do things.
But then, that's the main difference between BSD and GNU.
In BSD land, we trust the human nature. We're not condescending to our
users, we treat them as adults and we let them make *their* own ethical
choice and take their own decision. We are *neutral* with respect to
commercial programs. Maybe they're evil, maybe they're not. But we show
enough respect to people to let them choose what they want.
In the brave GNU land, you've taken upon yourself to take ethical decisions
and protect the user from making those decisions...
I think it's pretty clear where I stand. Of course, my voice doesn't carry
the weight yours does.
`with great power, comes great responsability.'
maybe you're misusing your power, Richard.
'nugh said.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s?=" < adelfino () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-12 17:04:00
Message-ID: 4d90013f0712120904i46afde41sb8d267277cd27858 () mail ! gmail ! com
To: list
Richard's words are the essence of the Free Software Foundation and
the GNU General Public License: people _must_ use free software,
people _can_ decide whether to use free software or not, but people
_must not_ be free to exercise that desire. I will explain that last
statement, since it may seem extreme. Easing the exercise of that
desire (with a port system, for instance) is "bad". An operative
system which does allow installation of free software, and tries to
disallow the installation of non-free software in a disguised way
(hiding it), is gifted with a promotion of its work. So, let's write a
quick condition here:
// Check whether this is good shit
if (allows(project, free_software) && ! allows(project, non_free_software))
add_to_list(project);
To: Richard Matthew Stallman
Since The Free Software foundation mission is to "preserve, protect
and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute
computer software" (free software), please, Richard, remove Linux from
the Free Software Directory (since "Torvalds' version of Linux is not
free software", and that is the version listed in the directory);
because you, as the director of the Free Software Foundation with
responsabilities for all work of said foundation, are promoting
software which is not free. Removing all quotes which promotes Linux
would help users not to get attracted to Linus version, too. There is
a copylefted implementation of grep, so finding them would be quite
easy.
Greetings.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: ropers < ropers () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-12 3:46:40
Message-ID: 5ce044e40712111946k6ad080c2s7f806e9e7f9b64d () mail ! gmail ! com
I'd like to add two things I forgot earlier on, for Richards consideration:
On 12/12/2007, ropers < ropers@gmail.com> 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 only contains metadata.
> - The individual ports in the ports system are maintained by
> (advanced) OpenBSD users. The inclusion of a port that users chose to
> submit and maintain does not imply an endorsement of the (possibly
> unfree) software that can be installed using the port metadata.
> - The use of the ports system is officially *discouraged* for average
> users. Average Joes are encouraged to *not* use ports but use OpenBSD
> _packages_ instead, which are precompiled binaries which are hosted by
> OpenBSD. ( See "IMPORTANT NOTE" here:
> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports ) There are no unfree
> packages. See for yourself: (caution: very long page and long load)
> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
> - Unlike the Pirate Bay, the OpenBSD ports system does itself
> distinguish between free and unfree content. See this comment by Nick
> Guenther:
> > It may be relevant to point out:
> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119731456628749&w=2
> > > Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports
> > > tree would be useful.
> >
> > PERMIT_*=(not Yes)
- Here I'd like to add that the ports tree is *not* part of the
OpenBSD operating system install. The ports tree is something the user
has to actively look for and check out to their local system if they
want it. This means that the OpenBSD OS and install CD are *completely
free* of even the metadata repository that contains user-contributed
metadata files, only a minority of which refer to unfree software.
As far as I understand, the OpenBSD position appears to be that trying
to police users by forbidding them to maintain and retrieve port
metadata about unfree software via this adjunct service (that is not
included in the OS) would be a restriction of the users' freedom.
The Pirate Bay does not police torrents, or suppress certain torrents,
and OpenBSD does likewise not police ports. If a user wants to be an
ass and do something stupid and unethical, they can. They have the
freedom to do that. But don't blame OpenBSD for that. It only has an
adjunct facility that allows what is effectively the exchange of
advanced semi-automated usage information, nothing more. And yes, it
even allows users to exchange stupid usage information, such as how to
install unfree-app-xyz. The choice whether to do something stupid is
left up to the user, but the user is advised not to use ports in the
first place, and hints that allow users to more easily distinguish
halal from haram software are in place.
> 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 install Skype. Just add an unfree
> repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to
> install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not
> warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so
> why expect more from OpenBSD?
Also, the installation of unfree software is *extremely* frowned upon
by the OpenBSD user community. To stay with the Skype example:
http://www.nabble.com/Skype-on-the-OpenBSD-td14113398.html
http://www.nabble.com/Skype-on-the-OpenBSD-td14113398i20.html
> Richard, I you wrote:
> > If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> > recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
>
> I suspect that your skepticism of OpenBSD stems from yourself being
> unfamiliar with the OpenBSD packages and ports system and not aware
> that the OpenBSD project does not in fact host unfree packages (and
> that ports for unfree programs such as users have submitted only
> contain metadata).
>
> In summary, I strongly feel that OpenBSD in fact does *not* suggest
> non-free programs. Despite the heated and sometimes personal nature of
> this thread, I think the honorable thing to do would be to be the
> bigger man and acknowledge the misunderstandings and make good on your
> offer to recommend OpenBSD.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> --ropers
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Travers Buda < traversbuda () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-12 4:55:12
Message-ID: 20071212045512.GA16084 () box ! none
* ropers < ropers@gmail.com> [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 install Skype. Just add an unfree
> repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to
> install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not
> warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so
> why expect more from OpenBSD?
>
I agree,
In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
software is to basically only distribute binaries for say, atleast
the kernel, and only allow cryptographically hashed binaries to
run, or something of that sort. That would not stand up long, you
could say, offline replace the kernel, or hell, just fork the
distribution, or any other myriad of ways.
The point is that is very difficult to force people to behave in
certain ways, such as only using GPL software. However, if they
_want_ to only use GPL software, then that's what they will do.
You _can_ run OpenBSD without non GPL, non BSD licensed software.
That's how it ships, (save for firmware which we have the rigths
to distribute.) Just as you can also run it with something not open
and not free. Attempts to force users to do otherwise would be
futile. This is the exact same case with the 100% FSF-approved
linux distributions Stallman suggested. People do not run non free
software on these distributions. It's not because they can't, it's
because they don't want to.
An aside: The GPL does its job, but only if people put that license
on their software. So remember--people's wills, not the license.
--
Travers Buda
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: L < l () z505 ! com>
Date: 2007-12-12 8:16:55
Message-ID: 475F98F7.2090705 () z505 ! com
> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
>> Because he tends to be unfriendly.
>
Assuming and/or judging that someone is unfriendly, is an unfriendly act
itself. Publicly stating on a mailing list that someone 'tends' to be
unfriendly is a very unfriendly act. Especially since the word 'tends'
sounds very much like FUD spreading (fear of Theo, ohhh, is he friendly,
or is he mad? what will we do? use words like 'tends' and live in fear,
uncertainty, or doubt).
Stating that someone 'tends' to be unfriendly would be encouraging more
unfriendliness from that unfriendly person, if they were even unfriendly
in the first place.
Even if they were unfriendly, stating publicly that they 'tend' to be
unfriendly would not be healing an unfriendly person, nor a friendly
person that was incorrectly judged as unfriendly.
Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
first place.
Bringing up friendliness versus unfriendliness in a conversation which
had nothing to do with unfriendliness, is very unfriendly and provoking.
I declare the comment a flamebait, in which I was baited successfully.
Therefore, one who makes a premature unfriendly judgment, may in fact be
*the* actual unfriendly, judgmental, and assumptive person in reality.
Laugh and smile,
L505
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 22:52:24
Message-ID: E1J2aRE-0000vv-AW () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
first place.
Someone else attacked me on this list for not discussing this with
Theo. I explained the reason in the gentlest way I could think of.
If you wish we were not discussing the subject, you had best take it
up with him.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 22:52:29
Message-ID: E1J2aRJ-0000wo-Ly () fencepost ! gnu ! org
In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
software
Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH,
whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if
my memory serves). It is free software, so why not use it?
Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-free software? Not I. I think that software is
unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone. But I
have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.
If no one is in favor, why argue against?
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 22:53:09
Message-ID: E1J2aRx-00011w-Qx () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Where is your line in the sand? When does an operating system become
free by your interpretation? When non-free ports frameworks are
hosted outside the official OpenBSD cvs repository? On a server not
owned by the OpenBSD project?
If they are published by someone else, and OpenBSD doesn't point
people at them, then OpenBSD is not responsible for them.
Helping people install non-free software is bad, just as developing
and distributing non-free software is bad. But if OpenBSD doesn't
participate in spreading that information, it's not OpenBSD's fault.
What if I want to host it on my own
server, but I also happen to be an OpenBSD developer?
I don't think it matters whether you're an OpenBSD developer. What
matters is whether OpenBSD (in the distribution and its servers) says
anything to leads users to that information. Mentioning your name in
other some context, such as to thank you for your contributions, would
not lead people to look at your site for non-free software, so it is
not an issue.
If OpenBSD eliminates the non-free programs from the ports system
that it recommends to users, then I will consider it good.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 22:53:35
Message-ID: E1J2aSN-00015s-9B () fencepost ! gnu ! org
few mentioned changes. Apples to apples comparisons I say. I adjust
my repositories in a repository browser and poke away. I find java, I
find tools to work with many non-free pieces of software as well.
Could you explain what "I adjust my repositories in a repository
browser" means, precisely? I need to know the details in order to see
whether this is a problem that gNewSense is responsible for.
Non-free software is available on the net, and people can find and
install it. I think that is unethical, but gNewSense is not
responsible for that (and neither is OpenBSD). On the other hand, if
there is something in gNewSense recommending or leading you to that
non-free software, that would be the responsibility of gNewSense.
So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column
that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?
Putting the non-free software in a separate folder or labeling it is
not enough. That is what Debian does, and that's why I don't
recommend Debian. Likewise, that's what Ubuntu does nowadays, which
is why I don't recommend Ubuntu. Gobuntu does the same thing -- the
non-free repositories are disabled by default, but a dialog box offers
the chance to enable them. So I don't recommend Gobuntu either.
(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.)
The right thing to do is kick out the non-free softwre entirely. I
tried for years to persuade Debian to do that, and eventually I gave
up on them. I tried to talk with the Ubuntu developers about this,
too, and did not succeed. All I can do is not recommend those
distros.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 23:10:29
Message-ID: 200712122310.lBCNATpr006450 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
> conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
> even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
> first place.
>
> Someone else attacked me on this list for not discussing this with
> Theo. I explained the reason in the gentlest way I could think of.
> If you wish we were not discussing the subject, you had best take it
> up with him.
There is nothing to discuss with me.
Richard claimed that there is non-free software in OpenBSD. That is
not true.
It is no more true than Linux being able to run commercial binaries.
The ports tree is just a scaffold.
Richard, you are wrong. You said very clearly in your interview that
the ports tree contains non-free software. It does not. It is just a
scaffold of Makefiles containing URLs, and an occasional patch here or
there.
You are just plain wrong. And you are not enough of a man to admit
that you are wrong.
I may be unfriendly at times, but you are a power-misusing
hypocritical liar who attacks projects that try harder than any
others to only make free software available.
Shame on you.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 23:28:39
Message-ID: 200712122328.lBCNSdXH001588 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
> running non-free software? Not I. I think that software is
> unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone. But I
> have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.
Yet you were in an interview where you argued against using OpenBSD,
because it permits users to run non-free software.
Your argument was that OpenBSD contains non-free parts in it's
ports tree.
This has been proven to be false.
Here, go have a look
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/poerts.tar.gz
It's just an entirely free scaffold of Makefiles and little patches.
Nothing more. It is 100% source, and it is 100% free.
If you are going to go around making pronouncements from your pulpit,
you might want to go educate yourself.
But once again, you failed to educate yourself before you opened your
big fat mouth on a talk show and stated utterly uneducated and false
statements . You have had ample opportunity to say "I was wrong", yet
you have not done so yet.
You keep argueing, and that is because you are a coward.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-12 23:30:31
Message-ID: 200712122330.lBCNUVje007372 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> few mentioned changes. Apples to apples comparisons I say. I adjust
> my repositories in a repository browser and poke away. I find java, I
> find tools to work with many non-free pieces of software as well.
>
> Could you explain what "I adjust my repositories in a repository
> browser" means, precisely? I need to know the details in order to see
> whether this is a problem that gNewSense is responsible for.
>
> Non-free software is available on the net, and people can find and
> install it. I think that is unethical, but gNewSense is not
> responsible for that (and neither is OpenBSD). On the other hand, if
> there is something in gNewSense recommending or leading you to that
> non-free software, that would be the responsibility of gNewSense.
>
> So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column
> that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?
>
> Putting the non-free software in a separate folder or labeling it is
> not enough. That is what Debian does, and that's why I don't
> recommend Debian. Likewise, that's what Ubuntu does nowadays, which
> is why I don't recommend Ubuntu. Gobuntu does the same thing -- the
> non-free repositories are disabled by default, but a dialog box offers
> the chance to enable them. So I don't recommend Gobuntu either.
>
> (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.)
>
> The right thing to do is kick out the non-free softwre entirely. I
> tried for years to persuade Debian to do that, and eventually I gave
> up on them. I tried to talk with the Ubuntu developers about this,
> too, and did not succeed. All I can do is not recommend those
> distros.
Boo hoo, hoo, hoo.
We don't care about your failures, Richard.
Get of our mailing lists, or we WILL start cc'ing your groups'
mailing lists.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: ropers < ropers () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-13 1:12:49
Message-ID: 5ce044e40712121712h627f468emb5ae967d01325436 () mail ! gmail ! com
On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> If OpenBSD eliminates the non-free programs from the ports system
> that it recommends to users, then I will consider it good.
Richard,
I'm trying very hard here to assume that you're acting in good faith,
and frankly, your words make it A LOT simpler to assume that you are
acting in bad faith, which is what Theo and many others have long
since resigned themselves to assuming (hence the reactions you're
getting).
You said "Real men don't attack straw men". Yet this is *EXACTLY* what
you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write 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 THE PORTS TREE.
When you started this discussion, I assumed that you were simply ill
informed about the OpenBSD packages and ports systems and the
difference between them and how they intersect.
Misunderstandings or having a misconception are no shame,
But you now have already been told that OpenBSD recommends packages
and that it does not recommend the ports tree. Yet you continue to
criticise OpenBSD based on your (incorrect) view that it recommends
the ports tree.
That is a straw man argument.
OpenBSD does not recommend the ports tree.
It says right in the FAQ in *bold* letters:
"Everyone is encouraged to use the pre-compiled binary packages."
( http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports )
You should know this.
