Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Dec 2007 16:32 UTC, submitted by lmvaz
OpenBSD Richard Stallman sent a message to OpenBSD-Misc, explaining why he doesn't recommend OpenBSD. "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." His mail started a huge thread (that's just page 1) and since then he's under a blast of messages from Theo de Raadt and the OpenBSD users. De Raadt replied: "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."
Order by: Score:
lmao
by google_ninja on Mon 17th Dec 2007 16:55 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

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.


That totally made my day.

Reply Score: 30

RE: lmao
by Luminair on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:12 UTC in reply to "lmao"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

"I may be unfriendly at times, but you are a power-misusing hypocritical liar"

lol that was the best part

Reply Score: 22

RE[2]: lmao
by bryanv on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE: lmao"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

OUTSTANDING.

It's about time someone called it like it is.

I cannot take a single thing RMS says seriously. The man is a living parody.

Reply Score: 11

RE: lmao
by antwarrior on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:18 UTC in reply to "lmao"
antwarrior Member since:
2006-02-11

stimmt!!!

Reply Score: 0

RE: lmao
by Bogtha on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:02 UTC in reply to "lmao"
Bogtha Member since:
2007-12-17

Unfortunately, it only highlights Theo as the hypocrite. The OpenBSD project itself considers the ports tree to contain the applications you can install through it. Straight from the FAQ:

Other browsers in the ports tree, include (in no particular order):
* Opera Commercial browser, i386 only (requires Linux emulation).


http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#Browsers

So the basis Theo uses to call Stallman a liar is a distinction so fine even the OpenBSD project itself doesn't make it!

Reply Score: 23

RE[2]: lmao
by Oliver on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE: lmao"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

If you don't get it, don't flame it. It's that easy, THERE IS NO NON-FREE SOFTWARE IN THE PORTS. Ports are just makefile, YOU, the very user, have to run the makefile, YOU are installing it and furthermore ports in OpenBSD aren't officially part of the supported OS. Maybe next time you should read the whole FAQ or use the system!

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: lmao
by AdamW on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lmao"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

But no-one ever claimed there *was* any non-free software in ports. RMS said it 'suggested' the use of non-free software. This is not the same thing at all.

Reply Score: 18

RE[4]: lmao
by dreamlax on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lmao"
dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

But no-one ever claimed there *was* any non-free software in ports. RMS said it 'suggested' the use of non-free software. This is not the same thing at all.


But it's just that; a suggestion. It's up to the user to take the suggestion just like they would any other suggestion. If they don't want to install non-free software, they won't, just as they probably wouldn't jump off a cliff if they were suggested to.

It's the user's freedom to make a decision based on the suggestions that he or she is given. They may have been convinced well enough never to run non-free software, so that no suggestion of non-free software will change that. RMS is now saying we shouldn't give them the freedom to choose what software they use, they should only run what RMS approves of.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: lmao
by MamiyaOtaru on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lmao"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

As much as one may disagree with Stallman, he is tediously consistent in his views and he explains them well in that thread only to have them misrepresented time and again, which was the very reason he started the thread in the first place.

He started the thread complaining about strawmen, about people ascribing views to him and then attacking those views when they aren't his. One can then see exactly that through the whole thread.

One can see it here too, as above: "RMS is now saying we shouldn't give them the freedom to choose what software they use, they should only run what RMS approves of." He is not saying that. He is saying that for a distribution to receive his recommendation, it shouldn't link to/suggest/ease installation of nonfree software. This is not the same as what the above quoted strawman is claiming he says for two reasons: 1: By not suggesting nonfree software, one doesn't prevent anyone from using it (and indeed cannot, as Richard points out) 2: Richard is not dictating that any project not suggest nonfree software. He is simply saying that if they do suggest it, he will not recommend that project. OpenBSD doesn't care about his recommendation. That should be the end of the thread.

Dreamlax has done exactly what so many on that mailing list have done, and exactly what prompted Richard to post in the first place (a first post that contained unfortunately inexact language vis a vis contains/has recipes for installing). He's taken Richard's position and exaggerated it into something it is not, and then attacked the exaggeration. I don't find that particularly admirable, neither here nor on the OpenBSD mailing list.

If one is to disagree with someone, disagree with what he actually says. It's apparent that OpenBSD does disagree with a lot of what he says, so why they feel the need to make up things he supposedly said in order to disagree with them I really don't understand.

In the end, OpenBSD facilitates the installation of nonfree software through their official ports system. Richard therefore doesn't recommend OpenBSD. This is consistent with his long stated opinions. OpenBSD doesn't care about his recommendation. This is consistent with their long stated opinions. That's all there is to it. There is no need to talk about hypocrisy or lying. There is simply a difference of opinion, and I have a see no need to demonize Richard for having a different opinion.

Reply Score: 21

RE[6]: lmao
by archiesteel on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: lmao"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Well said. Some people seem to have so much animosity towards RMS that they will gladly use logical fallacies such as strawman arguments in order to further attack him.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: lmao
by gogglesguy on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lmao"
gogglesguy Member since:
2007-08-10

That's totally not the point RMS was making... ofcourse if you actually read the messages in the mailinglist, or hell, even the title of this article,

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: lmao
by Bogtha on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: lmao"
Bogtha Member since:
2007-12-17

THERE IS NO NON-FREE SOFTWARE IN THE PORTS. Ports are just makefile


Read my comment. This definition of "the ports" as being the Makefiles only and not the software itself is a definition that OpenBSD itself doesn't use. Theo invented an arbitrary distinction just to call Stallman a liar. The OpenBSD FAQ itself states that Opera, well-known for being non-Free, is "in the ports tree", those exact words.

If OpenBSD had been using the definition in Theo's mail all along, then you might have a point, but they have not. It looks like Theo invented that narrower definition so that he could call Stallman a liar. Unfortunately for him, the OpenBSD's website is available to prove that isn't the definition used up until today.

Reply Score: 20

RE[4]: lmao
by meianoite on Tue 18th Dec 2007 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: lmao"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

The OpenBSD FAQ itself states that Opera, well-known for being non-Free, is "in the ports tree", those exact words.


Do you understand the difference between a FAQ and a technical report?


'Nuff said.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: lmao
by Bogtha on Tue 18th Dec 2007 04:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: lmao"
Bogtha Member since:
2007-12-17

Yes, I understand the difference. What's the relevance?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Almafeta
by Almafeta on Mon 17th Dec 2007 16:57 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

From what I have heard


And not what he has, you know, seen with his own eyes...

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.


... and he uses what he has heard about something else to condemn it.

The more time goes on, the more it seems Stallman is a high-profile variant of a blogger.

Reply Score: 17

RE: Comment by Almafeta
by Valhalla on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by Almafeta"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

although 'not recommending' something is pretty far cry from 'condemning' something which Almafeta tried to make it out as, for Stallman to pop into the OpenBSD list and start his speech on unethical and antisocial software is totally non-constructive and for OpenBSD followers most likely offensive. Stallman is free to not recommend OpenBSD, but I really doubt that OpenBSD advocates gives a rat's ass what Stallman recommends and I'm certain they don't wish to listen to the ranting reasoning behind his non-recommendation (which seems based on hearsay), especially on their own mailing lists.

Stallman will get flak for this, and imho deservedly so. as usual there will be alot of trolls who will try to turn this into a GPL vs BSD licence flame fest and will likely succeed.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by Almafeta
by gogglesguy on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Almafeta"
gogglesguy Member since:
2007-08-10

He wasn't making a speech but rather trying to correct some misinterpreted statements that were floating around.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Almafeta
by makc on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by Almafeta"
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

"someone told me you're a bad guy. and that you smell bad". indeed...

Reply Score: 2

They look like kids
by Joe User on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:06 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

"Mine is bigger than yours!"

Reply Score: 3

Are you ready to RUMBLE????
by BluenoseJake on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:08 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

de Raadt VS Stallman. This is the fight I've been waiting for. Stallman has the frothing-at-the-mouth zealotism, de Raadt has no holds barred anger issues.

Should be an exciting match, folks. Don't touch that dial.

Seriously.....If Stallman can't take the time to do research, he should just shut the hell up

Reply Score: 26

RE: Are you ready to RUMBLE????
by bryanv on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "Are you ready to RUMBLE????"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Personally, I'd rather he just shut the hell up.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Are you ready to RUMBLE????
by boblowski on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:14 UTC in reply to "Are you ready to RUMBLE????"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

de Raadt VS Stallman. This is the fight I've been waiting for. Stallman has the frothing-at-the-mouth zealotism, de Raadt has no holds barred anger issues.

On any other topic, I would have disliked a comment like this, but this time I feel you're spot on and I moded you up.

*Shakes head in amazement, takes a beer, and sits back*

Reply Score: 2

RE: Are you ready to RUMBLE????
by kaiwai on Tue 18th Dec 2007 07:08 UTC in reply to "Are you ready to RUMBLE????"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

de Raadt VS Stallman. This is the fight I've been waiting for. Stallman has the frothing-at-the-mouth zealotism, de Raadt has no holds barred anger issues.

Should be an exciting match, folks. Don't touch that dial.


I'd love to see that, and the wild card, Hans Reiser and his "you don't want my file system in the kernel because you hate me" (then proceeds to sit in the corner listening to My Chemical Romance whilst cutting himself).

The problem I have with Stallman isn't so much his philosophy (which I am not with) but the fact that he has this idea if you don't subscribe to his view in the most purist of forms, you are some how deficient as a human - possibly even evil.

There doesn't seem to be a pragmatic bone in his body, a willingness to sit down, hear both sides of the arguments and come up with a compromise - it seems that its a 'my way or the high way'.

With each passing day he is turning into the equivalent of cantankerous old priest (Father Jack) off 'Father Ted' who screams, "Drink!", "Feck!", "Arse!" and "Girls!"

Reply Score: 2

Haha
by patrick_ on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:10 UTC
patrick_
Member since:
2006-03-02

Richard Stallman is annoying, yet funny at the same time.

He can keep his radical ways to himself and "GNU/Linux", thank you very much.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Haha
by superman on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:24 UTC in reply to "Haha"
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

> Richard Stallman is annoying, yet funny at the same time.

RMS is great :
- emacs
- gcc
- (L)GPL
- FSF
- ...

Reply Score: 19

RE[2]: Haha
by rcsteiner on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Haha"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Just because RMS has produced a lot of goodness doesn't make him above criticism. Even the most wonderful coder or project leader can make a serious gaffe now and then, and IMO when they do they should be called on it.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Haha
by wirespot on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Haha"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Well look for another oportunity because this isn't it. He was factually correct in his statement. Too bad Thom is after the quick thrill, as usual, and couldn't help posting a story that puts side by side completely unrelated statements.

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: Haha
by bryanv on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Haha"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Do you know what he said? Did you read the thread?

Or did you just banter on based on what someone else told you?

That's hearsay. Which oddly enough is exactly what RMS did, and why he's looking like the backside of a working animal.

RMS was factually incorrect in his statement that OpenBSD includes non-free software. It doesn't. But he couldn't say, "opps, sorry." No, oh no, he then went on to change his story to something along the lines of 'I said it recommends non-free software'.

Wait, that's not what he said. Huh.

Funny, an RMS follower (apparently) blindly accepts things that people say, without doing due diligence -- JUST LIKE RMS.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Haha
by unavowed on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Haha"
unavowed Member since:
2006-03-23

He hadn't done proper research before posting but he wasn't afraid to ask for clarification even when some people started accusing his recommended gNewSense. And in the matter of recommending OpenBSD he turned out to be right, as justified in one of the earlier posts (http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=19057&comment_id=291721)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Haha
by archiesteel on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Haha"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

RMS was factually incorrect in his statement that OpenBSD includes non-free software. It doesn't.


Except he didn't state that OpenBSD included non-free software. He said that ports *suggested* non-free software.

I disagree with RMS on many things, but somehow I don't feel the need to claim he said things he didn't actually say...

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Haha
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Haha"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Except he didn't state that OpenBSD included non-free software. He said that ports *suggested* non-free software.


Have you been paying attention? Theo is referring to an interview RMS did in which he *did* state that the ports tree included non-free sofware. There's a link to that interview somewhere in this thread, but I'm too lazy to find it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Haha
by WereCatf on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Haha"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Have you been paying attention? Theo is referring to an interview RMS did in which he *did* state that the ports tree included non-free sofware. There's a link to that interview somewhere in this thread, but I'm too lazy to find it.

Lots of people missed that part.. Oh well, I'm not going to lose my sleep for that ;) But well, IMHO the word "suggests" is very much misleading. I don't think OpenBSD at any point suggests proprietary software to be installed unless the user specifically asks for that. RMS should have rather said that he won't recommend an OS (distribution?) which links to or makes it easy for the user to install proprietary software which is what he meant.

Anyways, RMS may recommend anything he wants to, I'll recommend things that seem the most practical to me ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Haha
by AdamW on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Haha"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

If it's a spoken interview, I'd be inclined to excuse him, especially as he used the correct word when writing (on the ML thread). It's very easy to say things slightly differently from how you meant them when you're involved in a spoken interview. The fact that he - clearly intentionally - used a different (and correct) term at a *later* date when *writing* obviously shows his intention.

If he had *written* in a formal message that the ports tree "included" non-free software, that could be argued to be a mistake (though let's face it, we're talking semantics here, including a definition for a non-free application in a ports tree is pretty close to 'including' it, and someone has already pointed out that OpenBSD itself uses pretty similar language to describe things that are 'in' the ports tree...), but not one that requires out and out personal abuse. Sheesh.