I alone have told you so again
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119741909911558&w=2
and again
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119743259725428&w=2
and again
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119745441717134&w=2
and again
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119746948206930&w=2
and others have concurred
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119746051925719&w=2
Richard, I if you are in fact merely ill-informed and not acting in
bad faith, then I would like to offer you to have a one on one email
conversation, where I will be happy to explain to you exactly the
nature of the OpenBSD ports and packages systems. But let's do that
off-list, because people here already know this, and having that
discussion on-list would just further worsen the signal to noise
ratio.
But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119741909911558&w=2
A long time ago, possibly after your post-FOSDEM '05 clash with Theo,
I had a private email discussion with Theo where he held that you were
acting in bad faith. Without knowing you personally, I said that I
didn't think you necessarily did and there could be other reasons for
perceived sleights, such as unfamiliarity with the subject matter at
hand. Your repeated inaccurate statements and apparent straw man
arguments weaken my side and lend more credence to the assumption that
you are purposefully acting in bad faith, which an increasing number
of misc readers now subscribe to.
Again, please answer my emails, and please send me a private email, so
we can both better familiarise ourselves with each other's reasoning
without further irritating the readers of the very busy misc list.
Thanks and regards,
--ropers (Jens Ropers)
ropers@gmail.com
ropers@ropersonline.com
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Travers Buda < traversbuda () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-13 2:10:16
Message-ID: 20071213021016.GA13941 () box ! none
* Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> [2007-12-12 17:52:29]:
> In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
> software
>
> Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
> running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH,
> whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if
> my memory serves). It is free software, so why not use it?
>
> Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
> running non-free software? Not I. I think that software is
> unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone. But I
> have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.
>
> If no one is in favor, why argue against?
>
So you support the freedom to install whatever the hell you want?
However, the OS should not suggest that to the user?
I guess everything is fine unless the secret gets out...
Especially since it's pretty easy to add new repositories on many
ports systems.
I think that if you do get what you want,
Stallman, it's going to be because the user wants that too. It's
their choice, and _I don't see how operating systems should be
incharge of morality._
The people who ought to be incharge of morality are people themselves.
Every person needs to make a conscious decision to act in such and
such a manner. You can certainly advise them, but heavy-handed
action such as gNewSense is a bit too much for me.
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 Linux but proscribes to your free-only
philosophy. They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin
(which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not
to. If they are choosing not to do it because of ideological
grounds, they are probably well-informed. The only difference in
the end is choice. It's the choice that matters, not what the
distribution ships with. Hell, still on this example user, adobe
flash could even come installed and they never use it, what's the
difference between that and gNewSense? Is it the orientation of
the bits on their hard drive that matters? How about their neighbor's
hard drive?
Where do you draw the line?
--
Travers Buda
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:51:37
Message-ID: E1J2rHd-0001TP-16 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a
"social failure".
If some people think that, they did not get it from me. I do not call
BSD either of those things. I say that releasing free software under
a non-copyleft free software license is basically good (i.e., not
evil), but that using copyleft is better.
recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.
I don't think it is wrong in general to relicense code from BSD to
GPL. However, in some cases I think it is more useful not to do so,
in order to contribute changes back to the original BSD-licensed
project.
If such an issue arises for a GNU package, and people think it is not
doing the most useful thing, I will look at the issue and then if
necessary discuss it with the developers.
However, if such an issue arises for a program which is not a GNU
package, I will not get involved unless the developers ask me for
advice.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:51:38
Message-ID: E1J2rHe-0001TR-BQ () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Richard's words are the essence of the Free Software Foundation and
the GNU General Public License: people _must_ use free software,
people _can_ decide whether to use free software or not, but people
_must not_ be free to exercise that desire.
That is not what I said. See several other postings of mine today for
a statement of my views.
// Check whether this is good shit
if (allows(project, free_software) && ! allows(project, non_free_software))
add_to_list(project);
If you replace "allows" with "contains or recommends"
then it will accurately reflect what I said.
Since The Free Software foundation mission is to "preserve, protect
and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute
computer software" (free software), please, Richard, remove Linux from
the Free Software Directory (since "Torvalds' version of Linux is not
free software", and that is the version listed in the directory);
I will ask the person who maintains the directory to remove Linux
or else point to a free version of it. Thank you for pointing out
this problem.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:51:40
Message-ID: E1J2rHg-0001Tg-WE () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Users have responsability for what they do. We do not take responsability
for them. We give them enough information to make their informed decision.
In my opinion, that's the ethical way to do things.
In my opinion, we ought to take responsibility for the recommendations
and assistance we give to others. Thus, we should not steer people
towards non-free software. Even though they are not forced to follow
our advice, we are still responsible for having given it.
In BSD land, we trust the human nature. We're not condescending to our
users, we treat them as adults and we let them make *their* own ethical
choice and take their own decision.
You cannot claim the credit for "letting" them, because it is a fact
that they can do so in any case. It is misleading to speak of "letting"
or "stopping" the users from installing non-free software.
What's really going on is that you are helping them use the non-free
software, which grants it legitimacy. That is what I object to.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:51:48
Message-ID: E1J2rHo-0001Ue-W2 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
> However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
> its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
> the ethical responsibility for it.
Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical because it allows
compilation of non-free software.
That isn't the same argument, or even the same issue.
You are talking about what the user can do.
I'm talking about something else: what the system distro suggests
that the user do.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:51:58
Message-ID: E1J2rHy-0001Vc-CI () fencepost ! gnu ! org
If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the
book? Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect
the citizenry? Absolutely not.
A system distribution is more like an anthology than like a library.
We do consider the editor of the anthology book responsible for the choice
of what to include.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:01
Message-ID: E1J2rI1-0001Vu-3v () fencepost ! gnu ! org
However, it is trivially easy to use the
gNewSense apt system to install unfree software.
Any general-purpose system can run non-free software, but that's not
the issue. The issue is whether a distribution refers people to the
non-free software or not.
Since so many messages have been based on disregarding that
distinction, I suggest that everyone reread the paragraph above.
From
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Skype#head-5c18cc60f56f7f5f651ee9abeca60f0ab62545f7
Ubuntu does many things that suggest installing non-free software. I
did not know about this example, but I know of others which are worse.
That is why I refuse to recommend Ubuntu.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:02
Message-ID: E1J2rI2-0001W1-E0 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
gNewSense uses the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel facilitates utilization of
non-free blobs.
gNewSense does not include, or refer to, or tell people about
the drivers that use non-free blobs.
Torvalds's decision to put blobs into Linux was a bad one, but
gNewSense is ok because it does not follow Torvalds' bad decision.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:06
Message-ID: E1J2rI6-0001Wa-JC () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Interestingly enough, if you specified that as the reason you recommend
against using OpenBSD, this thread would have been a lot shorter.
Maybe it would have led to a shorter thread, but it would not have
been accurate. My decision not to recommend OpenBSD was not based on
personalities.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:10
Message-ID: E1J2rIA-0001X5-J5 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the
freedom of choice in the name of freedom.
Freedom means having control of your own life; "Freedom of choice" is
a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and
taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions.
Thus, I say I advocate "freedom" -- not "freedom of choice".
This always leads to the question of "which freedom?" In the area of
software, I want a society in which users are free to run software,
free study and change its source code and make their changed versions
run, and free to redistribute changed and unchanged versions. In
other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't
exist.
Establishing a free society that endures generally requires not
allowing people to give up freedom. In other words, it requires
inalienable rights. I do not want a society in which people had those
freedoms only until they gave them up.
I do not say this with the expectation that you will agree with me.
It sounds like you are as firmly convinced of your views as I am of
mine. I hope, though, that at least you will understand better
what my position is.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:11
Message-ID: E1J2rIB-0001XL-TJ () fencepost ! gnu ! org
> > Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
> > system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too?
>
> Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz
> you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
> & c., all of which are free.
I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system
includes instructions for fetching, building and installing specific
non-free programs. I usually simplify that to "includes" because I
figured anyone who knows about the ports system understands those
details, and because they don't change anything.
It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports
tree has no non-free software in it at all.
Does that make it non-free?
Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".
Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?
No, that's a totally different question.
Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO.
Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO.
The answer to Q1 is always yes. I'm concerned with Q2.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:14
Message-ID: E1J2rIE-0001XZ-IA () fencepost ! gnu ! org
As far as I understand, the OpenBSD position appears to be that trying
to police users by forbidding them to maintain and retrieve port
metadata about unfree software via this adjunct service (that is not
included in the OS) would be a restriction of the users' freedom.
Obviously I disagree with that position. This isn't an issue of the
users' freedom at all. It is an issue of what OpenBSD says to the
public.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:15
Message-ID: E1J2rIF-0001Xi-Vy () fencepost ! gnu ! org
Do you believe that The Pirate Bay is guilty of copyright infringement?
That is a legal question, not an ethical question. I do not know what
the law of any given country would say about the Pirate Bay. You
would need to ask a lawyer.
Instead of that legal question, we could ask an ethical question: is
The Pirate Bay's activity right or wrong?
In general, I think people have a moral right to share copies of
published works, so I see no reason to criticize the Pirate Bay in
general. However, I would not recommend that as a place to look for
software, both because some of the software might be non-free, and for
security reasons.
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. Currently,
that option does not exist.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:21
Message-ID: E1J2rIL-0001YM-Ah () fencepost ! gnu ! org
LAME is free software, but distributing it may be dangerous. I do not
criticize those who distribute it. Meanwhile, the FSF support efforts
to reject MP3 format and adopt OGG formats.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:23
Message-ID: E1J2rIN-0001Yl-UU () fencepost ! gnu ! org
From license.txt in the unrar source archive:
-----
The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives
without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the
RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
-----
UnRAR seems to be a real problem. I will discuss it with the BLAG
developers.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Mattieu Baptiste" < mattieu.b () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-13 17:37:48
Message-ID: e3f35aaa0712130937v7dd9f05anfa2a110f339f923c () mail ! gmail ! com
On Dec 13, 2007 5:52 PM, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> gNewSense uses the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel facilitates
> utilization of
> non-free blobs.
>
> gNewSense does not include, or refer to, or tell people about
> the drivers that use non-free blobs.
You manipulate my comments. Your point was :
"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, like nvidia binary drivers. I wasn't speaking
about non free blobs that are in the Torvald's kernel but the nvidia one
that is NOT in it. Moreover, this facility to install blobs that the linux
kernel *provides* comes with the base gNewSense system... OpenBSD non-free
packages are not in the base system and not even available...
> Torvalds's decision to put blobs into Linux was a bad one, but
> gNewSense is ok because it does not follow Torvalds' bad decision.
This sounds to me simply wrong because your statements are full of
contradictions.
--
Mattieu Baptiste
"/earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can."
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:52:25
Message-ID: E1J2rIP-0001Yv-9B () fencepost ! gnu ! org
So, it would seem that (barring human error) the primary philosophical
difference between the packaging systems of OpenBSD and gNewSense is
that gNewSense tries to prevent you from seeing any packages they
consider non-Free, while OpenBSD directly provides only Free software
(Packages) but gives the user a choice of installing any software
(Ports).
The above description of gNewSense is inaccurate. gNewSense doesn't
try to "prevent" you from seeing anything. How could stop you?
What gNewSense does is avoid suggesting non-free programs you might
use.
The above description of OpenBSD is not false, but it is misleading.
OpenBSD can't "give" (or not give) users the the choice of installing
non-free software, any more than I could "give" you (or not give you)
the choice of what to eat for dinner tomorrow. It's simply a fact
that non-free software can be installed on any general-purpose system.
The difference between gNewSense and OpenBSD which is the cause of my
different judgment of them is that OpenBSD presents non-free software
in the list of programs it can install for you (through the ports
system), and gNewSense doesn't.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: marina () surferz ! net
Date: 2007-12-13 17:21:15
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.62.0712131217450.15247 () mail ! surferz ! net
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
> imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the
> book? Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect
> the citizenry? Absolutely not.
>
> A system distribution is more like an anthology than like a library.
> We do consider the editor of the anthology book responsible for the choice
> of what to include.
>
>
An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports
tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to.
Your argument here fails.
--- Marina Brown
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 17:55:16
Message-ID: 200712131755.lBDHtGQA008785 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> Users have responsability for what they do. We do not take responsability
> for them. We give them enough information to make their informed decision.
>
> In my opinion, that's the ethical way to do things.
>
> In my opinion, we ought to take responsibility for the recommendations
> and assistance we give to others.
Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to
compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,
you are a slimy hypocrite.
> Thus, we should not steer people towards non-free software.
Both those software packages steer people towards being able to use
emacs and gcc on commercial systems.
You are a hypocritical liar, Richard.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 18:07:15
Message-ID: 200712131807.lBDI7FvP012928 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> > However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
> > its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
> > the ethical responsibility for it.
>
> Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical because it allows
> compilation of non-free software.
>
> That isn't the same argument, or even the same issue.
>
> You are talking about what the user can do.
> I'm talking about something else: what the system distro suggests
> that the user do.
The actual real issue is that gcc has code in it to let it compile on
Solaris, and even on Windows.
That encourages users to continue using non-free software.
Richard, you are a big hypocrite.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 18:20:50
Message-ID: 200712131820.lBDIKo22017247 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> As far as I understand, the OpenBSD position appears to be that trying
> to police users by forbidding them to maintain and retrieve port
> metadata about unfree software via this adjunct service (that is not
> included in the OS) would be a restriction of the users' freedom.
>
> Obviously I disagree with that position. This isn't an issue of the
> users' freedom at all. It is an issue of what OpenBSD says to the
> public.
GCC contains a file called config/sol2.h:
/* Operating system specific defines to be used when targeting GCC for any
Solaris 2 system.
Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
What does that say to the public? It says you can use gcc on a non-free
operating system.
How's it feel to be a hypocrite?
What about
gcc/config/rs6000/aix.h
gcc/config/vax/vms.h
Or how about gcc/config/i386/win32.h:
/* Operating system specific defines to be used when targeting GCC for
hosting on Windows NT 3.x, using a Unix style C library and tools,
as distinct from winnt.h, which is used to build GCC for use with a
windows style library and tool set and uses the Microsoft tools.
Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
And hordes -- thousands upon thousands -- of #ifdef's and other crap
to support the Windows ABI.
I note that date of 1995 on the above file. That's around the last time
when you were around actually touching code, right?
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.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: William Boshuck < boshuk () math ! mcgill ! ca>
Date: 2007-12-13 18:48:18
Message-ID: 20071213184818.GA16991 () prism ! math ! mcgill ! ca
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > Yes, that's what I was told. I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
> > > system includes non-free programs. Is that accurate too?
> > (William Boshuck replied:)
> > Strictly speaking, no. If you unpack ports.tar.gz
> > you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
> > & c., all of which are free.
>
> 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.
> I usually simplify that to "includes"
At which point you would not be telling the truth about OpenBSD.
> because I figured anyone who knows about the ports system
> understands those details, and because they don't change
> anything.
It does change one thing (at least). Namely, it changes a true
statement about OpenBSD into a lie about OpenBSD.
Don't confuse my aims with those of others with whom you are
exchanging messages.