What RMS is saying is perfectly clear and consistent with his position, as it almost always is. Whether or not you agree with him it's very hard to argue that he acts in bad faith or with prejudice or that he contradicts himself any more than anyone else (he usually does it a lot less). He has a fairly radical position with which not many people agree, but he sticks to it and he's very consistent.

He doesn't recommend operating systems whose producers suggest the use of non-free software. This is a consistent position he's always taken, and the reason he doesn't recommend very many operating systems and the ones he does recommend are fairly obscure. So you can conclude that not many people agree with his stance entirely, but so what? That doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to take that stance and explain it clearly when it is misunderstood, which is all he's sought to do.

If you disagree with RMS's position, then by all means, ignore it (as most people do). If you disagree with his philosophy, it would seem that it really doesn't matter to you what operating systems he recommends, so why make such a big fuss about it?

This whole thing to me is about as absurd as it would be if a bunch of meat eaters decided to argue with the Vegetarian Society over its recommendations for what foodstuffs count as 'vegetarian'. If you're not a vegetarian in the first place, it would seem to be absurd to worry about what foodstuffs are recommended for people who *are*.

Reply Score: 9

RE[7]: Haha
by archiesteel on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Haha"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Have you read the interview transcript? Are you sure RMS clearly stated that OpenBSD included non-free software? Because in the article link he clearly writes "From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software".

That is what is on record. Maybe he made a mistake in the interview, I haven't listened to it. It's very common for people to not use the exact correct word when talking. What counts is what he wrote. If Theo doesn't want to understand this then *he* is the one who's not discussing in good faith.

Perhaps you should be the one paying attention, Thom.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Haha
by apoclypse on Tue 18th Dec 2007 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Haha"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Haven't you been listening it has already been proven that ports actually DOES contain non-free software. So he wasn't wrong in either case.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Haha
by Oliver on Tue 18th Dec 2007 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Haha"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

ESR did the major work at emacs. And gcc wasn't such a beast as today. So yes he did something, but nothing more, nothing less. But he wasn't even able to build a real operating system, just a bunch of tools.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Haha
by apoclypse on Tue 18th Dec 2007 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Haha"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

One could say Linus wasn't able to make a real OS just a kernel. What's your point?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Haha
by tyrione on Wed 19th Dec 2007 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Haha"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Both are given far more credit for their work and those that contributed greatly far less credit and fortunately for us we have some great software. We also have some fascinating approaches to licensing and vision on how to expand the benefits of technology to the masses.

It takes the works of many but we all too often credit a few for all of it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Haha
by wirespot on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:09 UTC in reply to "Haha"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Richard Stallman is annoying, yet funny at the same time. He can keep his radical ways to himself and "GNU/Linux", thank you very much.


Feel free to reply with a small list of your personal accomplishments that have done so much for the world as RMS did with his radical, annoying and funny ways.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Haha
by Lobotomik on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Haha"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

His (or my) list of personal achievements have NOTHING to do on the subject of whatever RMS is or is not.

RMS may possibly be an asshole without knowing whether I have ever written a line of C or whether I have ever been born, for that matter.

As a free being, we are entitled to express our opinions exactly as we see fit, even more so when they are about RMS, who is a public personage with the self-assigned role in life to instruct people about the Real Ethics of Freedom.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Haha
by wirespot on Tue 18th Dec 2007 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Haha"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Expressing your opinion is fine. But if you do so without anything to back it up then the only thing people will have to value your opinion will be the fact that it's yours. So they'll ask "who are you?" And if they discover that you're an absolute nobody throwing mud at a guy who is somebody, it will make them mad.

I hope you understand why. It's normal human reaction. Don't be surprised when it happens. Keep doing it, by all means, but be ready for the consequences.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Haha
by patrick_ on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:34 UTC in reply to "Haha"
patrick_ Member since:
2006-03-02

Ok ok, maybe I should've said "Richard Stallman's *ways* are annoying, yet funny at the same time", as it's what I meant. You're right, Stallman has done a _lot_ of good work for the open source community. I use a lot of software created by him/GNU every day: emacs and gcc most notably.

Reply Score: 1

Stallman's consistant, whatever else
by eekee on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:13 UTC
eekee
Member since:
2007-12-17

I use Source Mage GNU/Linux... which the FSF wont' recommend because... there exists on the SMGL download servers an entirely optional package repo... no, not package repo, a "spell grimoire" consisting of build and dependency information, and little else, for some non-Free software. I'm not sure, but I think SMGL is excluded with slightly less reason than OpenBSD, lol.

Reply Score: 4

hmm.
by AdamW on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:14 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not sure how accurate the summary is, but Theo's quotation does not seem to reply to what RMS was saying at all. RMS says that the ports tree 'suggests' non-free software, not that it 'contains' it. Theo then heatedly denies that the ports tree 'contains' non-free software, which is...not what RMS said in the first place.

Ah, well, it'll all die down in a day or two.

Reply Score: 28

Invincible Cow
Member since:
2006-06-24

"Free" doesn't mean "restricted", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "confined", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "restrained", does it?
Or does "free" mean "restricted"?
Yes, it does!

Do you use software because it's "free as in freedom"? If it's "free as in freedom" you should be able to do whatever you want with it, right? Is it still "free as in freedom" if you can't do whatever you want with it?

Sure, you can do whatever the author wants you to do with it, but can you do whatever you want with it?

I think the some of the GPL folks should pull their big egos together, learn English before they learn C and stop spreading lies.
Free means not restricted.
GPL restricts you.
Thus, GPL does not promote free as in freedom

Sure, we can discuss at length whether protecting software from commercial "misuse" is beneficial, but as long as the software is protected, it isn't free as in freedom, is it?

Reply Score: 10

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Free means not restricted.
GPL restricts you.
Thus, GPL does not promote free as in freedom"

Freedom of speech is restricted them, DRM is freedom. I'm confused what do mean.

Reply Score: 1

searly Member since:
2006-02-27

" Thus, GPL does not promote free as in freedom "

well ... no, you obviously don't fully understand the GPL. GPL promotes an ensures freedom, because it restricts that which would restrict freedom (i.e use the source and close it or not contribute back). In this way GPL ensures software freedom more than BSD does. The freedom to restrict someone else's freedom does not make sense if you want to ensure the freedom (as defined in the four freedoms in the GPL) of everybody (which essentially BSD style licences allow). Anyway the GPL does what it does very well.

Reply Score: 16

eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

He obviously does fully understand the GPL, because what he said is true.

We all know the point of the GPL and its admirable. If you don't want your code used in proprietary software then it is your right, use the GPL, but calling it more free than the BSD license is fallacious.

Reply Score: 13

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

It would be so if there was a clear shot at "freedom". But there isn't.

Absolut freedom is a pipe dream, an abstract. If you allow anything to be done with your software it means you also allow someone making it non-free. Some people may like it that way. FSF doesn't, and that's why we have GPL.

To achieve realistic freedom, at the very least you have to include one condition: to disallow the software to be made non-free. GPL may seem complex and convoluted and restrictive, but in today's day and age that is the absolute minimum that had to be done to ensure that free software stays free.

Blame it on the world we live in, not on FSF, RMS or GPL. In a perfect world the BSD license would be all that's needed. Hell, public domain would be all that's needed, everybody would be fair and we wouldn't even need copyright law to tell us what fair means. But it's not a perfect world, is it.

Reply Score: 6

eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

Someone using my code in non-free software in no way makes my code non-free. Everyone is still able to download and use it how they see fit.

Reply Score: 4

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

That is not true, someone may change a few functions in you software add something inane like an about box or something, then sell the software for an extravagant price. They could then add things to this code base and never even look your way again. GPL makes so that any changes made to your software will always come back to you and will always be available to users. Seems fair to me.

Reply Score: 4

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Someone using my code in non-free software in no way makes my code non-free. Everyone is still able to download and use it how they see fit.


Everyone is still able to download your code. The code that they modified will probably not be available freely. Is that fair? Given that they based it on your work, modified some parts of it and go on to benefit from it as a whole?

Again, as I said, some people consider that OK. Some don't, and that's why they will use GPL, which doesn't allow such things.

Reply Score: 4

jtrapp Member since:
2005-07-06

well ... no, you obviously don't fully understand the GPL. GPL promotes an ensures freedom, because it restricts that which would restrict freedom

George Orwell could not have put it better himself.

Reply Score: 11

g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

This has nothing to do with Orwell.

*All* laws are based on restricting freedom of some people so others can have more freedom. The old saying "Your freedom to swing your arms around ends at my nose" is based on this principle.

If you want complete freedom, you want a Darwinian world where might makes right and anything that you can get away with is right. If I'm bigger and stronger than anyone else, then I have the right to hit anyone in the nose. You have the "right" to hit me back, of course, but you won't be able to because I can pound you into power before you even get close.

The GPL is based on the "quid pro quo" principle of "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". If you want to play by those rules, then fine. If not, then fine too -- just don't expect that other people are your development slaves.
The BSD is based on the principle of charity (the only thing asked back is recognition). It is a noble mindset which it would be great if it were universal, but the moment one starts yelling that others leach your software, you're revealing a closet GPL hypocrasy.

I don't know if OpenBSD is or is not "completely free" in Stallman's purist philosophy. But like him or hate him, it is very consistent so if it was a misunderstanding, OpenBSD will be recognized.
But if it isn't, then, so what? If OpenBSD really cared about Stallman's opinion, it'll either create Gobuntu-like fork that allows a purist OpenBSD to be created or it'll go the distance and fix the issues, if there are any, at the expense of it's less pure OpenBSD users.
And if they don't care, they Stallman-type purists aren't their target customers anyway, so it's a waist of breath.

Reply Score: 11

AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"If you want complete freedom, you want a Darwinian world where might makes right and anything that you can get away with is right."

This has nothing to do with Darwin. Darwin *described* a natural process. He did not advocate aping it (badly) in artificially constructed situations. He did not suggest that it has any kind of intrinsic moral significance, as of course it doesn't.

Reply Score: 4

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes, but to the only way to survive in a "free" world is to be the strongest because if you are not then anyone is free to do anything to you. Hmmm, I like your car this is a free society I happen to have a gun, I think I'll take your car. If you don't happen to have a gun I think I'm definitely going to win the argument and there is nothing that you can do to stop me, you definitely can't press charges, this is a free society, I'm free to rob you if I want to. Copyright, i don't need no stinking copyright. I like that new movie that just came out by Scorsese, I think I'll x his name out and put mine in as the director. We live in a free society there is nothin stopping me unless, Scorsese send in a couple of goons to break my legs or something.

At the end of the day total freedom implies survival of the fittest,because if your the strongest you can stop anyone from stepping on your freedom, but at that point you are getting in the way of their freedom and if they are not free to do anything they want to you then the whole free society idea falls apart. That is why terms such as freedom are always implied within the bounds of certain rules. There is no freedom without rules, period. Never has been, never will be.

Reply Score: 4

g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Of course you're correct and Darwin would have found, Social Darwinism abhorrent. The cruelty of Hell to the unbaptized was his main criticism of the Christianity as he understood it.

But like it or not, the term Social Darwinism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism ) unfairly exists, and his theories have been misapplied to justify the Eugenics atrocities of the 1940s and Friedrich Nietzsche's "will to power" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power ) mortality which advocates precisely what I describe.

Without artificial restrictions on behaviour (whether it's an inborn conscious or external societal rule or a social contract as is the case with the BSD and GPL licenses), Social Darwinism is all you have and Orwell's world (and copying BSD code without credit or violating the GPL) would be quite moral and praiseworthy.

Reply Score: 2

AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Yep, but the poster used the phrase "Darwinism", not "Social Darwinism". Which, as you point out, is something different.

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

You *do* realize that Nietzsche's Will to Power was *also* misappropriated/misapplied/misrepresented by the Nazis, do you?

In other words, Nietzsche did *not* advocate what you describe, but Nazis misused what he said to support their theories.

Reply Score: 3

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

But like it or not, the term Social Darwinism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism ) unfairly exists, and his theories have been misapplied to justify the Eugenics atrocities of the 1940s and Friedrich Nietzsche's "will to power" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power ) mortality which advocates precisely what I describe.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm picky, but Nietzsche's "will to power" concept does not advocate such behavior, it simply describes it, and with an extremely critical eye at that. This discussion between de Raat and Stallman is actually a perfect example of what he describes: Even though both are considering themselves to be morally higher up, ultimately what's going on at the (at the very least) psychological level is a struggle for power. So anyway, Nietzsche's philosophy can't be/does not need to be "justified". The self-centered human behavior he describes, however, has seen attempts at justification by quite a few "Social Darwinists".

Reply Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

The GPL is based on the "quid pro quo" principle of "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".


Actually, it would be, "If I scratch your back, you have to scratch mine." Which, if you think about it, highlights the issue that a lot of people have with the GPL.

Reply Score: 3

Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

"ensuring" *freedom* is the first step to dictatorship. It's no freedom at all.

Reply Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"ensuring" *freedom* is the first step to dictatorship. It's no freedom at all.


Thats the American constitution..and the Magna Carta torn up then. Although its interesting you mention Dictatorship isn't that more Microsofts domain ;) .

Reply Score: 1

Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

It's of course the American way of life, to enslave the rest of the civilized world and RMS is on his way to argue with Bush-like rhetorics.

Reply Score: 1

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

"ensuring" *freedom* is the first step to dictatorship. It's no freedom at all.