I am not trying to convince you to recommend OpenBSD.
I want you to tell the truth.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Eric Furman" < ericfurman () fastmail ! net>
Date: 2007-12-13 18:52:19
Message-ID: 1197571939.10840.1226437917 () webmail ! messagingengine ! com
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:52:01 -0500, "Richard Stallman" < rms@gnu.org>
said:
> However, it is trivially easy to use the
> gNewSense apt system to install unfree software.
>
> Any general-purpose system can run non-free software, but that's not
> the issue. The issue is whether a distribution refers people to the
> non-free software or not.
##The following does *NOT* in any way express the opinions or
##goals of OBSD. They are mine alone.##
So what? I couldn't care less about the FSF or any free software
initiative. I don't see any problem with someone trying to sell a
piece of software that they produced through their own hard labor.
If people want to write software and give it away for nothing, they
are *free* to do that too. I don't get this whole "unethical" stance.
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. If someone painted a picture and then
tried to sell it for money in an art gallery then that would be
"unethical" too? Oh, come on!
I also don't give a rats ass whether Richard Stallman recommends
OBSD or not and I don't think any of the developers do either.
All this crappy thread has done is make Richard Stallman more
Googleable. And I'm sorry that I facilitated that.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" < mureninc () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-13 18:54:08
Message-ID: f34ca13c0712131054j197999d5vdc9e744c50fa7c34 () mail ! gmail ! com
On 13/12/2007, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> Do you believe that The Pirate Bay is guilty of copyright infringement?
>
> That is a legal question, not an ethical question. I do not know what
> the law of any given country would say about the Pirate Bay. You
> would need to ask a lawyer.
>
> Instead of that legal question, we could ask an ethical question: is
> The Pirate Bay's activity right or wrong?
>
> In general, I think people have a moral right to share copies of
> published works, so I see no reason to criticize the Pirate Bay in
> general. However, I would not recommend that as a place to look for
> software, both because some of the software might be non-free, and for
> security reasons.
>
> 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. Currently,
> that option does not exist.
That option does exist. Ports tree is not installed by default. Users
are not required to install the ports tree. When installing software,
the ports tree is viewed as a last resort by both users and developers
of OpenBSD. So if you refer someone to use OpenBSD, and tell them not
to use the ports tree, they'll do just fine without using it.
C.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 18:54:47
Message-ID: 200712131854.lBDIsliF027794 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> > If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
> > imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the
> > book? Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect
> > the citizenry? Absolutely not.
> >
> > A system distribution is more like an anthology than like a library.
> > We do consider the editor of the anthology book responsible for the choice
> > of what to include.
> >
> >
>
> An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports
> tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to.
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.
The gcc and emacs developers -- led by Richard -- have decided the
directly include support for commercial operating systems in their
respective distributions.
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.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: : Real men don't attack straw men
From: Raimo Niskanen < raimo+openbsd () erix ! ericsson ! se>
Date: 2007-12-13 19:26:25
Message-ID: 20071213192625.GB9897 () erix ! ericsson ! se
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
:
>
> It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
> knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports
> tree has no non-free software in it at all.
>
> Does that make it non-free?
>
> Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
> non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
> and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".
>
> Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
> to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?
>
> No, that's a totally different question.
>
> Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO.
> Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO.
>
> The answer to Q1 is always yes. I'm concerned with Q2.
It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line.
For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution
it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free
software does not exist, but just not point where to find it.
OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free software
but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step by the
user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software.
Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view.
If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free
software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port
tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some
other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution
would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort.
If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation
about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that
would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher.
But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list
of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a
completely different question.
And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is
a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD
is already freer than most, and I also feel it is.
At least in spirit.
But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman,
and he is free to have that opinion.
--
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: bofh < goodb0fh () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-13 19:30:06
Message-ID: 6ead893e0712131130t95454dbwdd7b470586719488 () mail ! gmail ! com
On Dec 13, 2007 12:53 PM, Tom Rosso < tom.rosso@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 9:51 AM, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> > What's really going on is that you are helping them use the non-free
> > software, which grants it legitimacy. That is what I object to.
>
> I don't believe anybody who has followed this thread over the last couple
> days could misunderstand your opinion on references to non-free software in
> a distribution. But I don't think I've seen a post from a single person on
> this mailing list who agrees with that opinion. If I'm wrong, let me know.
That would be because this is BSDLand, whereas Richard lives over
there in GPLLand. I'm sure things would be reversed if this thread
were to take place over in GPLLand (and it would look even more
differently in RedmondLand).
I don't actually think Richard is "diss'ing" OpenBSD. That has not
been my impression all this while.
One big problem (beyond the current discussion) is that people seem to
want to throw all the Linux issues onto Richard's shoulders - and I
think he clarified pretty well above - if it's a FSF/GNU sponsored
program, he'll speak up about it, but otherwise, he'll only speak up
if he was asked to. In the last bruhaha about firmware and
relicensing - remember this, Richard and Linus don't see eye to eye on
things - why would people even link Richard to that issue?
And for all those people who keep trying to say that OpenBSD doesn't
support ports - we do. If we put it out, that's the support already.
But - seriously, as a project, do we need the validation from
FSF/Richard?
Now, on the other hand, the question for Richard is this - if OpenBSD
includes ports (on the CD), which is not an installable option, which
the FAQ discourages you from using, how different/worse is this from a
linux kernel that allows blobs to be installed? This is, of course,
based on the assumption that you can load modules into gnewsense's
running kernel. It may be that the option has been turned off (or
unable to load tainted modules). If the kernel is compiled to retain
the ability to load tainted modules, isn't that just as bad?
--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford
learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-13 19:59:27
Message-ID: 200712131959.lBDJxRU5002934 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> Richard, you are a total hypocrite. You are in here creating a fuss about
> our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same
> thing yourself.
Please see
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html
And
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
What's that, there?
Emacs *binaries* for *Windows*
Supplied right by Richard's http and ftp mirrors.
Richard, I may be unfriendly, but you are a lying hypocritical
asshole.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Daniel Ouellet < daniel () presscom ! net>
Date: 2007-12-13 20:59:08
Message-ID: 47619D1C.5040401 () presscom ! net
Richard Stallman wrote:
> recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
> GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
> BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.
>
> I don't think it is wrong in general to relicense code from BSD to
> GPL. However, in some cases I think it is more useful not to do so,
> in order to contribute changes back to the original BSD-licensed
> project.
How could you in all conscience come and *talk, arguing, judging and
pretend to defend and promote freedom* when you are in fact publicly
promoting license to steel!?
Richard, *the secret software agent 007 with license to kill*?
How dare you to come and talk about freedom and promoting actions like that!
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!
No wonder that it looks like the GPL code base is loosing it's ethics
and integrity so fast these days with such statement position and
advocacy statement from it's head leader!
What is really *your hidden agenda* here one would asked?
I hope it's worth it as you destroy, very quickly, what looks like you
spend a life time trying to built.
To really *talks, promote advocate and defend freedom and already free
software*, the right thing to do would be to *respect the author
freedom* and keep it under the author license of choice and *feed all
improvements and fixes upstream period*.
But what do you know about the right things to do here going, making and
promoting statement like this!
Of all people Richard, you have great power and with that comes great
responsibility, how could you make such nonsense statement!
In these circumstances, I don't think this gives you any rights or power
what so ever, to discuss other projects choices of software packages,
distributions, etc.
Best regards,
Daniel
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Jonathan Franks < daemon1 () taconic ! net>
Date: 2007-12-13 21:11:41
Message-ID: 92AB4CBD-4E36-4412-82A2-D3C795C8D37C () taconic ! net
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
...
>
> Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
> non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
> and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".
...
This philosophy disturbs me, and 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 books in order to avoid legitimizing the nazi point of view?
Seems rather absurd to me. Perhaps you disagree.
-Jonathan
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Paul de Weerd < weerd () weirdnet ! nl>
Date: 2007-12-13 23:15:39
Message-ID: 20071213231538.GG9446 () despair ! weirdnet ! nl
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 06:56:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
| in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
Interesting, these linux distributions. They seem to be pretty new,
what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
A free and usable operating system was already well available back
then, and it still is today : OpenBSD.
| > However, its ports
| > system does suggest non-free programs,
|
| No it doesn't "suggest" non-free programs in any way;
| it just makes it possible and easy to install them.
|
| 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.
Including source- and header files for non-free OS'es in the
distribution of gcc and emacs does suggest using gcc and/or emacs on
these non-free OS'es. It grants these non-free OS'es a sort of
legitimacy, something you say you are opposed to.
| You may have a different interpretation of these facts.
| That's my interpretation of them.
I would have to agree with you that, in your interpretation and your
definition, the ports tree (which is not recommended, by the way, a
point you've carefully chosen to ignore but OpenBSD developers suggest
people to use binary packages which (to the best of my knowledge) all
come with source available under permissive licenses) does facilitate
the use of non-free software on an otherwise free operating system,
which, according to your views and definitions is "not good".
You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views
with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft
software packages of emacs and gcc. By providing binaries for (for
example) the Windows family of operating systems on your web and/or
ftp servers (and I say 'your' to mean the servers of the foundation
you appear to represent, the FSF), you seem to go fully against your
recommendation of people to use free software.
Ironically enough, providing the users of non free operating systems
with free software encourages them to keep using their non-free
software and thereby promotes the use of non-free software. How is
that for ethics ?
On the other hand, providing users of a free operating system (which
already provides users the ability to install and use non-free
software, as you've so eloquently pointed out) with an easy interface
to install *AND REMOVE* non-free software, might actually encourage
them to investigate other, free, alternatives to the non-free software
they sought to use. 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
and uninstalling said program. This, in no way, encourages or promotes
the use of said software (free or non-free).
Truly, OpenBSD is the most free operating system available to the
public at large today. If your system happens to contain an NVidia
videocard and you run any linux variant (including gNewSense), you
will be able to find, download and install the non-free binary blob
that allows using the advanced accelerated 3d features of this piece
of hardware. Some other BSD's also allow these to be used. OpenBSD
makes it virtually impossible to use such blobs. It is the ONLY OS (at
least to my knowledge, and I do try to stay informed on this
particular topic) that actively approaches hardware vendors to ask for
open and free (of NDA's) documentation so drivers can be written to
support that hardware, the only one to take a firm stance AGAINST
binary blobs and take positive action where other systems happily
accept loadable modules to support their hardware (as the linux kernel
in gNewSense and Ututo).
There's a whole community of people who take very great care of using
free software out here and who are well aware of the rights (and
duties) that free software brings to the user. Your remarks are
considered out of place and even offensive by some who put very much
effort into creating a truly free operating system. I've been using
"free unix-like systems" for well over a decade now and after some
years of trying I've found the only system that is truly free and
actively fights for the freedoms it gives to its users is OpenBSD.
Really, you ought to look in to it some time.
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "David H. Lynch Jr." < dhlii () dlasys ! net>
Date: 2007-12-14 1:23:14
Message-ID: 4761DB02.6090203 () dlasys ! net
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
> REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork
> Richard would surely approve of.
>
> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
>
I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical.
Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives
to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent
that he has.
But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy.
It is about OpenBSD.
Securing the RSM seal of approval may or may not appeal to you.
But that still begs the question of OpenBSD's stance on non-free
software.
Whether you literally adopt Richard's views or not
rather than try to persuade him to back down on his principles,
it might make sense to actually decide what yours are.
Criticizing others is easy.
From the perspective of OpenBSD values,
How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ?
Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be.
Adhere to them and THEN if they are consistent with Richard's
you can insist on his endorsement or burn him as a hypocrit.
If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this thread
down.
This whole RSM is a hypocritical asshole because he will not make an
exception for OpenBSD
thread is absurd.
Trying to argue that there is a technological means of circumventing
principles is ludicrous.
In the event there actually was, it would just demonstrate another
loophole that needed closed.
In essence Stallman has thrown the guantlet at you. This is not
about the GPL vs. ISC/BSD.
There is nothing here that contravenes OpenBSD core principles as I
understand them.
Even if there is conform your policy to your principles - whatever
they are.
There is an oportunity here for some real cooperation between the
FSF and OpenBSD, in ways that
would be both beneficial to both and consistent with the principles
of both.
Richard has offered you the oportunity to aquire his endorsement.
With very little effort OpenBSD could be the most significant OS
with Richard Stallman's impratur
certifying it as totally free.
If that does not matter then shut this thread down, because it is
pointless.
>
--
Dave Lynch DLA Systems
Software Development: Embedded Linux
717.627.3770 dhlii@dlasys.net http://www.dlasys.net
fax: 1.253.369.9244 Cell: 1.717.587.7774
Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to \
list.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of \
genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 3:36:36
Message-ID: 200712140336.lBE3ab1O016761 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
> > REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork
> > Richard would surely approve of.
> >
> > Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
> >
> I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical.
> Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives
> to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent
> that he has.
>
> But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy.
RMS made statements first. RMS will pay for his lies.
> It is about OpenBSD.
> Securing the RSM seal of approval may or may not appeal to you.
RMS may have tried to make this about OpenBSD, but he's failed, because
he has shown that he does _exactly_ what he says we should not do.
> But that still begs the question of OpenBSD's stance on non-free
> software.
No. Nothing begs the question of what we do. We are not going to
change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard
says.
> Whether you literally adopt Richard's views or not
> rather than try to persuade him to back down on his principles,
> it might make sense to actually decide what yours are.
> Criticizing others is easy.
We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to them
very clearly.
> From the perspective of OpenBSD values,
> How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ?
Richard does not stand in a position where he can ask that question
to us. Nor do you. We'll do what we want, and your questions don't
change anything.
> Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be.
We did. Years ago. Did you?
> Adhere to them and THEN if they are consistent with Richard's
> you can insist on his endorsement or burn him as a hypocrit.
We do adhere to our principles very exactly. Richard does not adhere
to what he preaches.
Richard came to our lists on a vendetta of hatred. Richard lied about
our project. Richard continues, and he won't stop, and therefore he
is an asshole. He'll get what he deserves -- we don't drop this issue
now that he's gone so far.
> If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
> accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this thread
> down.
Why do you get to tell people what threads should be shut down?
Why don't you mail Richard and tell him to stop mailing our lists?
Or are you his little brother?
> This whole RSM is a hypocritical asshole because he will not make an
> exception for OpenBSD
> thread is absurd.
Having jumped onto the pulpit, Richard cannot preach that which he does
not follow himself.
> Trying to argue that there is a technological means of circumventing
> principles is ludicrous.
So go tell Richard. Don't tell us.
> In the event there actually was, it would just demonstrate another
> loophole that needed closed.
>
> In essence Stallman has thrown the guantlet at you. This is not
> about the GPL vs. ISC/BSD.
> There is nothing here that contravenes OpenBSD core principles as I
> understand them.
> Even if there is conform your policy to your principles - whatever
> they are.