I agree somewhat. There is the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, then there's the freedom to do what is ethically or morally right.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree somewhat. There is the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, then there's the freedom to do what is ethically or morally right.


And as a libertarian it is up to the individual to exercise self restraint based on their own moral principles rather than expecting a series of laws passed down by those up high to regulate the lives concerned.

Lets hypothetically say that I go out, I take the FreeBSD source code, and made all the BSD licensed source code closed source - how am I restricting your freedom? you can still access all the FreeBSD code off the original CVS free. Sure, you won't get back any enhancements, but its my freedom to choose whether I disclose what I add upon FreeBSD.

This is why I can't understand how people here claim that 'source code needs to be protected from those who might put restrictions' - how can you claim that you're some how disadvantaged by virtue of someone taking opensource and making their enhancements not public?

Here is an example, I purchase a two flats, I rent them out, one of the people decide to extend his side of the flat. The equivilent of complaining 'restriction of freedom' would be like turning around and saying "you there fore have a moral obligation to extend my side of the house after extending your side of the house".

Edited 2007-12-18 07:31

Reply Score: 2

Dubbayoo Member since:
2006-02-09

If:

The freedom to restrict someone else's freedom does not make sense


is true then:

GPL promotes an ensures freedom, because it restricts that which would restrict freedom


must not make sense either.

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

well ... no, you obviously don't fully understand the GPL. GPL promotes an ensures freedom, because it restricts that which would restrict freedom

It's really a question of how you define "freedom". Personally, I consider freedom to be a condition that is free from restrictions -- or, at least, as many restrictions as possible. Compared to the BSD license, which has practically no restrictions whatsoever except for attributing sources, GPL is much more restrictive; hence, less free.

Reply Score: 2

AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"If it's "free as in freedom" you should be able to do whatever you want with it, right?"

No. That's not what 'freedom' is, in any remotely sophisticated definition. Please read up on, oh, say, a few thousand years of political philosophy.

Reply Score: 16

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

That is actually part of a holy war that has been going on for years between proponents of the GPL and the BSD licenses.


The idea behind the BSD license is that we are doing what we are doing for the sake of doing it. To further along knowledge, for general altruism, and to make a name for ourselves. Someone who does something in a BSD license doesn't care if a big corporation uses their code, because they are doing it for everyone.

The idea behind the GPL is radically different. The attitude is that it is ethically not right to NOT share your code with the rest of the world. Since the rest of the industry is engaging in a practice that is ethically wrong, we will create a competing eco-system that will be superior in every way, and eventually dominate the proprietary sector. The GPL attitude isn't doing something for the sake of doing it, it is doing something to further a cause. Because of that, you don't want a big corporation using your software, because that would completely defeat the purpose. As such, the GPL is designed to encourage people to join the eco-system, but protect the system from exploitation.

Note that these are the attitudes behind the licenses, but people choose them for a variety of reasons. For example, Linus doesn't care about the cause of Free Software, he just likes the idea of forcing people to play fair.

So, even though the GPL is restricted in a generic "Freedom" sense of the word, it is designed to promote a cause.

Reply Score: 9

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Linus doesn't care about the cause of Free Software, he just likes the idea of forcing people to play fair.


You're more-or-less correct, but I think it's clearer to say that Linus prefers the GPL because of its guarantee of reciprocity. The strong copyleft share-alike license best reflects the organic distributed development model.

It's not so much about forced fairness as it is about induced collaboration. What we see in the Linux ecosystem is a bunch of direct competitors deciding against their normal business instincts to collaborate with one another because the GPL provides a legal framework for preventing the misappropriation of their work by their competitors.

Market capitalism holds that competition is more productive than collaboration. If the issue is framed as a choice between pure competition and pure collaboration, then I strongly agree. But it is abundantly clear that introducing incentives to collaborate into a competition-based economy dramatically increases productivity. It is this "80/20" mixed economy that best reflects the human condition as it relates to combined productivity.

The GPL is designed to induce collaboration in a competitive economy. In combination with the weak (file-granular) copyleft licenses, both reciprocal (LGPL/MPL/CDDL) and non-reciprocal (Apache), it allows copyright owners to delineate where they would like to focus on cultivating collaboration, differentiation, or adoption with respect to their codebase. The GPL also provides the opportunity to directly monetize the software for use in proprietary products, which, among free software licenses, is generally a unique property of the strong copyleft.

As a moral statement, the GPL is demonstrably beneficial, but not universally so. I believe that no rule of man or nature is universally beneficial. There is no categorical imperative. Ultimately, morality is a function of our evolving interpretation of history, which, in the future, will be the judge our present activities as they pertain to morality.

Moral philosophy is not so much the study of how we ought to behave as it is the study of how to improve upon our past behavior. The GPL is the direct result of applying to software a particular perspective on the history of regarding creative works as a form of property. It is moral only to the extent that it is used to encourage behaviors that increase the benefits of computing to society.

Finally, I consider altruism to be a positive externality of an economic system in which some productive behaviors go unrewarded. In a sense, altruism helps to balance the negative externalities where some counterproductive behaviors (e.g. pollution) go unpunished, but these opposing forces result in great inequity. The morality of an economic system is, like anything else, determined by how well it encourages productive behaviors. Altruism is a symptom of an immoral economy.

Reply Score: 5

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"That is actually part of a holy war that has been going on for years between proponents of the GPL and the BSD licenses."

You mean like the crusades with knights and stuff...Thats cool, but isn't it about like mainly about things like selling skills.

I won't quote all your anti-GPL which is what this is about but basically if I say this.

"The idea behind the GPL license is that we are doing what we are doing for the sake of doing it. To further along knowledge, for general altruism, and to make a name for ourselves. Someone who does something in a BSD license doesn't care if a big corporation uses their code, because they are doing it for everyone."

It is not out of place. In reality this is one of the reasons for choosing GPL.

What you do is quite funny you try and box people who choose one license over another, when the spirit differ in one instance "copyleft" vs "permissive"

Personally I believe that it is upto the original developer how he wants to license his software.

Reply Score: 2

wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

"The attitude is that it is ethically not right to NOT share your code with the rest of the world. Since the rest of the industry is engaging in a practice that is ethically wrong, we will create a competing eco-system that will be superior in every way, and eventually dominate the proprietary sector."

That's such crap. It's got nothing to do with ethics beyond "Playing Fair". What the GPL does say is that IF you use my code, I get to use yours. That's it. What the GPL camp dislike about the BSD license is that this isn't the case. You can take my crappy code, make it better and no-one else gets the advantages from it. If you're ok with that then fine...BSD is for you.

And as for what the rest of the industry is doing, I think you'd find most in the GPL camp could actually care less what you or I use. The attitude tends to be if you like it, go ahead and use it...but if you actually like using some virus-riddled, DRM'd piece of over-priced rubbish...hey, that's your choice too. Enjoy. No-one is forcing anyone to do or use anything...but it sure does give people like yourself something to bitch about by conjuring up these conspiracy theories doesn't it.

Edited 2007-12-18 07:25

Reply Score: 2

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Free means not restricted. GPL restricts you.


Let's not get into an argument again over the dictionary definition of free, and the Stallman definition of free. That sort of semantic battle can only end poorly.

Reply Score: 6

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

For once I agree with you. This debate is sterile, and rather off-topic with regards to the actual issue at hand.

Reply Score: 2

Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

Now who mentioned the GPL anyway? For one, we're talking about OpenBSD, which obviously isn't bound by the GPL. And for another, Richard Stallman is just saying "naughty boy" to Theo de Raadt - he's not accusing him of breaching any license, just of being less-than-completely-free.

I think it's worth pointing out that you can run proprietary software on Linux, just as much as on OpenBSD and that Ubuntu, for example, also provides non-free software through it's package management system. So this really is a license-agnostic issue.

Reply Score: 3

JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

Give me a break.

Using your logic, there are no free societies in the world, only in complete anarchy are you free. The restrictions are there to ensure what was started free, remains free -- unless of course the author changes his mind.

You're essentially complaining you can't take another persons work and effectively steal it by closing the code.

Reply Score: 3

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Over and over and over and OVER and OVER it goes.

BSD: Free as in "Freedom for the developer"
GPL: Free as in "Freedom for the source"

This is not hard.

Reply Score: 6

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The BSD license also restricts me and using Theo's interpretion it is even a non-free proprietary license, since his interpretion overrides the rights granted by the BSD-license.

Freedom is not unrestricted. Freedom is usually restricted to your person. You can do anything against yourself as you want to, but you cannot do anything to restrict _other_ persons. That's the one and only restriction you are allowed to enforce.

The "freedom" you and Theo are so highly praising is the freedom to enslave people. It is only unrestricted freedom for the stronger part. The weak part is enslaved.

The problem with the "freedom" of GPL is that it - as all other protective systems - tend to "protect" people against an increasing amount of "enemies" making people just as unfree as the BSD-license.

The only free license would be a BSD-styled license with a clause explicitly disallowing the changing of the license and disallowing the use of the software if suing of other users.

Even better would be if copyright law was identical to BSD-license. That would give true freedom. But as long as the copyright law does not protect those freedoms, the BSD is unfree - how impossible it may sound to you.

Reply Score: 1

Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Maybe you should first grow up before trying to master common sense.

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Maybe you should use actual arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.

Reply Score: 2

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

Freedom is always freedom FOR SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING. As such, it's always a PROHIBITION for anyone else to restrict this person from doing that thing. What is usually referred to as "political freedom" are civil liberties as defined by Western societies.Unqualified sentences about "Freedom" are uselessly ambiguous. How about "freedom to extort", "freedom to enslave", "freedom to kill"...?

The GPL is designed to guarantee the "four freedoms".. to whom? to everyone that uses the program and ANY DERIVED VERSION thereof. The only way to do that is to make sure that no-one can restrict those freedoms. Any hypothetical "freedom to change the license" would collide with the purpose of extending the four freedoms to users of derived versions. It's not a matter of a license being "more free" or "less free", it's a matter of how much it promotes the DESIRED freedoms.

Reply Score: 2

Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

and because we all live in NON-FREE countries, i can not attack you with a baseball bat.

Damn, lets all get some free countries, which allows us to go smash eachothers heads open with various ninja weapons.. oh wait.. that would be violating other peoples freedom?

get a clue you moron, freedom is not anarchi, its governed by rules, ensuring freedom to all, and that simply has to include SOME restrictions, like the restriction that i cannot take your freedom away.

Reply Score: 2

cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Its not complicated an Dick thinks proprietary software is unethical. Whether you agree with him or not is not the issue.

What he says is that "The systems I recommend
are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
non-free software". Its not tricky. OpenBSD falls into the latter.

Reply Score: 6

sehnpaa Member since:
2007-05-19

Every computer connected to the internet suggests installation of non-free software. More or less.

Reply Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Every computer connected to the internet suggests installation of non-free software. More or less."

from the reference.

"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."

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"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."


How do you define "suggests" in this case? I doubt OpenBSD pops up a dialog telling you to install proprietary software. If you on the other hand ask it if it could install such software then it's not suggesting, it's the user asking for it. OTOH if you asked the system to install a www-browser and it suggested a proprietary one then one could complain about that.
IMHO giving the _possibility_ is certainly NOT suggesting. As said, any general purpose system allows doing anything at all..

Reply Score: 2

de Raddt is an idiot
by JeffS on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:26 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

Stallman is most certainly over idealistic and uncompromising about his free software crusade for many people's tastes. And he certainly gets on people's nerves because of it.

But Richard Stallman is not a "power-misusing hypocritical liar".

In this exchange, it looks like to me that Richard Stallman simply did not have his facts straight (or so it seems) about non-free software being included in the OpenBSD ports tree. Thus the reason he does not recommend OpenBSD, which is his right, and is consistent with all of his other drum beating.

For de Raadt to go off like he did, over a simple mistake, is ridiculous.

How about this, Theo. I'm going to use my freedom of speech to not recommend OpenBSD simply because you are a complete worthless @sshole.

Seriously. Is there anyone in the tech world that make a bigger ass of himself than Theo de Raadt?

The guy is arrogance, ignorance, rudeness, defined. His technical abilities go unquestioned. The OpenBSD project is doing some fine work. But this guys attitude to the world simply drives people away.

de Raadt says "I may be unfriendly at times". Pffffft. Try rude, condescending, hateful, insulting, and unfriendly, at all times.

And what annoys me most is that the de Raadts of the world simply feed into the negative stereotype of programmers being anti-social nerds that have the social skills of a constipated baboon.

The same can be said of Richard Stallman, but at least he tries to be pleasant, if uncompromising.

Reply Score: 38

RE: de Raddt is an idiot
by dhardison on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:36 UTC in reply to "de Raddt is an idiot"
dhardison Member since:
2005-07-06

amen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: de Raddt is an idiot
by openwookie on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:58 UTC in reply to "de Raddt is an idiot"
openwookie Member since:
2006-04-25


And what annoys me most is that the de Raadts of the world simply feed into the negative stereotype of programmers being anti-social nerds that have the social skills of a constipated baboon.


wahhh.

It's just a message on a geeky email list. Much worse is said in those types of forums. It's not like he was jumping up and down like some maniac on Oprah's couch in front of the whole world.

Being offended by such silliness is like being offended by some celebrity's antics on Entertainment Tonight. Get over it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: de Raddt is an idiot
by Ripples on Tue 18th Dec 2007 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: de Raddt is an idiot"
Ripples Member since:
2005-07-06

So just because others have done worse its ok for people to be rude to others and insulting? I dont agree with Stallman alot, but Theo just seems to be angry and insult alot of people on many issues. The GPL/BSD source controversy is one good example of why I believe he is liar and hypocrite himself.

Edited 2007-12-18 04:03

Reply Score: 3

RE: de Raddt is an idiot
by tomcat on Tue 18th Dec 2007 07:17 UTC in reply to "de Raddt is an idiot"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

But Richard Stallman is not a "power-misusing hypocritical liar".

Given that it's fundamentally easy to verify whether the OpenBSD tree contains non-free software or not -- the source tree is transparent to anybody who wants to take a look -- Stallman is either lying or he's incompetent. Pick one. Neither is flattering. Personally, I'm leaning toward de Raadt's opinion, since Stallman has an axe to grind against anything that isn't GPL'd. He would love people to turn against BSD -- or force them to move to a GPL model. BSD makes his "free as in freedom" mantra ring hollow.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: de Raddt is an idiot
by archiesteel on Tue 18th Dec 2007 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE: de Raddt is an idiot"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Given that it's fundamentally easy to verify whether the OpenBSD tree contains non-free software or not -- the source tree is transparent to anybody who wants to take a look -- Stallman is either lying or he's incompetent.


...except that Stallman did *not* say that OpenBSD contains non-free software, only that ports suggested non-free software.

Gee, this has been repeated over and over in this thread, one would expect you to pay attention, but I guess smearing RMS is more important than the truth...

Reply Score: 4

v RE[3]: de Raddt is an idiot
by tomcat on Wed 19th Dec 2007 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: de Raddt is an idiot"
RE[4]: de Raddt is an idiot
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Dec 2007 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: de Raddt is an idiot"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

The distinction between OpenBSD and ports is moot. The ports tree is visible to anybody who cares to take a look (http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/). And, as de Raadt says, it only contains makefiles. Stallman is either incompetent or he's lying. Pick one.

I am quite certain Stallman wasn't lying nor did he literally mean that the ports tree includes proprietary files. I'd imagine he just meant that the ports tree includes makefiles for easily installing proprietary software, and as such, most people would say "there is proprietary software available in the ports tree" without meaning literally that those files lie there. And besides, ever heard of people making pure mistakes? And this all is just about the fact that RMS doesn't like software which makes it easy for the end-user to install proprietary software or which links to such or their sites. As such he can't recommend OpenBSD.

Then again, one should just ask oneself if he/she really even cares if RMS recommends something or not. To me it's completely irrelevant but I don't attack RMS either.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: de Raddt is an idiot
by Quag7 on Thu 20th Dec 2007 09:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: de Raddt is an idiot"
Quag7 Member since:
2005-07-28

Then again, one should just ask oneself if he/she really even cares if RMS recommends something or not. To me it's completely irrelevant but I don't attack RMS either.


I think the reason it clearly does matter to DeRaadt and the OpenBSD community - and when you have a thread that long, clearly it does or they would have ignored the thread entirely - is that there is a perception that *other people regard* Stallman is kind of the pope of free software, blessing or excommunicating software projects and setting canon.

I am not sure that this is the case, however. On the web forums and mailing lists I read, messages about Stallman are nearly 2:1 bashing him. Maybe it's just the forums I read. He has his fans, but his detractors tend to be far more...colorful...in their remarks than his fans are.

You're right that Stallman's blessing is probably not all that important, but there is a perception that it is. Which is kind of silly, but celebrity in the computer world is pretty much as bizarre as it gets (the last celebrities I thought were like totally groovy, a gas, and in the in-thing, man, were Future Crew, so you know how I roll. Emacs doesn't get my blood flowing, however useful it may be).

Our world is, at present, on fire with wars, ecological devastation, authoritarianism, and all forms of social blight, and that being the case, it is amazing how many people can get this wound up over a bearded hippie with an opinion about software. I really don't think his opponents do care what he thinks, but I think they do worry that he is influencing what other people think, and I think that that is what worries people. Also, many people hate celebrity unless it's their own, so there's that.

I like the fact that FSF and GNU have pulled things in a communitarian direction because it benefits me personally but I have a hard time regarding proprietary, closed - or in this case "recommending or pointing to" such software, as anything more than suboptimal and maybe disappointing at most -- but not immoral or unethical. I find that point of view hard to swallow.

Community is good, sharing is good, opening up code is good, contributing back your modifications is good, but in the end I'm really concerned if you're a complete bastard or not - are you a good neighbor, are you nice to children and puppies, and are you likely to go on a shooting rampage anytime soon? To me, that's what really matters about a person, not what they do with their software. And in all seriousness, this is why the emotionalism of these debates both amuses and saddens me.

Relative to the population at large, computer people tend to be intelligent, and sometimes I really wish they'd put their passions to work solving humanity's pressing problems rather than flying off the handle over software licenses and whether software is free or not. Attempts to connect these issues with a larger philosophy on life which touches the important issues have not really satisfied or impressed me.

To Stallman's credit, judging from his web page, and whether your agree or disagree with his politics, his software philosophy seems to be one more brick in the foundation of a much larger communitarian worldview, political outlook, or philosophy. In these debates, however, it gets decontextualized and separated from that to the point where the emotional investments in the debate and shit-flinging seems absurd (as it should).

But that's just my personal opinion. Maybe everything does indeed hinge on what people do with code. But I doubt it.

Edited 2007-12-20 09:11

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: de Raddt is an idiot
by archiesteel on Wed 19th Dec 2007 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: de Raddt is an idiot"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The distinction between OpenBSD and ports is moot.


The distinction is not between "OpenBSD" and "ports", but between "contains" and "suggests".

Since I was quite clear in my statement, it seems to me that you're either incompetent or lying. Pick one.

That's quite a strawman you've built.


I don't think you understand what a strawman is. If you did, you'd see that *you* are the one propping up the strawman argument, by claiming RMS said something he really didn't.

You and your fellow Stallman fanboys can beat the cr*p out of it on your own time.


Ah, and now we come to insults. Thank you for this futile attempt to cover the weakness of your own argument by calling other names, as I can now mod your post down.

For the record, I disagree with many of RMS' positions, but I still respect the man. You should try respecting those you disagree with one day, you might find it...enlightening.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: de Raddt is an idiot
by Steven on Thu 20th Dec 2007 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: de Raddt is an idiot"
Steven Member since:
2005-07-20

Are you daft man?

There is nothing in the ports tree that "suggests" anything, there is no pop-up window, there is no "try this if you need a browser!" advice, no little blurbs like "You know, this software is just super!"

Stallman is either a liar or incompetent. There is no way around it. Either he is lying in an attempt to make people convert to the church of GPL (look at his e-mail where he suggests people read his pointless ramblings on software "freedoms") or he is a bumbling idiot.

Suggesting something and allowing it are completely different things. The software he suggests go beyond either and actually deny software. gnewsense has issue with Debian providing the option of proprietary software?

"Firefox
This package has been rebranded to"BurningDog" and references, and options to install, to non-free software removed."


The fact that the sentence is a broken attempt at communicating an idea aside, are they willfully restricting what I can install on my own computer? Yes, I know, I could find a way around it easily, but they are purposely making a pain in the arse of themselves? Great, that's wonderfully free software. Bravo

Jerks

Suggesting something is really synonymous with recommending it. I don't suggest that it would be a good idea to visit my personal web site, but I do allow it if someone figures out how to do so. If I put the link in my profile, people could find it, but I would not be suggesting they visit it by putting the link someplace easily found by those who choose to visit. See how that works?

Same idea. No poppups, no "please install this" or "installing this would be super!" The only thing you'll find is an easily located link (makefile) which offers the possibility of non-free software.

It's really an incredibly simple distinction, one that Stallman willfully remains ignorant of, willingly ignores, or does not understand.

See kids, this is why grammar is important. People who can't write an idea like "This package has been rebranded. All references and options relating to non-free software have been removed." can't be trusted. People who can't write coherently tend to be unable to think very well either.

Of further importance, people who write things like "All references and options relating to some idea we don't agree with have been removed" also tend to be one of the following: bigots, racists, fascists, idiots, or any combination of the previous four.

Removing catcher in the rye from libraries sound familiar to anyone?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: de Raddt is an idiot
by archiesteel on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: de Raddt is an idiot"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Insults will get you nowhere, btw.

I didn't say that RMS was *right* in his assertion. I don't know if he is, and frankly I don't really care. That said, he did *not* say that OpenBSD "contained" non-free software, but still those who'll jump at any chance they get of attacking him have claimed otherwise. In the interest of a truthful, enlightened debate, I joined my voices to others who pointed out that blatant use of a the strawman logical fallacy.

The rest of your post is just barely-coherent, off-topic drivel.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[7]: de Raddt is an idiot
by tomcat on Fri 21st Dec 2007 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: de Raddt is an idiot"
RE: de Raddt is an idiot
by Oliver on Tue 18th Dec 2007 13:35 UTC in reply to "de Raddt is an idiot"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>For de Raadt to go off like he did, over a simple mistake, is ridiculous.

In his position it isn't a simple mistake anymore. It's his professional work and if he can't cope with it anymore he should step back.

>The same can be said of Richard Stallman, but at least he tries to be pleasant, if uncompromising.

Like every good demagogue.

Reply Score: 4

RE: de Raddt is an idiot
by andrewg on Tue 18th Dec 2007 23:20 UTC in reply to "de Raddt is an idiot"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

First this,

"For de Raadt to go off like he did, over a simple mistake, is ridiculous."

and then

How about this, Theo. I'm going to use my freedom of speech to not recommend OpenBSD simply because you are a complete worthless @sshole.

Definitely a case of Pot...Kettle..B.lack

Reply Score: 3

RE: de Raddt is an idiot
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Dec 2007 07:13 UTC in reply to "de Raddt is an idiot"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The same can be said of Richard Stallman, but at least he tries to be pleasant, if uncompromising.


Being pleasant doesn't mean you're right.

Reply Score: 2

Which Linux is on the list?
by saterdaies on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:26 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

And what Linux distribution stacks up to his standard?

Ubuntu and Debian both include binary-only drivers. I've been told that RedHat/Fedora does as well. Novell/SUSE is in bed with Microsoft which is above and beyond binary drivers. Right there we've eliminated the main Linux players.

It's great that he (Stallman) has ideals, but he seems to apply his ideals only when they'll create a great flamewar. Were messages sent out over Linux mailing lists about binary modules? No? Shocking that he's only picking on BSD!

Reply Score: 7

RE: Which Linux is on the list?
by AdamW on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:41 UTC in reply to "Which Linux is on the list?"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"And what Linux distribution stacks up to his standard?"

Why not just go and look? it's not hard. Two links from the FSF home page.

http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions

Recommends gNewSense, Ututo, Dynebolic, Musix, BLAG and GNUstep.

Would've been much easier for you to do that than to blow off a load of hot air.

Reply Score: 15

RE: Which Linux is on the list?
by ralph on Mon 17th Dec 2007 17:43 UTC in reply to "Which Linux is on the list?"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Well, Stallman made it quite clear that he also doesn't recommend distros like Ubuntu and if you really think he hasn't raised this point on various linux mailing-lists, you haven't been around to long, have you?

Anyway, I don't know which interview De Raadt is referring to, but Stallman is quite clear about what he means:
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.

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119750352332512&w=2

But what really made my day was this little gem:
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?

Because he tends to be unfriendly.

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119740063515400&w=2

Sums up De Raat nicely. ;-D

Reply Score: 9

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?

Because he tends to be unfriendly.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119740063515400&w=2

Sums up De Raat nicely. ;-D


I love this whole thing. RMS is such a zealotous, superior, self-rightous, spiteful dickhead, and de Raat is such an egotistical, arrogant, psychopathic maniac. It the programmer equivalent of locking Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore together in a room, and then sitting back and enjoying the show.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I love this whole thing. RMS is such a zealotous, superior, self-rightous, spiteful dickhead, and de Raat is such an egotistical, arrogant, psychopathic maniac. It the programmer equivalent of locking Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore together in a room, and then sitting back and enjoying the show.


I must confess I've also got the popcorn out (salt of course, sweet popcorn is for girls), and I'm sitting back in my leather desk chair, reading the comments here and the thread itself. Brilliant entertainment.

But we both know the only reason we have these things is because the main players know full damn well what to do to get their names in the press. That's the only reason for these apparently spontaneous eruptions of self-righteousness.

Sad, really. But entertaining!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Which Linux is on the list?
by ralph on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Which Linux is on the list?"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

But we both know the only reason we have these things is because the main players know full damn well what to do to get their names in the press. That's the only reason for these apparently spontaneous eruptions of self-righteousness.

If you really think that's the case, here's an easy solution. Don't link to these flamewars on mailinglist. You are the editor, you decide what you put on this site, nobody else.

Reply Score: 6

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you really think that's the case, here's an easy solution. Don't link to these flamewars on mailinglist. You are the editor, you decide what you put on this site, nobody else.


Keyword: think. I think that's the case. It's not my job to think here, it's my job to give you folks the news. I'll leave the thinking to you, the reader, ok?

Apart from that, OSNews needs to be fun for me too. And this sure is fun.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Which Linux is on the list?
by ralph on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Which Linux is on the list?"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Keyword: think. I think that's the case. It's not my job to think here, it's my job to give you folks the news.

Thom, of course your job is to think. That's pretty much what an editor is there for.