> There is an oportunity here for some real cooperation between the
> FSF and OpenBSD, in ways that
> would be both beneficial to both and consistent with the principles
> of both.
There is no cooperation between FSF and OpenBSD, and if Richard keeps
throwing poo at us, we will keep throwing poo right back at him and
his hyporcritical project.
> Richard has offered you the oportunity to aquire his endorsement.
That's bullshit. Richard came looking for a fight. I don't think he
expected to look this much like a loser.
> With very little effort OpenBSD could be the most significant OS
> with Richard Stallman's impratur
> certifying it as totally free.
We are free. We don't need some uneducated guy who climbed up into
some high chair endorsing us; he is jealous of what we do, and that
noone else listens to him anymore.
> If that does not matter then shut this thread down, because it is
> pointless.
Threads continue when idiots like you post to them.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Ray Percival < rpercival () scarynet ! net>
Date: 2007-12-14 4:21:45
Message-ID: 2B2A2723-3B26-46C7-A892-4554EE289922 () scarynet ! net
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:23 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
> accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this
> thread
> down.
Nobody here asked for or WANTS his endorsement. He started the
thread. We could give a shit about what he thinks. Now it's just
about ripping him apart, yeah it's turned into a bit of a feeding
frenzy but he brought it on himself. I'd LOVE to see somebody cross
post this to the Debian and Ubuntu threads just to see what they
think of his thoughts on the subject. Fuck, gNewSense? Seriously? I
mean all joking aside, SERIOUSLY? He can see no reason that it's not
a functional reason to choose OpenBSD over -that-? The most
charitable way to read that is that alzheimer's has set in and to
give him our pity. If anybody thinks I'm wrong go ahead and tell me
how to do this with gNewSense or that I'd get that kind of support
out of them. Go ahead try it.
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20071008153119
None of the "distros" that Stallman is talking about are actually
USEFUL beyond the most trivial of applications. For those of us who
actually need tools to solve problems with the bullshit Commissar
Stallman spews is beyond fucking useless. If I gave two shits what he
thinks the only choice I'd have most of the time is what vendor to
buy borken shit from. Even if I were to grant his arguments about non-
free (which I most certainly do NOT) I don't see how anybody who
isn't a total fucking nutter could see that as better.
So, yeah, fuck Stallman. Fuck his endorsement. There is nothing good
about this fucking nutter or anything he's trying to do. Orthodoxy is
EVIL no matter what god it's in service of.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 4:37:52
Message-ID: 200712140437.lBE4bqfa001498 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:23 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> > If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
> > accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this
> > thread
> > down.
>
> Nobody here asked for or WANTS his endorsement. He started the
> thread. We could give a shit about what he thinks. Now it's just
> about ripping him apart, yeah it's turned into a bit of a feeding
> frenzy but he brought it on himself. I'd LOVE to see somebody cross
> post this to the Debian and Ubuntu threads just to see what they
> think of his thoughts on the subject. Fuck, gNewSense? Seriously? I
> mean all joking aside, SERIOUSLY? He can see no reason that it's not
> a functional reason to choose OpenBSD over -that-? The most
> charitable way to read that is that alzheimer's has set in and to
> give him our pity. If anybody thinks I'm wrong go ahead and tell me
> how to do this with gNewSense or that I'd get that kind of support
> out of them. Go ahead try it.
> http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20071008153119
>
> None of the "distros" that Stallman is talking about are actually
> USEFUL beyond the most trivial of applications. For those of us who
> actually need tools to solve problems with the bullshit Commissar
> Stallman spews is beyond fucking useless. If I gave two shits what he
> thinks the only choice I'd have most of the time is what vendor to
> buy borken shit from. Even if I were to grant his arguments about non-
> free (which I most certainly do NOT) I don't see how anybody who
> isn't a total fucking nutter could see that as better.
>
> So, yeah, fuck Stallman. Fuck his endorsement. There is nothing good
> about this fucking nutter or anything he's trying to do. Orthodoxy is
> EVIL no matter what god it's in service of.
Guys, don't forget to make sure that His Royal Hypocrite is cc'd.
Some people have replied in, and tried to remove him.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Breen Ouellette < openbsdmisc () breeno ! net>
Date: 2007-12-14 4:56:14
Message-ID: 47620CEE.6010806 () breeno ! net
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
>> Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
>> REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork
>> Richard would surely approve of.
>>
>> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
>>
>>
> I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical.
> Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives
> to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent
> that he has.
>
> But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy.
>
> It is about OpenBSD.
You were right up until this point.
I highly doubt that many OpenBSD developers or users care whether or not
RMS endorses OpenBSD. I know I don't.
RMS has made statements which detract against OpenBSD and contradict the
actions of his own organization, the FSF. They do not even take his
fundamentalist stance with some of their own software, as pointed out by
Theo.
Calling him on his hypocrisy is this project's most reasonable defense
against his statements. Anything else would require more effort from
OpenBSD than it took RMS to muck about in the first place. And it's not
worth any additional effort.
RMS has not thrown the gauntlet at OpenBSD, he has thrown mud. We are
throwing it back because we don't feel OpenBSD deserves it.
There will never be an opportunity for cooperation between OpenBSD and
the FSF because the FSF has an agenda which is at odds with OpenBSD. The
project is trying to remove the GPL where ever possible, and I think
that is part of what motivated RMS to make his negative statements about
the OpenBSD project.
To me, the tone of your email indicates that you think we should stand
here and listen to his crap, and then try to build a relationship from
it. He didn't come here to build anything. He came here wagging his
tongue like a loon and those of us that support OpenBSD are now exposing
him for what he is.
He brought this on himself and he deserves it. Shame on him and shame on
those who try to make excuses for him.
Breeno
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 5:13:25
Message-ID: 200712140513.lBE5DP8A029787 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> > Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >
> >> Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
> >> REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork
> >> Richard would surely approve of.
> >>
> >> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
> >>
> >>
> > I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical.
> > Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives
> > to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent
> > that he has.
> >
> > But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy.
> >
> > It is about OpenBSD.
>
> You were right up until this point.
>
> I highly doubt that many OpenBSD developers or users care whether or not
> RMS endorses OpenBSD. I know I don't.
>
> RMS has made statements which detract against OpenBSD and contradict the
> actions of his own organization, the FSF. They do not even take his
> fundamentalist stance with some of their own software, as pointed out by
> Theo.
>
> Calling him on his hypocrisy is this project's most reasonable defense
> against his statements. Anything else would require more effort from
> OpenBSD than it took RMS to muck about in the first place. And it's not
> worth any additional effort.
>
> RMS has not thrown the gauntlet at OpenBSD, he has thrown mud. We are
> throwing it back because we don't feel OpenBSD deserves it.
>
> There will never be an opportunity for cooperation between OpenBSD and
> the FSF because the FSF has an agenda which is at odds with OpenBSD. The
> project is trying to remove the GPL where ever possible, and I think
> that is part of what motivated RMS to make his negative statements about
> the OpenBSD project.
>
> To me, the tone of your email indicates that you think we should stand
> here and listen to his crap, and then try to build a relationship from
> it. He didn't come here to build anything. He came here wagging his
> tongue like a loon and those of us that support OpenBSD are now exposing
> him for what he is.
>
> He brought this on himself and he deserves it. Shame on him and shame on
> those who try to make excuses for him.
>
> Breeno
>
Be sure to cc Richard so that he knows.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: : Real men don't attack straw men
From: Rick Pettit
Date: 2007-12-14 6:50:48
Message-ID: 20071214065048.GA15557 () vailsys ! com
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> :
> >
> > It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
> > knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports
> > tree has no non-free software in it at all.
> >
> > Does that make it non-free?
> >
> > Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
> > non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
> > and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".
> >
> > Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
> > to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?
> >
> > No, that's a totally different question.
> >
> > Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO.
> > Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO.
> >
> > The answer to Q1 is always yes. I'm concerned with Q2.
>
> It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line.
> For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution
> it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free
> software does not exist, but just not point where to find it.
>
> OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free software
> but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step by the
> user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software.
> Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view.
I've been a user for years and could care less what Stallman thinks.
> If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free
> software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port
> tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some
> other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution
> would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort.
The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so who
cares?
> If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation
> about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that
> would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher.
Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web site is
Stallman kosher--I just hope Stallman can sleep at night.
> But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list
> of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a
> completely different question.
Who is Stallman that we as users should even care?
> And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is
> a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD
> is already freer than most, and I also feel it is.
> At least in spirit.
Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that
Stallman's licenses are *more* free than OpenBSD!?
> But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman,
> and he is free to have that opinion.
He sure is (free to debate the merits of OpenBSD on *his* mailing lists).
I've been an OpenBSD advocate for years. This stuff gets rather tired after a
while (I can't even imagine what it must be like to be a core member of the
OpenBSD team and have to read this stuff).
-Rick
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: : Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 7:20:47
Message-ID: 200712140720.lBE7KlvZ020183 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > :
> > >
> > > It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
> > > knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports
> > > tree has no non-free software in it at all.
> > >
> > > Does that make it non-free?
> > >
> > > Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
> > > non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
> > > and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".
> > >
> > > Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
> > > to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?
> > >
> > > No, that's a totally different question.
> > >
> > > Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO.
> > > Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO.
> > >
> > > The answer to Q1 is always yes. I'm concerned with Q2.
> >
> > It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line.
> > For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution
> > it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free
> > software does not exist, but just not point where to find it.
> >
> > OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free software
> > but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step by the
> > user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software.
> > Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view.
>
> I've been a user for years and could care less what Stallman thinks.
>
> > If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free
> > software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port
> > tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some
> > other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution
> > would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort.
>
> The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so who
> cares?
>
> > If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation
> > about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that
> > would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher.
>
> Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web site is
> Stallman kosher--I just hope Stallman can sleep at night.
>
> > But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list
> > of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a
> > completely different question.
>
> Who is Stallman that we as users should even care?
>
> > And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is
> > a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD
> > is already freer than most, and I also feel it is.
> > At least in spirit.
>
> Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that
> Stallman's licenses are *more* free than OpenBSD!?
>
> > But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman,
> > and he is free to have that opinion.
>
> He sure is (free to debate the merits of OpenBSD on *his* mailing lists).
>
> I've been an OpenBSD advocate for years. This stuff gets rather tired after a
> while (I can't even imagine what it must be like to be a core member of the
> OpenBSD team and have to read this stuff).
RMS has been on our lists before, spouting the same basic shit. He
hates what we do.
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.
The only way to make it clear to him that he should not come here to
our lists in the future, is to teach him a hard lesson, and that is
done by continually re-adding cc's back to him -- because the mails
talk about him -- even when his friends come our mailing lists and delete
the his address from the cc list.
Like this message, which adds him hack in.
Richard, you are a lying cheating hypocrite.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "David H. Lynch Jr." < dhlii () dlasys ! net>
Date: 2007-12-14 8:09:31
Message-ID: 47623A3B.80405 () dlasys ! net
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 doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical.
>> Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives
>> to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent
>> that he has.
>>
>> But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy.
>>
>
> RMS made statements first. RMS will pay for his lies.
>
Why did I even bother.
I was not trying to defend RMS or attack you.
I was actually looking at the possibility that there might be some way
of getting something positive out of this
for OpenBSD. There is an obvious win-win for everybody, but you are
fixated on revenge for imaginary slights.
This sounds like something from my eight year old. You are 30something,
Grow up.
Do you really write your own email, or do you have some kid do them for
you ?
It is more important to you to catch Stallman in some mis-statement or
lie than to even figure out what is best for OpenBSD ?
Rather than figure out if there is anyway OpenBSD can benefit, it is
more important to find a way to screw somebody else ?
Every once in a while you show rationality and intelligence, and I think
maybe there is some real value and real hope for
OpenBSD, then you lob off a message like this one.
> No. Nothing begs the question of what we do. We are not going to
> change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard
> says.
>
>
So if Richard adopted the BSD/ISC you would switch to the GPL just
to spite him ?
> We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to them
> very clearly.
>
Yes, the screw RMS, Screw the FSF, and screw the world, and screw
ourselves principle.
Because frankly I can't see where you are following any other.
Your position on closed hardware and binary blobs is exactly the same as
Stallman's,
and logically leads to the same position on software.
Yet so far I have gotten no position on software - aside from the claim
that Stallman somehow insulted OpenBSD.
The only way his remarks could be taken as an insult, would be if you
actually have the same principles.
Even then it would be more of an uninformed error than an insult.
It is not an insult for him to claim that you tacitly endorse non-free
software - if you do.
Whatever your principles are you are sticking to them so clearly that I
do not even think most of the OpenBSD
developers know what they actually are - well aside from the screw
everybody else principle. That one seems abundantly clear.
>> From the perspective of OpenBSD values,
>> How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ?
>>
>
> Richard does not stand in a position where he can ask that question
> to us. Nor do you. We'll do what we want, and your questions don't
> change anything.
>
Forget Richard, Forget me, Forget all the people you think have fucked
you over.
Instead of trying to figure out how to extract revenge, figure out what
is best for OpenBSD.
There is nothing wrong with doing what you want.
But it sure as hell looks as if you are more interested in making
certain that you do NOT do anything that richard might want.
That anytime he says black, you are going to say white.
In many circles I am known for having nearly an absolutist position on
Free Speech. Your expressed position is even more absolutist than mine.
Yet here you are telling others we can not even ask questions. My we
have clay feet.
Richard has actually answer the challenges you have thrown at him.
In those instances where someone found that something that he
recommended was not adhering to the standards he established,
he commited to look into it and either fix it or revoke his recommendation.
You refuse to deign to allow anyone else to ask questions.
>> Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be.
>>
>
> We did. Years ago.
I got it, OpenBSD is good, non-free software is good, but anything
having anything to do with RMS is evil.
Seriously, nothing I have read of any OpenBSD policies and
principles is inconsistent with Richard's on this issue.
If I am wrong about that, then OpenBSD has done a poor job of
expressing its policies and principles.
If I am right you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This does not effect me personally one way or another.
I could give a rats ass about the future of OpenBSD.
Nor is this childish spat you seem to be having all by yourself
with Richard
of any consequence to me.
Though I will conceede you are incredibly frustrating,
how the hell can somebody so obviously intelligent,
be so obviously self destructive and stupid at the same time.
If one person calls you an ass, that's there problem.
If ten people call you an ass, maybe you should think about it.
If everyone on the planet outside your own cult calls you an ass,
you are either the messiah or an ass. My money is on the latter.
> Did you?
>
>
Do you have turrets or aspergers or some other reason why you are
compelled to insult virtually everyone ?
>> Adhere to them and THEN if they are consistent with Richard's
>> you can insist on his endorsement or burn him as a hypocrit.
>>
>
> We do adhere to our principles very exactly. Richard does not adhere
> to what he preaches.
>
> Richard came to our lists on a vendetta of hatred. Richard lied about
> our project. Richard continues, and he won't stop, and therefore he
> is an asshole. He'll get what he deserves -- we don't drop this issue
> now that he's gone so far.
>
>
Richard, Richard, Richard. You would think he is the anti-christ.
Forget Richard, look after your own interests.
Though Frankly, I suspect you will find that virtually every human
outside the cult of OpenBSD,
that gives enough of a damn to read Richards remarks would conclude that
nothing he said insulted OpenBSD, and that they were accurate.
>> If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
>> accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this thread
>> down.
>>
>
> Why do you get to tell people what threads should be shut down?
>
Fine blather away as you please. Atleast Don Quite was fighting
against windmills for a worthwhile cause.
> Why don't you mail Richard and tell him to stop mailing our lists?
> Or are you his little brother?
>
I have e-mailed him. Pretty much the same thing I emailed you.
I sugested that since on this specific issue I could see no conflict
between what I percieve to be OpenBSD values and policies, that there
had to be someway to reach common ground.
But I do not speak for OpenBSD - you do.
And you seem to fixated on revenge for imagined slights to look out
for your own or OpenBSD's interests.
There are values I share with you, some I share with Richard, and
many I hold as my own.
I have had heated private exchanges with Richard on several topics.
But he has always been civil. He is a brilliant and shares many
other traits with you.
But he seems matured past eight, and realize that that whining and
ranting is not going to get him anywhere.
>
> There is no cooperation between FSF and OpenBSD, and if Richard keeps
> throwing poo at us, we will keep throwing poo right back at him and
> his hyporcritical project.
>
I got it, if the fate of the human race depended on cooperation
between the two of you,
the rest of us need to bend over and kiss our asses goodbye,
You would rather eat dog shit than concede there is any issue on the
planet that Richard is not wrong about.
If god came down and gave you a choice between a heaven with Richard
in it and eternal damnation, you would pick
eternal damnation.
>
>> Richard has offered you the oportunity to aquire his endorsement.
>>
>
> That's bullshit. Richard came looking for a fight. I don't think he
> expected to look this much like a loser.
>
Outside the cult of OpenBSD no one else sees it that way.
The few people who are paying attention are trying to figure out why
OpenBSD is more interested
in pissing all over RMS than looking after its own interests,
And Richard only looks stupid for beleiving there was any hope of
rational discourse.
>
>> With very little effort OpenBSD could be the most significant OS
>> with Richard Stallman's impratur
>> certifying it as totally free.
>>
>
> We are free. We don't need some uneducated guy who climbed up into
> some high chair endorsing us; he is jealous of what we do, and that
> noone else listens to him anymore.
>
If he is so jealous, why are you the ones whining because you can't
get anybody to give you any money ?
I read damn little besides sour grapes from the OpenBSD community.
I think Shakespeare might have some advice - "the fault is not in
our stars, but in ourselves".
But what would I know, like Richard, I am just an uneducated twit.
From what I can tell GPL/LGPL projects make up almost 75% of all
FOSS projects, and BSD projects less that 6%.
There are nearly as many projects under the new GPLv3 as the BSD
License.
Even Torvald's has gone from dead set against the GPLv3 to being
willing to actually use it in some circumstances.
All in all Richard has been doing quite well - despite graduating
magna cum laude from Harvard and picking up two honorary doctorates and
1 honorary professorship - this year.
If he gives a damn about OpenBSD at all, it is because if he could
endorse it, he could use it as an effective club to beat on Linux
distributions to get them to conform to his notions of free software.
While gNewSense might actually be more popular than OpenBSD, OpenBSD is
an actual real OS, with a real history even if it has damn few actual
users. "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
He is not jealous of you. He just wants to use you as a means to much
bigger ends. But god forbid that you might actually benefit from that.
"Alas, alas for you, lawyers and pharisees, hypocrites that you are!
Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you; you will not venture half so
far."
I am not the leader of the RMS fan club, but personally, it seems
like you can't figure out why he has the stature and attention he has,
and you do not.
Hey I can't figure out why Bill Gates is worth Billions and I am
not. But I am not letting it eat me up.
And while you are mail bombing Stallman - why don't you revive
another childish blast from the past and lob a few kernel binaries at him.
Do you actually read the crap you write ?
Please tell me that you have aspergers, or are a paranoid schitz, so
that there is a rational explanation for your behavior.
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
be out to get you.
"You show people what you're willing to fight for when you fight
your friends
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 10:09:38
Message-ID: E1J37UA-0008El-7e () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 THE PORTS TREE.
OpenBSD distributes the ports tree. In my book, that's recommending
all the programs that are in it, referring people to those programs.
I believe what you say about the other facts, but those facts don't
override these facts. For instance, the statement urging people to
use the binary packages doesn't cancel out the fact that the ports
tree refers them to the non-free programs.
The statement, as you quoted it, does not say "Never use the ports!"
Obviously the ports are provided so people can use them. The statement
urges people to try the binary packages first. That makes sense,
but it isn't relevant to this question.
conversation, where I will be happy to explain to you exactly the
nature of the OpenBSD ports and packages systems. But let's do that
off-list,
Ok, let's do so.
But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119741909911558&w=2
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.
However, because of your offer, I will send mail to try to find the
message that URL refers to, and then send you a private answer if I
have not posted one already.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 10:09:46
Message-ID: E1J37UI-0008Ri-Ax () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not
to.
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.
That Firefox offers to install it is a very bad thing.
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.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Damien Miller < djm () mindrot ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 12:37:02
Message-ID: alpine.BSO.0.99999.0712142321260.27644 () fuyu ! mindrot ! org
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 install the adobe flash plugin
> (which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not
> to.
>
> 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.
> That Firefox offers to install it is a very bad thing.
>
> 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.
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 or OpenSSH.
Rather than wasting effort trying to make firefox unusable for an
unfortunately large proportion of its userbase and on insulting
OpenBSD developers with spurious accusations, why not spend the
energy on making a usable flashplayer replacement? or on getting
Adobe to open their source/specifications?
-d
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Johan Mson Lindman < jl () btradianz ! se>
Date: 2007-12-14 13:30:21
Message-ID: 4762856D.5050905 () btradianz ! se
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 for a fight.
David you need to check the facts and shut your mouth.
Now, go away troll (that goes for both Stallman and the other clown).
Regards
Johan M:son Lindman
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Ted Unangst" < ted.unangst () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-14 16:33:10
Message-ID: 4109e9180712140833k4d5f5fd7g179bc8b5253d3e8 () mail ! gmail ! com
On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> 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.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Breen Ouellette < admin () breeno ! net>
Date: 2007-12-14 16:43:42
Message-ID: 4762B2BE.40109 () breeno ! net
-----
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 never seen a single piece of
software outside of the OpenBSD base endorsed by OpenBSD.
It has a ports tree which makes it possible to run a large number of
software packages, some of which do not meet the definition of free
software put forth by the FSF.
However, this does not constitute endorsement. Merriam-Webster:
2 a*:* to approve openly < /endorse/ an idea>; /especially/ *:* to
express support or approval of publicly and definitely < /endorse/ a
mayoral candidate> b*:* to recommend (as a product or service) usually
for financial compensation < shoes /endorsed/ by a pro basketball player>
The ports tree offers a number of similar software packages of varying
licences. There is no endorsement by OpenBSD of any single package as
being better than any other package. Options are offered, and it is up
to the user to decide which one to use. OpenBSD doesn't define itself as
a censor of anything outside of the base system. The only reasons I have
ever seen for leaving something out of ports were based on legal issues,
which isn't censorship but merely covering the project's hindquarters.
RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far, and
the intention was to detract from OpenBSD - no matter how much sugar
coating it came with.dn't have
the same impact as claiming that OpenBSD contains and endorses non-free
software. That's far more accusatory. But it's wrong.
As for Theo being abrasive, it has never been my experience that he is,
but I have been fortunate to meet him in person, and so I don't fill in
the blanks left by email correspondence with images of this Theo-monster
everyone writes about. I read his emails for what they are -
uncompromisingly intolerant of ignorance and sincere misinformation,
which doesn't sit so well with the bleeding-heart majority. People
expect their sincere misinformation to be countered with polite
explanations. Nothing but wimpy social custom requires such - and the
older I get the more I've come to agree with Theo's stance of fighting
the ridiculous with ridicule. It is the most effective and reasonable
method of dealing with these people.
RMS, on the other hand, comes in with a half baked idea that OpenBSD
endorses non-free software, AND he openly endorses censorship of all
non-free software. I can't get behind that. If he isn't happy with the
landscape of non-free software then he should work on improving the
landscape of free software to compete with these non-free packages he
despises.
My opinion is that he has failed to convince the world that all software
should be free. He can't make his vision of free software stand on its
own two feet so instead he is trying to kick out the legs of everything
else which doesn't actively support his vision. Well, I for one have
never felt that censorship of any sort is a viable way of growing a
competing idea. Censorship ultimately leads down an evil path.
I'm out.
Breeno
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Paul de Weerd < weerd () weirdnet ! nl>
Date: 2007-12-14 17:27:17
Message-ID: 20071214172717.GI9446 () despair ! weirdnet ! nl
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 versions of Linux
| > | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
| >
| > Interesting, these linux distributions. They seem to be pretty new,
| > what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
| > these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
| >
| > A free and usable operating system was already well available back
| > then, and it still is today : OpenBSD.
| >
| OpenBSD is unwilling to even make it clear whether it does or does not
| meet RMS's criteria.
OpenBSD's criteria are crystal clear and spelled out on the website.
It's RMS's criteria that are being discussed (at least, that I tried
to discuss in the mail you replied to). Those are unclear, since he
goes against his own advice and clearly supports non-free operating
systems.
| Binary blobs are a relatively recent addition to Linux.
| And anyone can trivially eliminate them.
| Rolling your own Linux distro has been an option pretty much since day one.
| And while you can laugh GNU has been kicking Hurd arround for a long,
| long time.
The last time I looked, Hurd was not even close to being useable. I
just checked and the website says this :
"It is not ready for production use, as there are
still many bugs and missing features."
(from http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html)
OpenBSD, on the other hand, has been ready for production use for well
over ten years. I'm not claiming it doesn't have bugs, all software
does, but it's been ready for production use, and has been used, for
quite some time now.
| > You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views
| > with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft
| > software packages of emacs and gcc. By providing binaries for (for
| > example) the Windows family of operating systems on your web and/or
| > ftp servers (and I say 'your' to mean the servers of the foundation
| > you appear to represent, the FSF), you seem to go fully against your
| > recommendation of people to use free software.
| >
| A bridge from non-free software to free software
| is at the opposite ethical extreme from a bridge from free software to
| non-free software..
Basically, what you're saying is that a little pragmatism goes a long
way ? Is that what you're saying ? How should we interpret your
words ?
How about a little pragmatism in the other direction ? Let me pick one
simple example : Your environment depends on flash.
You've just seen the light and want to migrate to 'free software'. You
can install OpenBSD and tons and tons of free software and still be
able to use flash until such a time that you're ready to remove your
dependency on flash (or a free alternative is readily available).
However, this was not the point. The point was, as Richard Stallman
put it, giving legitimacy to non-free software. I, and others, pose
that supporting non-free operating systems in your free software
package (gcc, emacs) gives this same legitimacy to non-free software.
"Opposite ethical extreme" is a nice term, by the way. It is an
ethical extreme to claim that an OS endorses non-free software simply
because it eases its installation through the ports infrastructure. I
consider this quite 'extreme' indeed.
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.
| > Ironically enough, providing the users of non free operating systems
| > with free software encourages them to keep using their non-free
| > software and thereby promotes the use of non-free software. How is
| > that for ethics ?
| >
| Maybe for you, but alot of the rest of us came from the M$ world
| and did not move in one single giant leap.
I too have used (and still use) non-free software. Not only from
Microsoft but also from providers such as IBM, Sun, Digital, SGI and
Apple. My personal preference is for free software, mostly OpenBSD.
Because of practical or pragmatic reasons, I still use non-free
software on a daily basis, yet I seek to replace these with free
alternatives.
| Discovering the free software exists and that its quality is excellent
| without
| taking a huge step into the abyss seems to me to be promotion,
| while anything from free software back towards non-free software
| has entirely different ethical value.
Again, I hear you say 'a little pragmatism goes a long way'. Please,
if that is not what you're saying correct me if I'm wrong but note
that if it is what you're saying then I concur. A little pragmatism
does go a long way. I'm not taking the extreme view that non-free
software is evil and must be abolished. Non-free software is often
(yet, not always) the choice of the user. I do have an issue with
someone who takes a very extreme position but doesn't follow through.
I will question the ethics of these people, in this particular case
Richard Stallman.
Again, in his words :
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.
Providing binaries for non-free operating systems suggests using those
binaries *on those non-free OS'es*, does it not ? It grants those
non-free OS'es a sort of legitimacy, does it not ? RMS states that
granting legitimacy to non-free software is what he is opposed to, yet
it is exactly what he does by providing support for non-free OS'es in
his copyleft software.
Please, explain to us how this is not true. Your argument of it being
at the other extreme ethical standpoint does not hold, since Richard
spoke of granting legitimacy to non-free software, not about a
direction to move from non-free to free or vice versa.
| > On the other hand, providing users of a free operating system (which
| > already provides users the ability to install and use non-free
| > software, as you've so eloquently pointed out) with an easy interface
| > to install *AND REMOVE* non-free software, might actually encourage
| > them to investigate other, free, alternatives to the non-free software
| > they sought to use.
| Huh ? Giving someone a gun does not encourage them to become pacifist,
| unless maybe by getting them to shoot their neighbor to see the error of
| their ways.
Your metaphor makes absolutely gNoSense; at all. Please try to stay on
topic in the discussion, no need for esoteric metaphors to make your
point.
Also, please have another look at the example I provided earlier about
the use of Flash.
| > 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
| > and uninstalling said program. This, in no way, encourages or promotes
| > the use of said software (free or non-free).
| >
| It is an expression of values. Personally it is a pretty clear one.
Apparantly, someone valued the program enough to warrant the effort of
writing a port for it. Others then valued this work enough to submit
the port to the tree. We can agree that there at least some people
expressed an interest in the port, but please do elaborate how it
encourages or promotes the use of said port (free or non-free).
| It also is a rejection of the value that the free software community
| can stand on its own. And actively discourages efforts to do so.