I mean, come on, give yourself some credit, you're certainly more than a mindless news aggregator.

And I agree, it is fun. Rather mindless, but fun.

Reply Score: 4

Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

People are obviously interested in the story, if only to have something to get cross about. To not report it would be to manipulate the news according to your own agenda. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but if you're going to do that you should say so clearly.

I'm not really clear on what OSNews' agenda is* but I'd say this story falls well within their remit.

* "NOT JUST Operating System News" is a bit cryptic. I mean, people don't exactly come here for the hardware reviews (sorry Eugenia).

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Which Linux is on the list?
by ralph on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Which Linux is on the list?"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Oh, I don't have a problem with reporting on this story.

What I found rather silly though was to first report a story about a flamewar on a mailing list and then complain about the people involved only wanting to be in the press.

That's, well, that's just silly.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What I found rather silly though was to first report a story about a flamewar on a mailing list and then complain about the people involved only wanting to be in the press.


Complaining? I'm not complaining. I'm just stating fairly obvious thing. This is not at all dissimilar from that John C. Dvorak idiot, with the only difference that Dvorak crap isn't funny, but this is - so this gets posted, and Dvorak stories are banned on OSNews.

So there.

Edited 2007-12-17 22:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

pythonguy Member since:
2005-07-22

But we both know the only reason we have these things is because the main players know full damn well what to do to get their names in the press. That's the only reason for these apparently spontaneous eruptions of self-righteousness.


That argument falls flat on its face and is plain stupid with a touch of arrogance in it. RMS is already a well-known figure in the FOSS world (more of "F" than the "OSS" maybe) and a champion of the free software movement. He is known for his work in FSF, the GPL and of course the software he has written/taken a major role in writing (read gcc, emacs ...). I don't think he is in some urgent need of finding his name in a public mailing list for some new found popularity. Far from it. Cantankerous and eccentric he may be, but attention-seeking, he is not.

Same for Theo. He may not be as well known as RMS in the free software world, but he certainly has a name with his work on OpenBSD. These people argue passionately on minor points in lists, because that is what they believe in; that is what they breath and live for. Difference of opinion can arise, but they can be worked out if they start thinking and acting like adults, which sooner or later they have to.

Don't try to belittle their work by raising childish arguments and projecting them like some script kiddies vying for attention. You are way off your mark in that comment Thom.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But we both know the only reason we have these things is because the main players know full damn well what to do to get their names in the press.


That's horsecrap. I don't like RMS but saying he does this as a publicity stunt is pretty damn ignorant. Same for Theo.
It's nice to see that you're doing your best to get their name in the press though. Responsible reporting at its finest.

Edited 2007-12-19 07:37

Reply Score: 3

borker Member since:
2006-04-04

They're all strong personalities, but in both cases if I had to choose one of them to be King of the World(tm) in each case I'd take the well meaning "zealot" (a word I am infinitely sick of) Moore or RMS over the alternatives.

Reply Score: 2

NitroPye
Member since:
2007-04-05

Whether or not Theo is being overly harsh aside, I think this shows how out on a tangent a lot of free-software advocates are. I love OSS, I write it, I learned to code from reading thru it, I've added to projects, but when it all comes down to it, as a user if I need to include a binary only blob in my kernel for a video driver so I can play a video game I will. It would be nice to have an open source one but sometimes that is not possible.

I think RMS is becoming more and more obsolete. I don't know for sure but I have a feeling he isn't your typical computer user who wants to listen to music, watch movies, play computer games, browse the web, and communicate with friends / family. That being said, if I had to choose who was championing for OSS it would be someone who understood and could relate to the average computer user more and not just the 1970s average computer hobbyist.

Reply Score: 8

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

He doesn't champion OSS, he champions Free Software. http://fc-solve.berlios.de/oss-fs/docbook/oss-fs/c99.html (by those definitions, I am firmly in the "In for the Free Beer" camp, and I'm pretty sure you are too)

Edited 2007-12-17 18:37 UTC

Reply Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Nope, where I stand on free/open source software is the most succinctly summed up by this

http://fc-solve.berlios.de/oss-fs/in_for_free_beer_manifesto.html

The reason you got that wrong is because I have zero patience for morality being brought into these kinds of discussions, and even less for the proselytizing of technological ideologies.

Reply Score: 3

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The only reason I use windows is because of .net. While you could say my interests are .net (which I love), you cannot say my interests are Vista. Any flame war we have ever gotten into is you saying it is a complete pile of trash and me disagreeing. There is a HUGE difference between not hating something and loving it enough to have it be considered your interest. There are several operating systems I like a hell of alot more then windows.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

There is a HUGE difference between not hating something and loving it enough to have it be considered your interest.

"""

Perhaps I can help clarify, From my conversations with cyclops, I have gleaned that in his view there are three categories of people at OSNews:

1. Followers of Stallman

2. Vista-lovers.

3. Me.

It used to be two kinds. But he has stated that he cannot categorize me in either of the first two slots. (Consider me suitably flattered.) Although, I believe he may have decided upon "Linux-hater" as the new category just for me. Which is odd, because most people would probably consider me a staunch Linux advocate.

Edited 2007-12-17 19:21

Reply Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Yeah, don't you constantly use your job as an advocacy platform?

I have an easy time categorizing you, staunchly in the Open Source camp. I have tried explaining the difference between open source and free to him before, but he never really got it. He is convinced it is more or less two words for the same thing. While most people are somewhere in the middle, I think the two of you illustrate the differences and irritation between the two camps. You can't stand his proselytizing and diatribes because of the horrible image it gives the rest of the world about linux fans. He can't stand your refusal to bring morality into the mix, even though you do believe at a fundamental level that open source is the right way to do things.

Sorry if I put words into your mouth, but I find the whole archetype thing kinda funny.

Reply Score: 3

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"The only reason I use windows is because of .net. While you could say my interests are .net (which I love), you cannot say my interests are Vista. Any flame war we have ever gotten into is you saying it is a complete pile of trash and me disagreeing. There is a HUGE difference between not hating something and loving it enough to have it be considered your interest. There are several operating systems I like a hell of alot more then windows."

I don't care if your choice is because of solitaire. arguing any soft of freedom when heavily supporting an OS costing $600 for the more free version, smacks of hypocrisies.

If your interest was "free as in beer" why should you care about something that should be irrelevant to you. As for as your concerned both BSD and GPL are the *same*, and in all but the details I tend to agree ;)

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Open Source software is far from irrelivent to me. I use an open source database, an open source OR/M, open source testing tools, open source controls, and I can't wait for when I will be able to reliably use an open source server (mono is real close to fully supporting asp 2.0). My main OS is windows, but I also have gutsy gibbon installed, and haiku on on VM which are both also open source.

Half the tools I use to make my living are open source. I also use proprietary tools, but what I love about open source tools (apart from the idea) is that they are incredibly easy to bug fix and extend. I frequently find bugs and submit patches in what I use, and considering taking part of the support burden is the only cost the authors ask of me, I am just laughing.

If you actually read what I linked, you will find that it describes my attitude quite well towards the whole business. Just because I use Vista doesn't mean I don't use, or support open source.

Reply Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

""Open Source software is far from irrelivent to me. I use an open source database, an open source OR/M, open source testing tools, open source controls, and I can't wait for when I will be able to reliably use an open source server (mono is real close to fully supporting asp 2.0). My main OS is windows, but I also have gutsy gibbon installed, and haiku on on VM which are both also open source. ""

Its lovely to have you so defensive. I use my OS of choice simply becuase it is fun ;) . I have to say though I had the choice this week to *buy* Vista or *buy* a quad-core intel with 8Gb of Memory. I won't tell you which I chose because I'm too busy unwrapping my Sata DVD-rewiter/SFF Case/HDMI motherboard that using OpenOffice has paid for.

"Just because I use Vista doesn't mean I don't use, or support open source."

really...are you sure. You see I see you attacking FSF. Defending OOXML and promoting .Net. Clearly there are two google_ninja's.

The funny thing is that you attack a group, that works towards an open-source model(sic). Even though you say its "incredibly easy to bug fix and extend. I frequently find bugs and submit patches in what I use". The fact that they do so for political reasons is somewhat irrelevant. I like them for their customer friendly license, and quality products. I Like the political aspects but its secondary to things like transparency and future proofing and rapid evolution. Which isn't very FSF.

Oddly enough Vista is irrelevant to me ;)

I think the bottom line is GPL has teeth whereas BSD doesn't, thats the only reason why your posting here.

Edited 2007-12-18 01:32

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Moral is everything. Moral is what makes mankind exist. Moral is what mde people resist a certain person in the 1930'es and 1940'es.

Moral is what made the American people fight in 1770'es and 1780'es.

Moral belongs in EVERYTHING.

If you don't like that, one must doubt your humanity.

Reply Score: 3

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Moral is what made the American people fight in 1770'es and 1780'es. "

Actually, there isn't anything moral about not wanting to pay your taxes. (Boston tea party)

"Moral is what mde people resist a certain person in the 1930'es and 1940'es. "

Nobody put up any real resistance until that person started launching V1 and V2 Rockets at Britain, and a certain empire bombed the bejesus out of the American Pacific fleet. It wasn't morality, it was self preservation.

Software Development models are also concepts that lack morality, in my opinion. I agree with free software because I think it is a more efficient model for developing software, not because free software is a "right"

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You have a pretty warped understanding of history.

I'm sure the norwegians who sacrificed their lives in the norwegian mountains would be thrilled to know they didn't put up any "real resistance". Or the polish soldiers fighting in the ruins of Warsaw to give people time to flee... suuure, they didn't put up real resistance...

AFAIK Denmark was pretty much the only country to surrender without a real fight, something which still hunts us.

And the american colonies... they did a lot more than throw tea in the harbour and drinking coffee instead. And it had little to do with taxes, but a lot to do with freedom.

I stand by my post. Moral belongs in EVERYTHING, moral is what makes mankind exist. Besides that selfpreservation isn't immoral, nor in conflict with moral.

Since we disagree, I must admit I doubt your humanity.

Reply Score: 3

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"I'm sure the norwegians who sacrificed their lives in the norwegian mountains would be thrilled to know they didn't put up any "real resistance". Or the polish soldiers fighting in the ruins of Warsaw to give people time to flee... suuure, they didn't put up real resistance... "

No, that's not about morals either, that's about survival. They are not the same thing. My Grandfather was a tail Gunner in a flying Fortress for the RAF, and he wasn't fighting for morality, he was fighting for the survival of Britain.

"And the american colonies... they did a lot more than throw tea in the harbour and drinking coffee instead. And it had little to do with taxes, but a lot to do with freedom. "

One of the biggest complaints was "Taxation without representation. The Boston Tea Party was about Taxes, nothing more.

"I stand by my post. Moral belongs in EVERYTHING, moral is what makes mankind exist."

Morality is divorced from a lot of things, and it should be divorced from software development Models. To steal code, that is IS immoral, but writing closed source, that's just a development model, not a crime, not an atrocity, and should not be compared to such..

"Besides that selfpreservation isn't immoral, nor in conflict with moral. "

Self preservation is not moral either. It is just a biological imperative.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Nobody put up any real resistance until that person started launching V1 and V2 Rockets at Britain, and a certain empire bombed the bejesus out of the American Pacific fleet. It wasn't morality, it was self preservation.

I have to agree with the other poster: read your history books a little bit more carefully and then say to all those dead people (or since that's kind of impossible, to their relatives) that they didn't put up any "real resistance" and as such died for no reason. And hmm..It _was_ considered immoral to attack other countries just for the sake of enlargening your own..and it still is. Also, I wonder which one do you think puts up the bigger effort into the fight: the winner, or the loser who fought till death?

Actually, there isn't anything moral about not wanting to pay your taxes.

That depends on several things: whom you have to pay to, and would you be willing to pay to someone else..If you had to pay to another country but would rather want to support your own then that _would_ be a moral dilemma.

Reply Score: 3

Steven Member since:
2005-07-20

Moral is everything.
Doody?

Moral is what makes mankind exist.
I would argue that it is, in fact, sexual intercourse?

Moral is what mde people resist a certain person in the 1930'es and 1940'es.
You mean those freaky inflatable clowns?

No really, we didn't care at all about Hitler or what he was doing. We (Americans) ignored it completely, the genocide didn't bother us at all. It actually had nothing to do with us going to war. See, Japan attacked us, and that made us angry, so we all struck out for revenge. How does that fit into your "Morality is everything" bit?

Moral is what made the American people fight in 1770'es and 1780'es.
I'm pretty sure that was the result of Americans being angry about unfair taxation. I'm not sure taxes can really be placed anywhere on the scale of "morality." If you really want to argue "morality" on that issue, one could make a pretty strong case on how moral it is to forcibly remove the rulers who paid for your colony. Is it moral to blow up a bank who gave you a mortgage just because they choose to change your interest rate to 20%?

Also note how we kicked the British out, then proceeded to keep slaves and murder Indians. Fun times.

Moral belongs in EVERYTHING.
Whorehouses? The execution chamber? My septic system?

If you don't like that, one must doubt your humanity.
I don't think it's very "moral" of you to demand that other people think less of me just because I call BS on nonsensical posts?

Reply Score: 0

Cutterman Member since:
2006-04-10

I use the non-free EditPad Pro as my text editor of choice in all my systems. Why? Because its streets ahead of any free editor and allows me to be more productive. Thats my choice. Ideology doesn't come into it.

RMS says he considers non-free software to be unethical and antisocial. I don't (though I'd personally rather use free software).