And the free software community can not stand on its own. Have another
look at flash. No viable free alternatives exist (although work is
progressing). I disagree violently with your observation that it
actively discourages efforts to do so : the mere fact that people work
on free alternatives for flash players contradicts you here. The lack
of a free flash player, the fact people are forced to use the non-free
player, is the major driving force to create an alternative.
| > Truly, OpenBSD is the most free operating system available to the
| > public at large today. If your system happens to contain an NVidia
| > videocard and you run any linux variant (including gNewSense), you
| > will be able to find, download and install the non-free binary blob
| > that allows using the advanced accelerated 3d features of this piece
| > of hardware. Some other BSD's also allow these to be used. OpenBSD
| > makes it virtually impossible to use such blobs. It is the ONLY OS (at
| > least to my knowledge, and I do try to stay informed on this
| > particular topic) that actively approaches hardware vendors to ask for
| > open and free (of NDA's) documentation so drivers can be written to
| > support that hardware, the only one to take a firm stance AGAINST
| > binary blobs and take positive action where other systems happily
| > accept loadable modules to support their hardware (as the linux kernel
| > in gNewSense and Ututo).
| >
| >
| Excellent, fantastic, so what is the logic that results in this
| absolutist position on binary blobs,
| and hardware, yet thoroughly rejects exactly the same position with
| respect to software ?
Please, read again the goals and policies of OpenBSD. The OS should be
free to be used an re-used by anyone, it has been said even for the
creation of baby mulching machines.
The OS is free software. The user is then allowed to do with it
however he or she pleases. If the user wants to install non-free
software (s)he can. It is not the objective of the project to tell
users what to do with it. This is free software, users are free to do
with it however they want. The developers work VERY hard to keep it
free.
The non-free software you speak of IS NOT PART OF OPENBSD. You can
jump high and low, but really : nobody is trying to force or persuade
you to install non-free software on OpenBSD.
| And RMS is supposed to be hypocritical ?
Ehm, no. RMS is supposed to stick to his ethics the way he claims he
does. If he does not do this, people call him a hypocrit.
| > There's a whole community of people who take very great care of using
| > free software out here and who are well aware of the rights (and
| > duties) that free software brings to the user. Your remarks are
| > considered out of place and even offensive by some who put very much
| > effort into creating a truly free operating system. I've been using
| > "free unix-like systems" for well over a decade now and after some
| > years of trying I've found the only system that is truly free and
| > actively fights for the freedoms it gives to its users is OpenBSD.
| >
| Go back and read RMS's posts.
I've read them.
| I do not recall a single disparaging post about OpenBSD.
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.
In fact, developers have continuously suggested OpenBSD users to fight
for software (and documentation) freedom, leading by example in very
many cases. Fighting for software freedom and then being told you're
suggesting users to use non-free software is quite a stab, I'd say.
| Thee closest is the observation that Theo is unfriendly,
| which is an incredible understatement.
After having only recently met Theo I must say that I, once again,
violently disagree with you. He was very friendly. Even after I made
fun of him (a joke in relation to my employer), he kept smiling and
remained friendly (and made a bit of fun out of me).
However, I can not say I'm surprised he doesn't like being told he's
suggesting the use of non-free software. I suppose he also violently
disagrees with such statements and acts accordingly (but I'm not
speaking for him here, these are mere assumptions).
| Unless you are going to assert that truth is an insult,
| or that explaining, defending, and frankly fairly lightly advocating,
| his views is offensive, how do you reach offensive.
See here above. There's no truth in the "OpenBSD suggests the use of
non-free software". Claiming it is true, is an insult.
| Th most strongly neegative statement he has made is that OpenBSD does
| not reach the standard he requires to recommend.
That is fair. However, many here find his standards dubious,
especially in light of the support for non-free OS'es that his own
software sports.
| That appears to be the remark that is so offensive to the OpenBSD community.
I don't think so. I'm no developer and I can only speak for myself,
but I think the OpenBSD community really isn't seeking RMS's blessing
all that much.
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:49:05
Message-ID: E1J3HSz-0006jv-TF () fencepost ! gnu ! org
"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, like nvidia binary drivers.
You've taken my words out of context. I was talking about a specific
thing, the inclusion in the ports system of a recipe to install a
particular non-free program. Someone else described such a recipe as
an "easier way to install" that non-free program. I responded using
his words, in quotation marks.
By attributing his words to me, and by disregarding the context, you
misunderstood the point of my message. I'm not talking about any and
all things that make installation of anything easier. Just about
giving recipes for installing particular non-free programs. That's
what the issue is.
OpenBSD non-free
packages are not in the base system and not even available...
That's true, but the ports system gives recipes for installing them.
Moreover, this facility to install blobs that the linux
kernel *provides* comes with the base gNewSense system...
Could you tell me the name of that facility, or something else about
it? If it is specifically and only useful for blobs, perhaps it
should be remove from gNewSense. On the other hand, if it is a
general purpose feature and blobs are merely one thing it could be
used for, then I probably don't have anything against it. I don't
criticize general facilities merely because someone could use them
to do things with non-free software.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:49:07
Message-ID: E1J3HT1-0006kS-71 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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
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.
People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is
unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them
about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching
operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a
non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it.
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 freedom. If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows
don't say this, I'll make sure to add it.
By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and
installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything
else you do. Thus, even telling people about a non-free application
could very well lead them to install it.
I've published both of these positions before, but in this discussion
I only mentioned the one that is relevant to my views about OpenBSD.
Is that hypocrisy? Is that lying? No, just sticking to the point.
But now that people have raised the other issue, here is my position
on it.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:49:19
Message-ID: E1J3HTD-0006vd-ER () fencepost ! gnu ! org
> 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 words.
When the ports system contains a recipe to build and install P, it's
natural to say that P is "included in the ports system". You are
interpreting the word "included" in a very literal sense, but that's
not the only normal usage of the word.
As a courtesy to the OpenBSD developers, and avoid the risk of
confusion, I will try from now on to state this in a more precise way.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:49:22
Message-ID: E1J3HTG-0006vr-2q () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 much value to the
freedom that you would give up.
I respect your right to your views.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:49:23
Message-ID: E1J3HTH-0006vy-EO () fencepost ! gnu ! org
> 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. Currently,
> that option does not exist.
That option does exist. Ports tree is not installed by default. Users
are not required to install the ports tree. When installing software,
the ports tree is viewed as a last resort by both users and developers
of OpenBSD. So if you refer someone to use OpenBSD, and tell them not
to use the ports tree, they'll do just fine without using it.
When speaking privately to someone I know is not likely to install
non-free software, that is true. I can say to him, "You could use
OpenBSD, as long as you take care, if you use the ports system, to
check that the programs you install are free."
When speaking to the public, that is not a real option; if I tried to
do that, it would get simplified in transmission down to "Use
OpenBSD", and that would lead people to use OpenBSD including the
ports system.
It's much like the situation for Debian. When speaking privately to
someone who is not likely to install non-free software, I can
recommend the official Debian GNU/Linux system and warn him to avoid
the nonfree section which is also on the Debian servers. But if I
said that to the public, it would get simplified in transmission down
to recommending everything on Debian's servers. Thus, I don't
recommend Debian.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:49:24
Message-ID: E1J3HTI-0006w7-O8 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
And for all those people who keep trying to say that OpenBSD doesn't
support ports - we do. If we put it out, that's the support already.
But - seriously, as a project, do we need the validation from
FSF/Richard?
OpenBSD certainly doesn't need my permission for anything.
If people don't care what I think, they can ignore me.
I posted the first message on this list, a few days ago, because
people had published inaccurate statements about my views towards
OpenBSD. My aim is to explain what those views really are. Once that
is done, the readers of this list may agree or disagree with me, but
at least they won't criticize me for views which are not mine.
Now, on the other hand, the question for Richard is this - if OpenBSD
includes ports (on the CD), which is not an installable option, which
the FAQ discourages you from using, how different/worse is this from a
linux kernel that allows blobs to be installed?
I don't know any details about what part of Linux "allows blobs to be
installed", so I can only guess that it is a general feature which
permits installation of firmware into devices, and that it works
regardless of whether the firmware is free or non-free.
I don't see anything wrong with general features that can install or
build any sort of software. Thus, for instance, I don't think it is
bad that OpenBSD and gNewSense have general-purpose features that a
user might employ to install a non-free program. I don't think it is
bad that GCC can compile a non-free program, or that you can use Emacs
or VIP to edit one. (It's inevitable that general purpose facilities
can operate on non-free code.)
The ports system may contain a general facility which could build and
install any program. (I don't know if it does.) If so, I have
nothing against that. But it certainly contains specific recipes for
installing specific non-free programs. That's what I object to.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:49:41
Message-ID: E1J3HTZ-0006yh-85 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 raised the question of what relicensing means and
whether that involves changes to the code. When I say "relicensing" I
mean distributing the code with another license applied. That doesn't
mean deleting the old license.
The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
changes. If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
just silly (in most cases).
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:49:43
Message-ID: E1J3HTb-0006yw-Ry () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 books in order to avoid legitimizing the nazi point of view?
They're not the same kind of question. Talking non-free software as a
phenomenon is different from telling people about specific non-free programs
they might want to use.
Having recipes for non-free programs in the ports system is more like
including present-day neofascist web sites in the list of "interesting
links" in your web site. I am against censorship, so I do not believe
in closing down those neofascist web sites. But I won't refer people
to them.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:49:51
Message-ID: E1J3HTj-0006zg-TL () fencepost ! gnu ! org
| I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux
| in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
Interesting, these linux distributions.
They are GNU/Linux distributions. (See
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.)
They seem to be pretty new,
what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
Nothing! For many years there was no system distribution I
could recommend to the public, and that is what I said.
You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views
with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft
software packages of emacs and gcc.
Yes, after one person brought this up, many others repeated it (as if
sheer volume of namecalling meant something). My message about this
issue will go out in the same batch as this message.
One person asked why it was "hard" for me to answer this question.
It wasn't hard for me to respond, but it would have been impossible
to respond quickly. I have to sleep, you know. And since I review
my messages before actually sending them, I don't send mail quickly.
It usually takes 12 to 24 hours from when a message is sent to when I
send a response. Plenty of opportunity--for those who seek one--to
claim that my silence proves I have no comeback.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: : Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:50:03
Message-ID: E1J3HTv-000716-RI () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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. I
appreciate many of the good things that OpenBSD does for free
software.
I don't think that you are horrible. You are behaving rather badly to
me, but that's just a small part of what you are as a person; I would
not judge you overall based on that. (I also would not reject a free
program because of personal disapproval of its developer.)
It looks like you really believe I hate you and really believe I think
the OpenBSD developers are horrible. But that does not come from me.
I wish you could see that.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:50:48
Message-ID: E1J3HUe-00077j-3Y () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:50:54
Message-ID: E1J3HUk-00078S-NQ () fencepost ! gnu ! org
> 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 here:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/LICENCE?rev=HEAD
According to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
this is GPL-compatible (modified BSD license or better).
Thanks for correcting me about that point. I was not sure about it,
which is why I said "(if my memory serves)" in the text you quoted.
What puzzles me is why you think this mistake was a lie, or that it
might make me "look like a fool". People normally don't call someone
a liar, or a fool, because of a little (and tangential) mistake like
this.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:53:22
Message-ID: 200712142053.lBEKrMDU023219 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> 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 ;-}.
Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole.
> 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.
You treat them different because it is convenient for your agenda of
hatred against groups of people who, with a lot less donation money,
actually suceed at making full operating systems.
You treat these issues different because you are a hypocrite.
> People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is
> unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them
> about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching
> operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a
> non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it.
Oh, so this is like thought crime?
> 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 freedom. If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows
> don't say this, I'll make sure to add it.
It is unethical for you to come attacking our efforts.
I am going to ask some of the ports people to make the ports system
point at a few more proprietary and non-free pieces of software.
In honour of your hypocrisy.
> By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and
> installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything
> else you do. Thus, even telling people about a non-free application
> could very well lead them to install it.
How convenient for your hypocrisy.
> I've published both of these positions before, but in this discussion
> I only mentioned the one that is relevant to my views about OpenBSD.
> Is that hypocrisy? Is that lying? No, just sticking to the point.
> But now that people have raised the other issue, here is my position
> on it.
It is lying, and it is hypocrisy.
You are a slime who changes his position as he needs.
You may have had value ten years ago, but people will see that you don't
anymore.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-14 20:54:28
Message-ID: 200712142054.lBEKsSCx014385 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> > 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 words.
>
> When the ports system contains a recipe to build and install P, it's
> natural to say that P is "included in the ports system". You are
> interpreting the word "included" in a very literal sense, but that's
> not the only normal usage of the word.
The gcc and emacs distributions contain enough information inside them
to let a person compile those distributions on non-free systems.
Hypocrite.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 0:25:37
Message-ID: 200712150025.lBF0PbGE015951 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> They seem to be pretty new,
> what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
> these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
>
> Nothing! For many years there was no system distribution I
> could recommend to the public, and that is what I said.
It is fascinating how you are recommending Linux distributions which
contain two non-free source code files in their X distributions.
Richard, you know what I am talking about. You have heard about
this issue already. It is those two SGI files.
Yet, you are endorsing Linux distributions which contain those
files.
Shame on, you hypocrite.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 21:36:18
Message-ID: E1J3egE-000520-6l () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 non-free programs.
It is civil in tone, not harsh or nasty. Yes it is a criticism, but
not a foul criticism. I do not hate OpenBSD and I don't speak as
if I did. You and several others seem to perceive hostility which
is not present in my words.
Richard then came to the OpenBSD mailing lists looking for a fight.
I did not desire a fight and I did not start one. Others have tried
to, but their fight remains one-sided: they attack me, but I do not
attack them; instead I remain civil and stick to the issues.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 21:36:20
Message-ID: E1J3egG-00052H-Sj () fencepost ! gnu ! org
> 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 exercise my freedom of speech by not telling people about the Adobe
flash plug-in. I think you should, too. But I will not try to force
you to do that, because I respect your freedom of speech.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 21:36:29
Message-ID: E1J3egP-00052v-6O () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 code to run on non-free systems? Such a person could
honestly criticize me for thinking that is acceptable. But I have a
hunch that nobody on the list holds those extreme ethical views. In
other words, you and others are attacking me for agreeing with all of
you on this point.
Everyone has to draw lines between cases that are partly similar, and
that is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a contradiction between one's
stated views and one's actions -- for instance, criticizing someone
else for doing that which you do not think is wrong.
I too have used (and still use) non-free software. Not only from
Microsoft but also from providers such as IBM, Sun, Digital, SGI and
Apple. My personal preference is for free software, mostly OpenBSD.
Because of practical or pragmatic reasons, I still use non-free
software on a daily basis, yet I seek to replace these with free
alternatives.
I appreciate that you make efforts to replace them with free software.
Many others who prefer free software, or say they do, make no efforts
to bring their use of non-free programs to an end. They leave the job
to others and do not try to shoulder even part of it.
Again, I hear you say 'a little pragmatism goes a long way'. Please,
if that is not what you're saying correct me if I'm wrong but note
that if it is what you're saying then I concur. A little pragmatism
does go a long way. I'm not taking the extreme view that non-free
software is evil and must be abolished. Non-free software is often
(yet, not always) the choice of the user. I do have an issue with
someone who takes a very extreme position but doesn't follow through.
I believe that all software should be free -- what you call a "very
extreme" position -- and I have spent 24 years working for this goal.
Free operating systems exist today because of the campaign which I
started in 1983.
I am also very pragmatic in how to campaign for this; otherwise I
would never have got this far.
My only method for achieving this goal is by convincing people, and it
is clear it will take many years to succeed (if we ever do). Many
people do not yet want to migrate all the way to free software, and
the possibility of migrating partially as a bridge is very helpful to
the progress of free software. I recognize this as much as anyone.
I also recognize that we cannot keep moving towards a distant goal
without keeping it in our minds and upholding it with our actions.
Otherwise, it will be forgotten, or turned into a purely theoretic
Sunday-school principle which people do not follow in life.
To reconcile these two needs, I concluded that I should generally
accept compromises and part-way measures that are beneficial in the
short term, as long as they don't undermine the long-term goal.
However, we must not advocate part-way measures that imply rejection
of the goal.
More concretely, this means that I can grant legitimacy to installing
free software, even if they don't go all the way and erase all the
non-free software on their machines. But I cannot grant legitimacy to
installing a non-free program, because that would be treating the
problem as a solution. Thus, I can encourage installing Emacs, GCC or
OpenOffice on Windows, but I should not encourage installing non-free
programs on GNU/Linux or BSD, just as I should not encourage uninstalling
said program. This, in no way, encourages or promotes
| > the use of said software (free or non-free).
| >
| It is an expression of values. Personally it is a pretty clear one.
Apparantly, someone valued the program enough to warrant the effort of
writing a port for it.
I think you and he are talking past each other. You're talking about
value; he's talking about values.
When you talk of seeing "value" in a non-free program, that word
presumes a certain set of values, values that value convenience more
and freedom less.
Lots of people have those values; they are the ones that lead people
to develop, distribute, and use non-free software. And the practice
of developing, distributing, and/or using non-free software promotes
those values.
I abhor those values; I want to teach people to value freedom enough
to reject non-free software. To do this, I must conspicuously avoid
acting the way those values would lead me to act. That is the reason
for many of my decisions, including the decision not to recommend
distros that lead people to non-free software.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 21:36:31
Message-ID: E1J3egR-00053B-RN () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 contains installation recipes for various non-free programs
listed by name. That in itself is a suggestion to install those
programs. That is the suggestion I am talking about. I said so
explicitly in my first message:
However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
recommend.
If you don't like the word "suggest", we could say it "leads people
to" or "refers people to" or "helps people install" that software.
The point that I'm concerned about is not which word we use, but
rather the facts, which we now all know. The issue is what we make of
them ethically.
I disapprove of that practice, but my goal in talking about it here
was not to argue about that. My aim was to state what my real views
are, and thus correct inaccurate statements already about them.
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. My first message had already made it clear
what I was talking about.
The people who created this tangent chose one way I described the
facts, and picked a wrong interpretation, which my first message had
already shown was not right. In other words, they raised an imaginary
issue, and denounced me for a claim they should have known I did not
make.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 21:36:50
Message-ID: E1J3egk-000552-Jd () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 that relationship exists, not which word to call it.
and
the intention was to detract from OpenBSD - no matter how much sugar
coating it came with.
My intention was to explain my views and reasons for deciding not to
recommend OpenBSD.
Based on this, I see no hypocrisy from OpenBSD.
I do not say that OpenBSD is hypocritical. I only say it does
something that I think systems should not do.
If RMS had made the statement that OpenBSD doesn't actively prevent the
user from running non-free software then I think there wouldn't be an
issue here - what operating system does?
The idea that I want systems to actively prevent running non-free
software is a straw man. Since the first message I posted, I have
told people that I do not want that. When people disregard my actual
views and attack this straw man they are simply misrepresenting my
views.
Then again, it wouldn't have
the same impact as claiming that OpenBSD contains and endorses non-free
software.
What I said is that the ports system suggests installing non-free
programs. That's accurate, and it's also the issue at hand.
RMS, on the other hand, comes in with a half baked idea that OpenBSD
endorses non-free software, AND he openly endorses censorship of all
non-free software.
I do not advocate censorship of software, or anything else. I
advocate making all software free, and that's something different.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 21:37:06
Message-ID: E1J3eh0-000571-LM () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 21:37:45
Message-ID: E1J3ehd-0005BD-Ie () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 teach them to appreciate their freedom, and recognize that
non-free would deny them their freedom. That way they will take
actions to protect their freedom.
Messages of acceptance of non-free software undermine the efforts
to teach people that appreciation, and that is why I have decided
to reject them.
As for words like "hectoring and hamfisted attempts", I think that
reflects your feelings toward me more than the reality of what I do.
Rather than wasting effort trying to make firefox unusable for an
unfortunately large proportion of its userbase and on insulting
OpenBSD developers with spurious accusations, why not spend the
energy on making a usable flashplayer replacement?
We are doing that too. It is called Gnash.
However, if all we do is replace each non-free plug-in when it
appears, I don't think we will ever catch up with them. We need to
address this problem from both ends: developing free plug-ins, and
discouraging the acceptance of non-free plug-ins.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 22:31:34
Message-ID: 200712152231.lBFMVYLB002298 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> 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.
What actually happened is that you withheld your recommendation
because it CONTAINS non-free programs; that is what your words were.
It turns out that the above assessment was based on a complete lack of
research. It was uneducated, and you should have apologized for the
error.
You were really clear in your interview. And wrong.
Later on, on this mailing list, you have changed your statements to
say that your recommend against OpenBSD because it now... RECOMMENDS
non-free software.
We've made it quite clear that Emacs and gcc recommend the use of
non-free software, by directly containing code to support those
systems. The ports tree does not contain code to support non-free
components. It simply provides URLs to a few select things which
people might wish to use. Itself, it contains no non-free code and
makes no recommendations. But gcc and emacs directly contain code
which RECOMMENDS compilation on non-free systems, by actually
compiling and running there.
First you lied. Then you introduced new position that you cannot meet
yourself. That is hypocritical of you.
You are a hypocritical liar, Richard.
Your lies taint the efforts of the entire FSF and GNU communities.
Shame on you all for letting Richard mislead you so.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-15 23:23:26
Message-ID: 200712152323.lBFNNQAG026283 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> > 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.
Free speech also means our free ports tree can contain Makefiles which
point at non-free software.
> I exercise my freedom of speech by not telling people about the Adobe
> flash plug-in. I think you should, too. But I will not try to force
> you to do that, because I respect your freedom of speech.
You go onto a talk show and exercise your freedom of speech and your
powerful position as some supposed visionary ... to criticise our
exercising of our free speech.
At the same time, the specific criticism you have of us is not supposed
to stick to your own behaviour, in gcc end emacs.
You are a hypocrite, and any supposed visionary status you had in the
past is now nothing but mud. None of the operating system
distributions will give your crack pot ideas any more credit in the
future.
[slash@peereboom.us: Re: Real men don't attack straw men]
by Marco Peereboom Dec 31, 2007; 01:01pm
These messages somehow did not make it to misc@ so I am resending them.
My reply to RMS did make it to misc@.
I basically asked RMS why he endorses Solaris which is not even remotely
free.
I encourage people to try to understand the FSF reasoning for this
endorsement. I can't come up with anything else but a bought
endorsement.
Original message:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:07:15 -0600
From: Marco Peereboom < slash@...>
To: Richard Stallman < rms@...>
Cc: misc@...
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In-Reply-To: < E1J1kP9-0005Vw-Qa@...>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Richard, can you please educate me why you endorse Solaris?
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3717476_3
Per that interview you are endorsing an OS that basically won't run
without proprietary drivers. I love Solaris as an OS but it isn't free.
The CDDL clashes with the GPL; or can you explain why suddenly CDDL is
GPL compatible? Did someone tell you its free?
Might it have something to do with money?
http://www.fsf.org/donate/patron/index_html
We are talking about the same Sun that rejects open source drivers for
proprietary reasons. Like this beautiful piece of software written by
David Gwynne: http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~dlg/mfi/
This was rejected in favor of LSI's proprietary driver that adds nothing
over David's driver.
Eagerly awaiting your answers,
/marco
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMS' answer:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-Original-To: slash@...
Delivered-To: slash@...
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on
mail.peereboom.us
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0
tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS
autolearn=ham version=3.2.2
From: Richard Stallman < rms@...>
To: Marco Peereboom < slash@...>
CC: misc@...
In-reply-to: <20071226150715.GB9799@...> (message from Marco
Peereboom on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:07:16 -0600)
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Reply-to: rms@...
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:42:08 -0500
Per that interview you are endorsing an OS that basically won't run
without proprietary drivers.
I did not know that. Can you send me a URL for the precise details?
Once I know the details, I will ask them to post a correction in the
interview.
The CDDL clashes with the GPL; or can you explain why suddenly CDDL
is GPL compatible?
The CDDL is not GPL-compatible, but it is a free software license.
The source code of OpenSolaris is indeed free software, just as the
source code for OpenBSD is free software. If your information is
correct, OpenSolaris has a serious problem, and should not be endorsed,
Those are two different questions.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Marco Peereboom < slash () peereboom ! us>
Date: 2007-12-31 2:14:48
Message-ID: 20071231021447.GA17455 () peereboom ! us
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 08:42:08AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Per that interview you are endorsing an OS that basically won't run
> without proprietary drivers.
>
> I did not know that. Can you send me a URL for the precise details?
> Once I know the details, I will ask them to post a correction in the
> interview.
I sure can.
Code you wont ever get:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/
The binary license restrictions are described at:
http://opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/binary_licensing_faq/
Let me try to recap it for you though. You can't take a blob from
solaris and use it on linux for example. Not very free.
More pieces of the os that are licensed "odd" at best:
http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/
Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.
http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/devpro/
>
> The CDDL clashes with the GPL; or can you explain why suddenly CDDL is
> GPL compatible?
>
> The CDDL is not GPL-compatible, but it is a free software license.
> The source code of OpenSolaris is indeed free software, just as the
> source code for OpenBSD is free software. If your information is
> correct, OpenSolaris has a serious problem, and should not be endorsed,
> Those are two different questions.
The CDDL has a patent provision that is not GPL compatible. Sun
reserves the right to call something you do a patent infringement and
revoke your license. It is quite an interesting read.
They also retain all patent rights so if you write code that makes their
patented code better they get to claim all IP rights.
The license is a mess; kind of like the GPL. It is full of legal
pitfalls that are you know, not so free.
Have a read:
http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2007-12-31 22:30:47
Message-ID: E1J9T9j-0003Zl-IL () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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:
Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.
Someone else showed me some text which seems to say that you can
also compile it with GCC. From http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/:
You will then need to download the compilers specific to your
platform . Choose either:
* The Sun Studio Compilers (Recommended). NOTE: Sun
Studio 11 is required for building Build 45 and higher....
-or-
* The GCC Compiler found in Solaris Express, Community
Edition build 22 or later. (Please see the gcc tools page for
more information if choosing this option.)
However, I don't know precisely what question that is the answer to.
Maybe it doesn't apply to ALL the OpenSolaris software.
Is there text that says that certain components can compile only
with Devpro?
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2007-12-31 22:58:06
Message-ID: 200712312258.lBVMw69x025879 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> 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:
You asked for a correction to an statement interview -- you should not
even have made that statment to begin. You did not do research into
the OpenSolaris situation, and you spread lies instead of spreading
the truth.
> Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.
>
> Someone else showed me some text which seems to say that you can
> also compile it with GCC. From http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/:
>
> You will then need to download the compilers specific to your
> platform . Choose either:
>
> * The Sun Studio Compilers (Recommended). NOTE: Sun
> Studio 11 is required for building Build 45 and higher....
>
> -or-
>
> * The GCC Compiler found in Solaris Express, Community
> Edition build 22 or later. (Please see the gcc tools page for
> more information if choosing this option.)
>
> However, I don't know precisely what question that is the answer to.
> Maybe it doesn't apply to ALL the OpenSolaris software.
>
> Is there text that says that certain components can compile only
> with Devpro?
Richard, since you are a hypocrite who won't read web pages, let
me show you just a few of the Sun non-source bits, pasted below,
straight from Sun's page.
- OpenSolaris 'recommends' that people use the following binary
drivers from Sun.
- OpenSolaris is missing the source code for hundreds of manual pages
- Not all of the installer is free. You have to use non-free bits to
even install the software.
- Sun's X server and libraries are not available in source
- Sun's graphic cards are undocumented and without source
Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open
your big fat lying mouth.
If you can't or won't do the research, why open your mouth? Why?
Why?
You'll go out of the way to build arbitrary Richard-rules to attack
various projects like OpenBSD and Subversion, but then you make
yourself look like a FOOL by not researching Sun's situation. You
really make yourself look really really stupid.
Who will you attack with lies next week?
------
ctsmc driver (B) System Management controller driver
smbus_ara driver (B) Daktari platform support
SunFire V240 platmod driver (B) SunFire platform support
SunFire V250 platmod driver (B) SunFire platform support
SunFire V440 platmod driver (B) SunFire platform support
UltraEnterprise platmod driver (B) UltraEnterprise platform support
amsrc1 driver (B) Audio Mixer Sample Rater Conversion Routine #1
bmc driver Baseboard management controller
SunFire V240 ntwdt driver (B) Netra-based application watchdog timer driver
adpu320 driver (B) Adaptec Ultra320 SCSI HBA driver
audioens driver Ensonig 1371/1373 and Creative Labs 5880 driver support
audiovia823x driver (B) Drives VY823x chipsets for VIA Corporation
bnx driver (B) Broadcom NetXtreme II Gigabit Ethernet driver
daplt driver (B) Tavor uDAPL service driver
elxl driver (B) 3COM Ethernet device driver
forthdebug driver (B) OBP-level debugging macros
glm driver (B) SCSI HBA driver for Symbios 53c8xx SCSI Processor HBA
grppm driver Platform Power Management driver for Sun-Blade-100
ifp driver ISP 2100 Family Fibre Channel HBA driver
iprb driver (B) Intel Pro1000/B Fast Ethernet driver
isp driver ISP SCSI HBA driver
ixgb driver (B) 10G Ethernet driver
llc2 driver (B) NCR Logical Link Control device driver
lsimega driver (B) LSI Logic MegaRAID SCSI 320-2x driver
marvell88sx driver (B) Marvell 88SX SATA controller driver
m1535ppm driver (B) Acer ALI1535D and 1535D+ PCI PMU device driver
mi2cv driver (B) Nexus driver for Mentor Graphics MI2CV I2C controller
mpt driver (B) SCSI HBA driver that supports the LSI 53C1030 SCSI chip
n2cp driver (B) Niagara crypto driver
ncp driver (B) Niagara crypto driver
ncrs driver (B) SCSI HBA driver
nge driver (B) Nvidia ck8-04 NIC driver
pcelx driver (B) 3COM Etherlink III PCMCIA Ethernet Adapter
pcn driver AMD PCnet Ethernet controller device driver
pcser driver (B) PCMCIA serial card device driver
phx driver Kernel driver interfaces
rtls driver (B) Realtek Fast Ethernet device driver
sbpro driver Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audio device driver
scfd driver (B) OPL platform driver
scmi2c driver (B) Smart Transporter chip device driver
scsi_vhci driver (B) SCSI virtual host controller interconnect driver
sdpib driver (B) Infiniband Sockets Direct Protocol
se driver (B) Siemens 82532 ESCC serial communications driver
spwr driver SMC EtherPower II (EPIC) 10/100 (9432) Ethernet device driver
tavor driver (B) Device driver for the Infiniband Host Channel Adapter (HCA)
todm5823 driver (B) TOD driver module for ALI M5823 and compatible devices
uata driver (B) IDE HBA driver
usbser_edge driver (B) Digi Edgeport USB to serial converter driver
kcfd (B) Crypto code withheld due to US export controls on open cryptographic \
interfaces included in the Solaris binary product. fwflash (B) Firmware flash tool \
for Infiniband Host Channel Adapter (HCA) iconv/kbdcomp/od/pax/patch/printf/sed/tr \
(B) Kernel lock manager support (B) labeld command (B) Enabling method for \
Trusted Extensions libc_i18n (B)
libike (B) Internet Key Encryption Code
localedef command and library (B) Locale environment definition support.