As someone else remarked, ""The problem I have with Stallman isn't so much his philosophy but the fact that he has this idea if you don't subscribe to his view in the most purist of forms, you are some how deficient as a human".

The Cutter

Reply Score: 1

NitroPye Member since:
2007-04-05

Right, my mistake in the OSS vs. FS.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

That being said, if I had to choose who was championing for OSS it would be someone who understood and could relate to the average computer user more and not just the 1970s average computer hobbyist.

I agree wholly with your post: I prefer totally free and open software but I'm not going to any great lengths not to use proprietary software either. I'll use anything which does what I want the way I want be it OSS/Free or not. That being said my Linux installation does have only nVidia drivers and win32codecs installed and no other proprietary software AFAIK..

But well, you do know that Linus himself isn't such a zealot and doesn't mind people using proprietary drivers et al if it does benefit them? Linus just isn't that much into PR and De Raadt or RMS or such people, he just does some coding in the silence. That's what I like about him: he's just so down-to-earth and practical guy ;)

Reply Score: 2

Sort of Facetious
by orfanum on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:23 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

OK, now you know what you'll be getting.

3 million years of human evolution for this?

Get a grip.

Has anyone died because there was a mis-adoption of one of these licences?

This is supposed to be the season of goodwill. I suggest they all sit down, break bread, and drink wine (responsibly) together.

Peace to all beings.

Reply Score: 2

Lokken
Member since:
2006-06-27

I don't know if you've tried to read through that thread, but it's painful.

Everyone just gets super defensive instead saying "Hey, why would he say that? If what he said is wrong, let's act like adults and calmly explain why. If what he said was right, is it worth our effort to change? Or should we stay the course?"

People seem to be so worked up that they're going to give themselves a heart attack.

My suggestion: Calm down, relax, and look at the issue/discussion like adults.

Lokken.

Reply Score: 4

RandomGuy Member since:
2006-07-30

I don't know if you've tried to read through that thread, but it's painful.

Amen!
I read big parts of it and found myself shaking my head and wondering "Those are _adults_, right?"

If the braincells those guys don't use for ordinary social behavior are all used for coding, congratulations, de Raadt, you must have one hell of a coding army! On the other hand those might just as well be people who like to talk big and have not written a single line of code in their lives...

Reply Score: 5

spaceLem
Member since:
2007-07-26

I don't understand how RMS can be so difficult about the whole thing. There are distributions that don't provide non-free software as default, but give you the option should you want it. That is freedom, but RMS won't support them.

I'm sorry if RMS can cope with a computer that is entirely free from commercial software, but most real people cannot. I need binary nvidia drivers to run the commercial games (like NWN) that I want to play. I don't see how anyone can justify claiming that a commercial game is unethical.

He should stick to giving his lectures advocating free software and banning software patents, and support all those who genuinely aim for those goals, not just the rare few who achieve them.

Reply Score: 5

codergeek42 Member since:
2006-01-07

Your wording is rather ambiguous. Commercial and Proprietary software are two different (though often overlapping) categories: the first being software with a payment required for copies thereof (e.g., "for-profit"), and the second being software whose source code is not readily available or redistributable with modification.

Free software can be commercial, such as Red Hat's Enterprise Linux offering and MySQL.

Likewise, not all proprietary software is necessarily commercial, such as various "freeware" games or Adobe's Flash player.

Please don't equate the two so easily. Thank you.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

When you throw open source into the mix, it can get even more complicated. I bought a license from these guys awhile back www.devexpress.com which gives me access to their source code. That makes it open source. But it is for your own use only, you cant re distribute the copies, which means it is definitely not Free.

Reply Score: 1

AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"I bought a license from these guys awhile back www.devexpress.com which gives me access to their source code. That makes it open source. But it is for your own use only, you cant re distribute the copies, which means it is definitely not Free."

No, it does not. That is neither open source nor free.

For it to be open source, it must be freely redistributable, and allow the free redistribution of derived works.

See:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

No it is not open source. It is merely a form of NDA.

Open Source means everyone can access the sources, modify the sources and redistribute the sources.

If you really think it's open source just because you have bough the right to see sources and no more than that, you are so silly that you completely negate your earlier great statements.

Reply Score: 3

spaceLem Member since:
2007-07-26

Your wording is rather ambiguous


Proprietary, commercial, whatever. That wasn't the point at all.

Richard Stallman is doing the world a wonderful thing by advocating free software, but he usually goes too far and hurts it by not backing software which fails his requirements on seeming technicalities (e.g. for providing access to non-free software should you want, or dare I say need it).

Scenario: you are interested in this free software thing, but you don't know what to use, so you go and look for the person in charge of Free Software, who is also its loudest advocate and see what he suggests.

You then find that the free software he recommends is so restrictive that you can't get your graphics card working, and can't install that game you can't give up. Experiment is a failure.

If you're patient, you may then end up using Ubuntu or similar because your geek friend recommends it and then you find yourself converted. Well that was no thanks to Stallman.

Reply Score: 3

"I may be unfriendly at times..."
by dhardison on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:33 UTC
dhardison
Member since:
2005-07-06

hehe. Understatement of the year.

Reply Score: 2

Why all the hostility
by cmost on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:34 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

This will prove to be an interesting showdown but not due to the content or the possible resolution. People will watch/read because they think this will be "a good one." When will people learn that infighting within the F/OSS community plays a huge part in why F/OSS software isn't widely adopted. Can't we simply agree to disagree and then work out a compromise? Sometimes large egos destroy. Let's not fuel this fire by egging either of these two strong willed individuals on any further. Let them waste their own time and efforts if they want to engage in a petty war of words. The rest of us have better things to do.

Reply Score: 2

Oh for fscks sake
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:39 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Please..stop..boring..and..pointless..flamewar..of..doom.
It's been going on long enough already.

Sometimes on mailinglists people disagree and sometimes flamewars ensue.
It is, however, not news.

Edited 2007-12-17 18:40

Reply Score: 6

theo rocks!
by rhavenn on Mon 17th Dec 2007 18:58 UTC
rhavenn
Member since:
2006-05-12

Theo can be abrasive, but just like Stallman he believes in something and more often then not he does his homework . If you hung out in the openbsd mailing lists then you'd know he really isn't a bad guy and often very willing to help out. Just don't be an ignorant ass when asking questions.

Reply Score: 2

RE: theo rocks!
by JeffS on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:48 UTC in reply to "theo rocks!"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"Just don't be an ignorant ass when asking questions.

Anyone who asks a question is, by definition, ignorant - at least regarding the given topic of the question.

Thus, being ignorant about something does not make one an ass.

Reply Score: 2

From the mailing list post
by kwag on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:22 UTC
kwag
Member since:
2006-08-31

"Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial......"

And that's all I needed to read!
RS (Again!) insults the whole professional Software Engineering industry!

I guess RS doesn't have a microwave oven in his house! He uses Solar cooking, because a microwave has a MicroController which has "non-free" code.

He also drives a bicicle, because cars have MCs too, which also have "non-free" code.

And he talks to his friends via two cans tied up via a string, beause cell phones have MCs with "non-free" code.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture ;)
I'll let others fill in more lines lol ;)

Cheers!

Edited 2007-12-17 19:30

Reply Score: 7

RE: From the mailing list post
by troc on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:08 UTC in reply to "From the mailing list post"
troc Member since:
2006-05-01

You are too emotional when you take antisocial and unethical as insults. I think these terms are used to describe the social and economic system of the day and in now way disparage you or the trade.

I have listened to speeches by RMS, he is civil and definitely not a polemicist. Please note carefully that this does not mean he isn't provocative. However it is one thing to answer with misplaced ridicule as the parent post, or anger (as theo), but quite another to answer in kind, with some thought and consideration.

Maybe you needed read it all, suspend judgment (for a little), and play with the notion of software as culture and not commodity.

Reply Score: 4

ready for a fight
by buff on Mon 17th Dec 2007 19:26 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

but you are a power-misusing hypocritical liar who attacks projects that try harder than any others to only make free software available

Damn, them's fightin' words!

Reply Score: 2

The One Thing I Hate About OSS
by Dubbayoo on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:05 UTC
Dubbayoo
Member since:
2006-02-09

is the arguments about it. However this one had me rolling:

You are basically saying: "you are retarded if you don't
let me tell you what you want".

Pure genius. LOL

Reply Score: 1

Preaching to the Wrong Choir
by segedunum on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:06 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't agree with Richard Stallman's political crusade on all this, but, I can respect his personal views and I do see the value and logical sense in the GPL. Quite why the Theo and the OpenBSD people can't understand that, I don't know. Stallman says he doesn't recommend Debian or Ubuntu either - or most Linux distros.

Stallman also gets a lot of things spectacularly wrong:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119740081815701&w=2

What on Earth does he mean by 'Torvald's version of Linux' not being free software?

Theo and various others seem to have let all this get to them, and Theo even tried to invent some kind of distinction about the non-free stuff only consisting of Makefiles. That's just daft. The ports tree is not a 'scaffold' at all, but it just shows you the mental hoops Theo is prepared to jump through when he feels he is personally criticised.

These are two loony bins who need to argue things out in a padded, and sound proof, cell.

Edited 2007-12-17 20:06

Reply Score: 5

RE: Preaching to the Wrong Choir
by superman on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:18 UTC in reply to "Preaching to the Wrong Choir"
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

> Stallman says he doesn't recommend Debian or Ubuntu either - or most Linux distros.

Debian and Ubuntu have non-free repo.
Anyway, the FSF (and not only RMS) seems to not want endorse a distribution. Fedora has tried very hard to be approved by the FSF. But in this game also Fedora "lose".

Even if Fedora receive a lot of critism about not including mp3...

But I don't see this to be important.

The FSF and RMS do a really great job.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Preaching to the Wrong Choir
by raboof on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:44 UTC in reply to "Preaching to the Wrong Choir"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119740081815701&w=2

What on Earth does he mean by 'Torvald's version of Linux' not being free software?


I think he's referring to the kernel.org kernels carrying closed, binary firmware blobs. The kernels in the distro's RMS does recommend presumably have those blobs removed.

Reply Score: 1

Meh.
by Adam S on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:13 UTC
Adam S
Member since:
2005-04-01

RMS may be ridiculous, overbearing, and holier-than-thou, but de Raadt has proven time and time again that he is a total twit. He has absolutely no self-control.

LOVE his software, he's an awesome programmer and his product is incredible, but he is far from someone who should be talking. To people. At all.

Reply Score: 2

Theo is stupid
by diegoviola on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:28 UTC
diegoviola
Member since:
2006-08-15

Richard Stallman just wants to teach them what freedom means and freedom is his only purpose.

Richard knows what he is talking about and he understands what freedom is more than anyone else and he is correct in everything he says, he deserves more respect and people should listen to him more.

but then Theo with his ego starts to get scared and he says:

Get of our mailing lists, or we WILL start cc'ing your groups'
mailing lists.


Theo acts like a scared patethic child, what a f--king moron.

Edited 2007-12-17 20:32

Reply Score: 4

Theo is my hero.
by bryanv on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:30 UTC
bryanv
Member since:
2005-08-26

Since the writers guild is striking, there's no new episodes of House on TV for me to TiVo. What a shame.

But man, Theo, you totally filled the void that's been left by House -- and for that, I applaud & salute you sir.

Not only did you manage to point out the total disparity in what RMS said and now -claims- to have said, you pointed out that the standards by which he judges other projects aren't even attainable by his own. Beautiful.

And calling him out on being irrelevant, how true!

RMS has been bantering on his shrinking platform for years -- it's the size of a soap-box now, and no one cares anymore.

Thank you Theo for calling it like it is.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Theo is my hero.
by AdamW on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:26 UTC in reply to "Theo is my hero."
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"Not only did you manage to point out the total disparity in what RMS said and now -claims- to have said, you pointed out that the standards by which he judges other projects aren't even attainable by his own. Beautiful."

Erm, what?

What disparity?

Quote from RMS's initial post:

"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"

Note: "does suggest". Note: "does not contain".

Where's the disparity?

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Theo is my hero.
by raboof on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Theo is my hero."
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

Note: "does suggest". Note: "does not contain". Where's the disparity?


RMS's initial post in that thread isn't the actual start of this discussion: it was started by an interview, in which RMS claimed 'the ports system contains non-free software'.

Personally, I agree with Bogtha, who in http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=19057&comment_id=291666 who points out that the distinction between 'being in the ports collection' and 'being pointed to by the ports collection' is rather subtle, and not worth making such a fuss over.

Reply Score: 2

Classic
by danboid on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:33 UTC
danboid
Member since:
2006-03-21

Grade A flame bait thread indeed! Not missing out on this one! ;)

To those people getting all worked up over licenses and those others worrying this squabbling might look bad for FOSS- the real world not only doesn't notice the license wars it doesn't care either, just as long as they don't have to pay anyone everything's cool- most people aren't bothered about the 'Free as in speech' bit. Sad, maybe, but not as sad as the license wars.

I don't understand the people who come on these threads and do a "Stallmans an unrealistic extremist" - don't you see he HAS to act this way and we have all benefitted immensely simply because he tries to be so stubborn? If he acted any differently he'd be hypocritical and if he wasn't this way there would've been no (L)GPL etc. as he wouldn't be bothered about software freedom otherwise.

"Oooh! You're really getting on my wick ranting against binary blobs Stallman. You use 'em too!"