Smartcard support
SNMPD (B) Simple Network Management Protocol daemon
XPG4 versions of more/od/sed/tail/tr (B)
udapl_tavor library (B) uDAPL access to tavor driver
emlxs driver Emulex fibre channel HBA driver
afb driver (B) Elite3D Graphics Accelerator
fbconfig driver (B) Frame buffer configuration utility
ffb driver (B) Creator and Creator3D Graphics Accelerator
gfb driver (B) Sun XVR-1000 Graphics Accelerator
ifb driver (B) Sun Expert3D, Sun Expert3D-Lite and Sun XVR-500 Graphics \
Accelerators jfb driver (B) Sun XVR-1200 and Sun XVR-600 Graphics Accelerators
kfb driver (B) Sun XVR-2500 Graphics Accelerators
M64 driver (B) Sun PGX64 Graphics Accelerator
nfb driver (B) Sun XVR-300 Graphics Accelerator
pfb driver (B) Sun XVR-100 Graphics Accelerator
vid driver (B) Video Timing Information
zulu driver (B) Sun XVR-4000 Graphics Accelerator
gfxp driver (B) PGX32 Graphics Accelerator
mko driver (B) Sun XVR-200 Graphics Accelerator
Xsun server
libserverdps.so.5 Adobe Display PostScript (DPS)
libbitstream.so TrueType font engine for Xorg server
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Marco Peereboom < slash () peereboom ! us>
Date: 2008-01-01 0:24:12
Message-ID: 20080101002411.GF17194 () peereboom ! us
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 05:30:47PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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:
Remember when you told someone to be patient for an answer? Same thing.
>
> Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.
>
> Someone else showed me some text which seems to say that you can
> also compile it with GCC. From http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/:
You can compile parts with gcc. I'd have to see the kernel being build
with gcc before I'd believe it.
>
> You will then need to download the compilers specific to your
> platform . Choose either:
>
> * The Sun Studio Compilers (Recommended). NOTE: Sun
> Studio 11 is required for building Build 45 and higher....
>
> -or-
>
> * The GCC Compiler found in Solaris Express, Community
> Edition build 22 or later. (Please see the gcc tools page for
> more information if choosing this option.)
>
> However, I don't know precisely what question that is the answer to.
> Maybe it doesn't apply to ALL the OpenSolaris software.
It does apply to all Solaris software but more so the kernel bits.
Currently there is no such thing as OpenSolaris compiled with gcc or I
have missed it. In fact you can't even install it without several
closed source pieces.
>
> Is there text that says that certain components can compile only
> with Devpro?
Sun has lots of documents out about this. Don't forget that they sell
devpro so draw your own conclusion.
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?
If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
reading information about them and draw your own conclusions. Hearsay
is starting to become pretty embarrassing to your quest don't you think?
You are 0 - 2 on truth and honesty regarding projects and actual freedom
on this list. I am wondering if you are basically trying to secure more
funds from the likes of Sun or you have some sort of agenda that is not
obvious to people in the community. What are you trying to accomplish
with your so called endorsements?
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2008-01-01 21:24:06
Message-ID: E1J9oak-0005Px-8e () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 "changing history".
I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such,
so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was
the clarification.
Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that
you seek to apply to mine.
If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.
I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information
that the ports system can install non-free software. Then I stated
that accurate information using words that were subject to
misunderstanding.
You witnessed the words I said in the interview. However, you
make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended
which are based on pure speculation. No wonder yourclaims are mistaken.
Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2008-01-01 21:43:51
Message-ID: 200801012143.m01LhpEo012580 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> 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.
We are not spinning any facts.
Richard, three times now you have have failed to do research -- thus
damaged the reputation of projects that write free software, and three
times you have had your messages annotated.
Because you were wrong.
Are you really so retardedly careless?
> But you have added a new false accusation of "changing history".
No. We've accused you of being a either tremendously careless and
reckless with other people's reputations. But there is an alternative
that you are purposefuly spreading these things -- ie. lying.
Meanwhile the FSF is doing exactly the same things in distributing
Emacs and GCC with commercial support in their distributions. That
is hypcrotical. You have been called on this issue, but you have told
people that it would be too much work to delete that stuff from gcc
and emacs. Yeah, right. That means you a hypocrite.
> I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such,
> so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was
> the clarification.
You should not have made the same type of mistake three times.
If you can't make statements without errors you should say nothing.
> Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that
> you seek to apply to mine.
I have said nothing which is hypocritical. OpenBSD does nothing
wrong, unless emacs and gcc are doing something wrong.
At the same time, OpenBSD developers are not going into the media and
pointing out the falicy of your statements. Or, we are not doing so
yet. Do you want a war in the press?
> If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
> reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.
>
> I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information
> that the ports system can install non-free software.
emacs and gcc can be installed on non-free software, because of tens of
thousands of lines of specific code written to suppor those commercial
systems. Hypocrite.
> Then I stated
> that accurate information using words that were subject to
> misunderstanding.
That's bullshit, Richard. In your interview you said that OpenBSD
*CONTAINED* non-free software. Your words were lies. Later on the
mailing lists you have attempted to change history by saying that your
words were being misunderstood. That's not true. You said OpenBSD
*CONTAINS* non-free software. There is no way to misunderstand that.
> You witnessed the words I said in the interview. However, you
> make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended
> which are based on pure speculation. No wonder yourclaims are mistaken.
I do make claims about what you knew: You knew nothing because you did
not research before you spoke, and you ended up telling a lie.
Same as when you branded OpenSolaris free: You knew nothing because
you did not research before you spoke, and you ended up telling a lie.
Same as when you attacked the Subversion developers: You knew nothing
because you did not research before you spoke, and you ended up
telling a lie.
> Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?
It's hilarious to see you try to accuse me of your greatest weakness.
You are the one who three times now has said the wrong thing about
freedom, because you don't investitate.
I predict that your next posting will complain about how you don't
use the web. Poo hoo, poor Richard always has an answer that will
get him out of trouble.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Marco Peereboom < slash () peereboom ! us>
Date: 2008-01-01 21:45:16
Message-ID: 20080101214516.GJ17194 () peereboom ! us
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 04:24:06PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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 "changing history".
Minor confusion? This is the second time you make completely false
claims because you didn't bother to research what you are talking about.
You decided to be a public figure and the natural result is that people
will look at your statements with a magnifying glass. I don't pay
attention to your normal activities as they have no bearing on me
whatsoever. What shocks me is that the 2nd time in a week that I see you
talk is that you basically make stuff up. I simply don't believe that
you had another "minor confusion". You are smarter than that.
>
> I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such,
> so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was
> the clarification.
You rectified your answer because the original one was false. You could
have prevented that by reading up on it. Unless you have a different
agenda that you are not sharing.
>
> Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that
> you seek to apply to mine.
I don't claim the high ground with provocative claims and word altering
tactics. You do. I am holding you to your own standards; why is that
bad?
>
> If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
> reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.
>
> I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information
> that the ports system can install non-free software. Then I stated
> that accurate information using words that were subject to
> misunderstanding.
Those words were not up for misunderstanding.
>
> You witnessed the words I said in the interview. However, you
> make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended
> which are based on pure speculation. No wonder yourclaims are mistaken.
When a public figure speaks he/she is supposed to know what they are
talking about. You for some reason don't seem to think that what you
say needs rooting in truth or reality. As the figure head for the FSF
you really should behave as you preach. I've met many of your minions
and they are at least consistent and principled. I even have seen guys
get fired for refusing to use non GPL software.
You are making stuff up and now blaming me for pointing it out.
>
> Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?
I read your words; I researched the CDDL and OpenSolaris and came to the
conclusion that you were again making stuff up. Who is making any
claims here?
You need to stick to the conversation instead of trying to divert it to
irrelevant drivel. Also instead of answering the questions I asked, you
decided that it is better to put words in my mouth.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: "Siju George" < sgeorge.ml () gmail ! com>
Date: 2008-01-02 8:17:06
Message-ID: b713df2c0801020005s2fb25f3fs6720ae2c76d12e36 () mail ! gmail ! com
On Jan 2, 2008 2:54 AM, Richard Stallman < rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 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 "changing history".
>
MINOR CONFUSION?
With all the spin you are doing with your own words it is quite clear that
1) You don't know the facts
OR
2) You are a compulsive liar
OR
3) You have an agenda.
You are going through all these verbal gymnastics just because your
mail to misc@ was appropriately addressed by the people there.
While you still continue to confuse the masses who do not know the
details but just get excited when they hear FSF and GNU and RMS
the people at misc stated the facts with proof and now you have no
choice but to apologize.
Be a man Richard.
You are making a big fool of yourself in public by beating about the bush.
And the 'nasty spin' you make on your own statements while desperately
accuse other doing the same.
Anybody who followed this thread would have clearly seen what a
hypocrite you are and how you use different standards to judge and
attack and try to destroy the reputation of Open Source projects you
are envious of ( perhaps they don't give a damn to what you say or
think about them ) .
You are not just a hypocrite but a kind of terrorist too with a
deluded feeling that people will all automatically subscribe to your
views and may be get afraid when you attack them in public with your
lies.
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 finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in
public.
Your organization is slowly turning to a mafia Richard. Do you see that?
You have already crossed the boundaries of decency and you are still
bent on going that way.
It is terrible to see this....
with no regards what so ever
--Siju
> I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such,
> so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was
> the clarification.
>
> Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that
> you seek to apply to mine.
>
> If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
> reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.
>
> I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information
> that the ports system can install non-free software. Then I stated
> that accurate information using words that were subject to
> misunderstanding.
>
and so you made the "nasty spin" you are accusing theo of now and went
into media and said "OpenBSD CONTAINED non-Free" software.
Great Spin Doctor!
Anybody would expect this mistake from a kinder garden student but
from a person like you?
NO! you either did not study much or else you were taking revenge on
OpenBSD project by trying to tarnish their image because your friends
were put to shame publically by their own unwise zealotry ( with the
stupid advice of a stupid american lawyer who again did not study the
facts like you, remember one of the great kernel programmers of linux
did mockingly ask Theo to go and learn the copyright law but after the
issue was setelled against your friends we hears nothing from him
too!!) while trying to steal Reyk's code and play bullies with
sub-standard lawyer on your side.
Shame, Shame!!!
> You witnessed the words I said in the interview. However, you
> make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended
> which are based on pure speculation. No wonder yourclaims are mistaken.
>
> Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?
>
Every body who followed this thread has the facts before them with proof.
If you say you investigated things properly the what you are called by
people here is VERY APPROPRIATE!!!
HIPPO HIPPOCRITE!!!!
no more regards
Siju
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2008-01-02 9:54:01
Message-ID: E1JA0IT-0002pr-22 () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 did
that interview my memory was incorrect.
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.
Partly I had forgotten and partly I fell into a miscommunication.
I am sure the readers can judge for themselves how grave that is.
"Lying" is another matter. That is a grave accusation which you and
others have made with absolutely no basis. Shouldn't you make sure of
the facts before you accuse?
As regards the size of my mouth, I got a testimonial from a dentist
that it is rather small. If you won't take my word for it, I will ask
my mother to send me a copy.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Theo de Raadt < deraadt () cvs ! openbsd ! org>
Date: 2008-01-02 18:02:09
Message-ID: 200801021802.m02I29St018131 () cvs ! openbsd ! org
> 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 did
> that interview my memory was incorrect.
Twice you called free things non-free, and once you called a non-free
things free.
Your memory was incorrect? I bet you make such a mistake again in a
few weeks.
If you can't be accurate, perhaps you should not do interviews.
> 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, and this helps you how? The
kernel is not free -- it never was. It has a couple of handful of
required drivers which are not included. It is not free, in any
sense. Yet you failed to do any research about this before you went
into the press.
> Partly I had forgotten and partly I fell into a miscommunication.
> I am sure the readers can judge for themselves how grave that is.
Someone like you is not allowed to spread mistruths like this in the
media.
> "Lying" is another matter. That is a grave accusation which you and
> others have made with absolutely no basis. Shouldn't you make sure of
> the facts before you accuse?
Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar. And
since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I
am going to call you a hypocrite.
List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Richard Stallman < rms () gnu ! org>
Date: 2008-01-03 9:50:33
Message-ID: E1JAMif-0000Ae-IR () fencepost ! gnu ! org
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 finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in
public.
I don't know who or what that refers to. I do know that my favorite
organization is the Free Softwar Foundation, and I know it has not
been involved in anything that fits that description.
I suspect this is related to the harsh message Theo sent me a few
months ago, which rebuked what "you" (was that me? the FSF?) had done.
He mentioned the name "Reyk" (which I don't recognize) and said it had
something to do with a license. But he did not go into details.
The FSF was not involved in the matter.
I could have investigated what he was talking about and determined
what conduct he had criticized. Then, supposing I wanted to give them
some advice, I could have asked someone to find the developers'
addresses, and written to them. Then they might or might not have
listened to me.
I could have done all that, but I saw no reason to go so far out of my
way for someone who was treating me rather badly. So I simply told
him that the FSF was not involved in the matter.
I know that one part of your description events is wrong--the part
that says, that my "favorite organization" has "lost the battle
[publicly]". My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved. If
any of "my friends" were involved, they did not inform me.
Those errors make me skeptical of the rest of your claims. Did
someone lose a battle? Did anyone really "steal" anything? I don't
know, but I won't take your word for it. Did they "try to go legal"?
If so, was it "vainly"? If they got legal advice, was their lawyer
"un-educated"? Was the outcome embarrassing for someone? I don't
know.
Whoever would like to know the answers to these questions would do
well to check on his own.