Okaaay... so what would be you response if Stallman decided to start promoting WGA and DRM and binary drivers "Aha! Great, I'm glad he's chilled out a bit. I was getting sick of all that hippy freedom junk"??

I just don't understand why people STILL get so upset over Stallman's perpetual refusal to accept non-free software. It's like all these people have severe learning difficulties- just because Stallman says proprietary apps are evil doesn't stop you from using them and- guess what- he's gonna be saying EXACTLY the same thing next time you hear him speak. Really! My worry is who's gonna replace him when he's gone.

If you enjoy, support or use FOSS, be it GPL/BSD or whatever you OWE Stallman... a LOT! Yes, you too Theo! What do you compile BSD with eh? No man has every done as much for free software as Stallman and likely no-one will ever top it either.

Put that under your BSD license! ;)

Reply Score: 11

RE: Classic
by JeffS on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:03 UTC in reply to "Classic"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"I just don't understand why people STILL get so upset over Stallman's perpetual refusal to accept non-free software."

Great point. I don't understand it either.

I mean, I use proprietary software, when it suits my needs. But I do prefer totally free software wherever possible. And I don't take an "all Stallman" stance, I balance with practicality.

But I'm damn glad Stallman is out there advocating free software and denouncing non-free software. That, even though I'll use non-free software.. Stallman doing that has benefited me and everyone else.

And to the poster who said Stallman has lost relevance - Then how come Sun Microsystems played a tape of Stallman singing their praises for GPL'ing Java, during the press announcement about the GPLing of Java?

Reply Score: 11

This says it all
by fsckit on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:43 UTC
fsckit
Member since:
2006-09-24

List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
From: Ben Calvert <ben () flyingwalrus ! net>
Date: 2007-12-13 18:54:31
Message-ID: 6DAC809E-6C0D-4011-9A5B-6541DD0B5CD9 () flyingwalrus ! net
[Download message RAW]

Would everyone in the room who maintain a complete, working operating
system please raise their hands?

would everyone who is forced to co-opt or recommend other people's
operating systems... because their own is unfinished... please go away
and write some code or something?

thank you very much

-----

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Reply Score: 7

RE: This says it all
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 17th Dec 2007 20:57 UTC in reply to "This says it all"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

HAHAHAHAHAHA


I'm such a nerd. I can't stop laughing, this is just too brilliant for the internet to contain.

Oh. My. God. What a reply. I'm out of popcorn ;) .

http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2007/12/17/hands/

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This says it all
by Valhalla on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE: This says it all"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

does being a nerd mean you have to laugh at petty attacks? 'I maintain an BSD fork so I'm way cooler than you', or am I missing something here?' it's like being back at the schoolyard...

Reply Score: 6

RE: This says it all
by AdamW on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:24 UTC in reply to "This says it all"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes...it says it all. In a thread titled "Real men don't attack straw men", someone attacks a straw man.

Well, it may not say it all, but it sure is ironic.

Reply Score: 3

Omg...
by Kishe on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:06 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

"MY OS IS FREE'ER THAN YOUR OS!!!"

Reply Score: 2

GPL Restricts Freedoms
by rshol on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:12 UTC
rshol
Member since:
2005-07-12

GPL restricts freedom by assuming there are only 4 freedoms (0 through 3) one could wish to exercise. Anyone wishing to exercise any other freedoms is prohibited from doing so. Whether any other freedoms, such as the freedom to add GPL'd code to a closed source project, are desirable is open for debate. GPL/Copyleft is operates by restricting what can be done with the code just as copyright does. Its only a matter of what is restricted.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: GPL Restricts Freedoms
by Kishe on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:25 UTC in reply to "GPL Restricts Freedoms"
RE: GPL Restricts Freedoms
by dylansmrjones on Tue 18th Dec 2007 08:02 UTC in reply to "GPL Restricts Freedoms"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

By adding GPL'ed sources to a non-free project you are taking the freedoms 0-3 from people.

Freedom to enslave other people is the sole freedom GPL does not grant.

Unfortunately the GPL has become increasingly complex and in its attempt to practice millimeter democracy it is becoming its own enemy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: GPL Restricts Freedoms
by Oliver on Tue 18th Dec 2007 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL Restricts Freedoms"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>Freedom to enslave other people is the sole freedom GPL does not grant.

'Make up your mind that happiness depends on being free, and freedom depends on being courageous.'

Perikles, something who has got real mind.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: GPL Restricts Freedoms
by m_abs on Tue 18th Dec 2007 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL Restricts Freedoms"
m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

>Freedom to enslave other people is the sole freedom GPL does not grant.

Good to know, since it is impossible to enslave anyone with software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: GPL Restricts Freedoms
by dylansmrjones on Tue 18th Dec 2007 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL Restricts Freedoms"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Good to know, since it is impossible to enslave anyone with software.


Unfortunately it is perfectly possible to enslave people utilizing software. Just as you can do that utilizing hardware.

Take the rights to modify XYZ away from a person and you have effective enslaved said person, since a fundamental right is missing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: GPL Restricts Freedoms
by Valhalla on Tue 18th Dec 2007 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL Restricts Freedoms"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

although I personally have no problem with the definition of freedom in regards to GPL since I understand the context in which it is used, I still find it an unfortunate choice of word since it's used as an (oh so tiresome) attack venue by those who for entirely other reasons than the semantics of freedom dislikes the GPL but has no real arguments to stand on.

in my opinion it would have been better to use the term rights, since I think this is what is actually granted and bestowed when recieving and distributing gpl licenced software. but again this choice in wording has no practical impact whatsoever, it only comes into play in forums such as these were the same old zelots start throwing the same fits over and over again.

overall this is the same spite-filled non-constructive shitstorms we've gotten used to when GPL and BSD are discussed here on OSNews.

my big disappoinment however is with the juvenile glee Thom has been applauding some really crappy comments,
it underlines my personal opinion of OSNews becoming more and more like a trashy tabloid interested in urging aggressive confrontations rather than constructive discussion.

Reply Score: 2

But it is "bad"!
by dreamlax on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:30 UTC
dreamlax
Member since:
2007-01-04

One can see it here too, as above: "RMS is now saying we shouldn't give them the freedom to choose what software they use, they should only run what RMS approves of." He is not saying that. He is saying that for a distribution to receive his recommendation, it shouldn't link to/suggest/ease installation of nonfree software


Yes, but RMS is not just "not recommending" it (as in, not making a mention of it), he's doing the opposite of recommending it. He's publicly proclaiming that OpenBSD is bad:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119750274431320&w=2

It is slander (or libel) because his public proclamation of the badness of OpenBSD's ability to help people install non-free software is based on his personal opinion and not facts.

Reply Score: 1

RE: But it is "bad"!
by JeffS on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:55 UTC in reply to "But it is "bad"!"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

He's publicly proclaiming that OpenBSD is bad:

" rel="nofollow">http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119750274431320&w=2"


From your link:

"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."


He has said this exact same thing for over 20 years. He thinks non-free software is bad. Few people agree with this stance 100%. But saying non-free software is bad is not slander or libel. It's an opinion based on Stallman's moral/ethical stance, and he is uncompromising about that stance.

Just like you, RMS has a right to his opinion and ethics, and he has a right to publicly express those opinions and ethics.

We can all say something is "bad" without it being slander or libel.

If that were the case Stallman himself could sue hundreds, if not thousands, of people for defaming his character.

Reply Score: 6

RE: But it is "bad"!
by AdamW on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:16 UTC in reply to "But it is "bad"!"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Try checking the context. The terms "bad" and "good" were being used as shorthand for "not acceptable for recommendation by FSF" and "acceptable for recommendation by FSF" in order to aid readability and reduce the dangers of carpal tunnel syndrome...:)

Reply Score: 4

Theo is the liar
by JeffS on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:44 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

From de Raadt:

"Richard claimed that there is non-free software in OpenBSD. That is
not true."


That is not what RMS said. Here is what he said:

"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)."


So de Raadt is saying Stallman said there was non-free software in OpenBSD, then quite clearly from Stallman's quoate that is not what Stallman said at all.

de Raadt is either deliberately lying, or he's stupid and sloppy, or just simply an ass.

I pick "all of the above".

Then de Raadt says:

"Richard, you are wrong. You said very clearly in your interview that
the ports tree contains non-free software."


So, he deliberately misrepresents Stallman yet again.

Besides, why are de Raadt and the OpenBSD devs getting their briefs in a bunch about whether RMS recommends OpneBSD or not?

Reply Score: 7

RE: Theo is the liar
by dreamlax on Mon 17th Dec 2007 21:59 UTC in reply to "Theo is the liar"
dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04


So, he deliberately misrepresents Stallman yet again.


He's talking about this interview:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/bsdtalk132-richard-stallman.htm...

I haven't listened to it, but De Raadt says that in that interview he clearly stated that the ports tree contains non-free software and therefore OpenBSD is not truly free (or something to that extent, more or less). He is not talking about what he wrote in his first message on that mailing list about what he recommends.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Theo is the liar
by archiesteel on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Theo is the liar"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Anyone knows if there's a transcript of this interview anywhere?

Reply Score: 2

I don't get…
by nevali on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:08 UTC
nevali
Member since:
2006-10-12

…why Theo didn't just reply with “Okay, sorry to hear that you can't recommend OpenBSD to people. We'll have a look into it and see if it's something we consider worthwhile rectifying. Thanks for your input.”.

Oh, right, that's why… it's Theo and rms. Leave your normal social interactions at the door, it's flamin' time!

Reply Score: 3

BSD vs GPL
by hackus on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:16 UTC
hackus
Member since:
2006-06-28

Well....Here I go.

I just have to get my 2 cents in, because a friend of mine uses BSD and well, I think the software is great, the license though....well...read on.

BSD is a crappy license because in my view it doesn't prevent people from just stealing others work and not contributing back to the community as a whole.

Secondly, it helps Microsoft and other companies of that sort of "ilk" appropriate and extend "bad" and unethical business practices by using BSD licensed code in their products. This is bad because it makes Microsoft products look better, and Microsoft then uses the money they get to spend toward their ultimate goal:

"To make it illegal to write software without a Microsoft license."

Finally BSD is a really crappy license because it takes no stand against patents. Patents fundamentally have held the research of Software Engineering back DECADES in my opinion because of the legal costs associated with the field and the low pay that results from having to pay these costs.

With that, I will simply ask all you BSD guys to....COME GET SOME.

:-)

Pffffft!

-hack

Reply Score: 2

RE: BSD vs GPL
by WereCatf on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:40 UTC in reply to "BSD vs GPL"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

BSD is a crappy license because in my view it doesn't prevent people from just stealing others work and not contributing back to the community as a whole.

I myself actually like BSD license better than GPL. Sure, it does allow one to do exactly as you mentioned but that just means it is totally and completely free of restrictions whatsoever. And if a company does that then it's their own fault. People will consider it unethical and those who care enough will not support that company anymore. And yet, if some company indeed did that it still wouldn't be away from the community! The original source would still be there available for others to work on and continue improving.

That being said, I still use Linux which is mostly GPL software. Why? I just like Gentoo so much.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: BSD vs GPL
by dylansmrjones on Tue 18th Dec 2007 08:04 UTC in reply to "RE: BSD vs GPL"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That lack of restrictions is the problem here.

You should have the right to do anything you want - with ONE exception. You shouldn't have the right to restrict (enslave) other persons.

The BSD does not do enough and the GPL does (way) too much.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: BSD vs GPL
by andrewg on Wed 19th Dec 2007 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BSD vs GPL"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Here's the thing. I am not enslaved. I buy an operating system in order to run application software, organise my files, browse the web etc. I don't care about the source code. My freedom is in no way limited. I no perfectly well what I am buying. I know I am not buying the source code. That is not what is being sold.

Just like when I buy my TV set I don't want the circuit design etc. I just want to be able to watch TV.

Stallman and people of his ilk insist that parties should be forced to provide things that are irrelevant to most people i.e. the source code. Microsft, Adobe, etc don't want to sell you the design or source code they - in most cases - want to sell you the tool/utility/application not the source code.

In RMS's world he would enslave everyone to have to pay for source code - there is no free lunch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: BSD vs GPL
by dreamlax on Wed 19th Dec 2007 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: BSD vs GPL"
dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

Just like when I buy my TV set I don't want the circuit design etc.


That is unless you wanted to modify your TV to do something else that you wanted (that maybe other TVs can do). You might know how to construct a circuit to do it, but without extensive studying of the raw undocumented circuitry of the TV, you will never be able to just bung it in.

Reply Score: 2

Richard Stallman
by Macintosh Sauce on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:53 UTC
Macintosh Sauce
Member since:
2007-05-03

Does this person really matter in my life? Apparently not much. I think he should just shut the hell up already.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Richard Stallman
by archiesteel on Mon 17th Dec 2007 22:57 UTC in reply to "Richard Stallman"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

You could say the same thing about Theo, really - especially considering that the latter misrepresented what RMS said, which is not cool.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Richard Stallman
by Oliver on Tue 18th Dec 2007 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Richard Stallman"
RE[3]: Richard Stallman
by archiesteel on Tue 18th Dec 2007 00:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Richard Stallman"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I'm trying to understand what you mean, but it doesn't make much sense. Are you saying that RMS doesn't know anything at all?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Richard Stallman
by AdamW on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:06 UTC in reply to "Richard Stallman"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

the lack of self-awareness this post shows is rather amusing...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Richard Stallman
by WereCatf on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:09 UTC in reply to "Richard Stallman"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Does this person really matter in my life? Apparently not much. I think he should just shut the hell up already.

You could say the same about Gandhi but he did matter quite a lot in others' lifes..Don't be so self-centered.

Reply Score: 2

So...Let Me Get This Straight
by Dubbayoo on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:28 UTC
Dubbayoo
Member since:
2006-02-09

This whole thing boils down to the fact that OpenBSD, which I like, doesn't meet RMS' definition of totally free software? When out of 100+ Linux distros and the various BSDs, only six distributions actually do? Six distrubitions that probably have a combined installed base of 78?

Is that important?

Reply Score: 3

Style of discussing
by raboof on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:30 UTC
raboof
Member since:
2005-07-24

I browsed through the discussion for a bit, and I certainly prefer Stallman to de Raadt.

Stallman quite calmly and reasonably responds to posts, explaining his view and actually answering questions.

De Raadt, while stacking insult upon insult, repeats one argument over and over (that Stallman is being hypocritical, because emacs and gcc contain support for non-free platforms). He has a point, but Stallman reacts to that at http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119766936330500&w=2 - and that also seems like a reasonable position to me.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Style of discussing
by dreamlax on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:42 UTC in reply to "Style of discussing"
dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

De Raadt, while stacking insult upon insult, repeats one argument over and over


Theo's always had that style of argumentative behaviour. Personally, I think it adds pep to what would otherwise be just a boring debate. I would feel honoured if De Raadt insulted me with phrases like "pants full of hypocritical poo". It is his personality, and while it may seem . . . I dunno . . . immature, it is who he is as a person, and does not make him any worse of a programmer, I don't think.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Style of discussing
by raboof on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Style of discussing"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

It is his personality, and while it may seem . . . I dunno . . . immature, it is who he is as a person, and does not make him any worse of a programmer, I don't think.


Oh, I agree completely - he is/was at the cradle of some genuinely great stuff. However, I've also seen him (sorry, no reference ;) ) take on this rather unreasonable style in a technical debate where people were actually trying to get work done. In such a case, I'd rather not be in a development team with him, let alone in a project led by him ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Style of discussing
by apoclypse on Tue 18th Dec 2007 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Style of discussing"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm sorry but its not a style. He's taking advantage of the fact that no one on the internet can reach him and kick his ass like he deserves. Insulting people is not a style. This is not the first time that Theo has done that and really I bet money that he wouldn't say half the things he says in the list to people's faces, He's a scared little king stuck in his little kingdom (probably his mother's basement) who wants everyone to know who's boss. Theo, get a f--king life, get laid, move out of the basement, maybe you will grow a pair and learn how to be a man instead of a bitch.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Style of discussing
by dreamlax on Tue 18th Dec 2007 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Style of discussing"
dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

I'm sorry but its not a style. He's taking advantage of the fact that no one on the internet can reach him and kick his ass like he deserves. Insulting people is not a style.


Of course it is a style. It's a style of debating that may not be as productive as others but it is a style nonetheless.

Theo, get a f--king life, get laid, move out of the basement, maybe you will grow a pair and learn how to be a man instead of a bitch.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt

http://zeus.theos.com/deraadt/

He has a girlfriend and has also been a key speaker in many public security and open-source conferences around the world, and is responsible for OpenSSH and OpenBSD. His outspokenness is, in my opinion, a feature, not a bug.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Style of discussing
by apoclypse on Tue 18th Dec 2007 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Style of discussing"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

That still doesn't excuse the fact that he's an ass. I don't care how many pics of him you post. He needs a thorough thrashing, imo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Style of discussing
by bryanv on Tue 18th Dec 2007 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Style of discussing"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

George W Bush, is that you?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Style of discussing
by dreamlax on Tue 18th Dec 2007 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Style of discussing"
dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

Discrediting someone based on their mental habits or poor interpersonal relationship skills alone is one of the first steps towards becoming judgemental. If you don't like him, leave it at that. Nobody is forcing you to interact with him or read what he writes. If you seriously think that you (or someone else) should thrash Theo for being who he is, then perhaps it is not Theo with the real issues.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Style of discussing
by Oliver on Tue 18th Dec 2007 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Style of discussing"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

He has got more life than RMS or some other guys in this topic ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Style of discussing
by sbergman27 on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:47 UTC in reply to "Style of discussing"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

Stallman quite calmly and reasonably responds to posts, explaining his view and actually answering questions.

De Raadt, while stacking insult upon insult, repeats one argument over and over (that Stallman is being hypocritical...

"""

Indeed. Richard has takes the position which is off in the ether, beyond the pale, and... just plain nuts... but defends it with the skill of a seasoned diplomat.

Theo takes a more reasonable, palatable, and comfortable position. But his hot-head nature prevents him from effectively arguing for it.

If Richard's followers all had Richard's charisma and and Eben Moglen's diplomatic skills the computing world could not stand against them.

It takes somewhat less charisma and diplomacy to defend Theo's views.

Edited 2007-12-17 23:57

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Style of discussing
by dylansmrjones on Tue 18th Dec 2007 07:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Style of discussing"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually both persons are nuts.

RMS is nuts for running with rumours, and Theo is nuts for harassing RMS for something RMS has never claimed.

Two idiots in a boat...

Reply Score: 3

heh.
by AdamW on Mon 17th Dec 2007 23:48 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

Reading through the latest developments on the initial thread, I'd say it comprehensively jumped the shark at the point where the following assertion was made:

"people brew there own bear"

ahh, public mailing lists, the lifeblood of software development!

Reply Score: 3

RE: heh.
by dylansmrjones on Tue 18th Dec 2007 07:44 UTC in reply to "heh."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, people do hunt beers, so... ;)

Reply Score: 2

Some idea
by Nicram on Tue 18th Dec 2007 02:20 UTC
Nicram
Member since:
2006-01-31

I think RMS should find a girl.
& Theo should take his gf for some travel.
This should help them....

Reply Score: 1

Words
by RandomGuy on Tue 18th Dec 2007 03:30 UTC
RandomGuy
Member since:
2006-07-30

Like most discussions it boils down to a misunderstanding of the words being used.

From what I read it seems that RMS gave a talk, with a small part of it being about *BSD (not even Open BSD, mind you) and one sentence sounding somehow like the following:
"I cannot recommend *BSD since I heard it distributes non-free software via the ports collection."

Someone posted a note of this to the Open BSD mailing list and some guys went crazy. What followed was that RMS tried to calm them down and set things into perspective (real quote this time):

"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.
"

He then went on to clarify that since the ports system suggests (contains links to) non free software, he cannot recommend any of the BSDs to the general public.

Still, some BSD guys continued to throw feces in his general direction.
Some of them went on to misrepresent his beliefs, which he corrected where he felt the need arose. He has also stated that he has asked that the unclear parts of his talk be clarified - i.e. that he didn't mean distribute (or whatever was the word he used) in the narrowest sense possible but rather meant that it provided a method or somehow encourages/enables the user to install non-free software.

Even after he had admitted that his wording in this short part of his talk was not clear enough, some folks on the mailing list continued jumping up and down and calling him lier. Others told him to p*ss off.

The only real mistake RMS made is trying to explain his ideas to the kind of morons who believe that misquoting somebody and adding "fixed that for you" is a substitute for understanding the quoted sentence in the first place!

I found it rather amusing that some of the BSD guys got their shorts in a twist about how many layers of indirection make an immoral action moral. It's wrong to include something in the core but is it still wrong if you just have it available in the main repository? What if you provide a link to it? Or a link to a link?

I found this amusing not so much because people got their shorts in a twist (that's just a bonus) but because a similar question traditionally plagues the GPL: What constitutes a 'derived work'?
That means you have just coupled a supposedly eternal moral value to a specific technical mechanism. Bravo!
To be fair, this question is not for the license to decide and the license chosen is only a rough approximation of the author's will how his work should be used, anyway, all within the bounds of the current legal and social circumstances.

But the underlying question remains and I will use it as a guide on how to conclude this rambling ;-)

A moral of right vs wrong, good vs evil is ultimately stupid.
There's always some action that's more evil or more good.

Would RMS recommend Open BSD? No.
Would he recommend it over Windows? You bet!

Call somebody dumb and he'll be offended.
Call him dumber than Einstein and he'll say "Well, duh!"

Both, de Raadt and RMS often make the mistake to paint the world black and white. RMS is a little more careful about not stepping in his own traps.
Then again, being more careful then de Raadt doesn't really mean a lot...

Talking about painting things black:
There was something I wanted to say to the guys who said RMS should know what he's talking about, something along the lines of pot and kettle...
Nah, I forgot :-)

Reply Score: 7

Congratulations
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2007 04:33 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Just as this goddamn thread was FINALLY dying off on the misc@ list you osnews people had to bring it back to life. Seriously, why? It's of absolutely no interest to anyone, just another flamewar with people getting all worked up and emotional about things they cant agree on. Who do I think is right? Some of you can probably figure that out but does it matter? No.
This no better than gossip magazines featuring the latest "buzz" about what celebrity had a disagreement with who.
The pain just never goes away.

Reply Score: 6

DOH!
by dylansmrjones on Tue 18th Dec 2007 07:42 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

A classic example of RMS talking about stuff he hasn't checked and the OpenBSD-guys talking about stuff RMS didn't say.

Both groups are equally silly.

1) OpenBSD does not suggest non-free software, despite what RMS may have heard and he is a joke on this issue.

and

2) The stupid OpenBSD-devs and users completely misunderstand RMS. He's attacked for claiming OpenBSD containts non-free software despite CLEARLY never claiming any such thing. It goes to prove OpenBSD guys cannot read and cannot understand simple words. They are as usual the clowns in the community.

And it goes to prove RMS should think (at least once, twice or thrice would be even better - but probably too much too ask for) before he pushes rumours.


.... Damn, what a way to start a day.

Reply Score: 4

RE: DOH!
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2007 07:51 UTC in reply to "DOH!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The stupid OpenBSD-devs and users completely misunderstand RMS. He's attacked for claiming OpenBSD containts non-free software despite CLEARLY never claiming any such thing. It goes to prove OpenBSD guys cannot read and cannot understand simple words. They are as usual the clowns in the community.


As others and myself have pointed out a few times already: RMS said in an interview that was the cause of this controversy that the ports tree DOES contain non-free software. The interview is linked to in an earlier post in this thread.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: DOH!
by dylansmrjones on Tue 18th Dec 2007 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE: DOH!"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

YES. And in that interview RMS never puts forth the claim that OpenBSD contains non-free software. Never. He only claims the OpenBSD is non-free in his definition.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: DOH!
by archiesteel on Tue 18th Dec 2007 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DOH!"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

So I gather a few people here are guilty of what they are accusing RMS of, i.e. judging before getting all the facts.

I have asked for a transcript of this interview because I was lazy, but since it seems some people are making claims without having listened to it, I think I will, while baking some crow pie.

Reply Score: 2

RE: DOH!
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2007 09:12 UTC in reply to "DOH!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

.... Damn, what a way to start a day.


Consider yourself lucky. I've had to read this nonsense since last week.

Reply Score: 2

Not an attack...
by aank45 on Tue 18th Dec 2007 09:05 UTC
aank45
Member since:
2005-08-04

Why people always see stuff as an attack. From what I browsed that thread, RMS never attacked anyone. He mentioned about a problem why he currently does not _recommend_ OpenBSD, not that he'd hate, oppose or condemn OpenBSD because of something.

It seems too difficult to people to understand what's an endorsement, what's advocation etc. RMS advocates free software, and thus he has some opinions what a distro should or should not do. It's not condemning, it's just his opinion about how free software should be advocated, if it's wanted to be advocated. He also happens to have the opinion that offering free software to non-free OSs does more good than harm. Some beg to differ, but it's part of RMS's thoughts about how to advocate the use of free software. On the other hand, he does not want free OSs to advocate using non-free software, while of course everyone is allowed to do that.

There are also several non-attacking persons on the OpenBSD side, but Theo is surely not one of them.

Reply Score: 3

CAGE MATCH.
by Quag7 on Tue 18th Dec 2007 09:14 UTC
Quag7
Member since:
2005-07-28

OK, it's clear what needs to happen.

We are talking Theo deRaadt, Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond, and Linus Torvalds in a four way cagematch, paired with wrestling greats of the 1980s.

We are talking Rowdy Roddy Piper.

We are talking the Iron Sheik.

We are talking Randy "Macho Man" Savage.

And we are talking George "The Animal" Steele.

Unless one or more of them is dead, in which case quite obviously we use their re-animated undead corpses.

These debates, I have to say, could use some serious commentary by Mean Gene Okerlund and Jesse "The Body" Ventura.

One thing is certain is these guys have definitely kept up the kayfabe for years and the buildup has been intense, and it is time to rumble.

Or else I'm thinking of something else and this is like watching bitchy teenage girls try to ruin each other's reputations. Heathers, the lot of them. Heather Stallman and Heather DeRaadt and Heather Raymond and Heather Torvalds.

Heather Torvalds is a pretty hot name, come to think of it.

Woof!

Reply Score: 2

Quag7
Member since:
2005-07-28

Actually the thread continues in an interesting way. DeRaadt points out that GCC has a bunch of routines allowing it to compile things on proprietary system, and therefore Stallman is a hypocrite, which DeRaadt repeats about 10 times:

"Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo."

being my favorite one.

DeRaadt's multiple outbursts of unhappiness are then followed by DeRaadt brown-nosers basically repeating these allegations and insulting Stallman.

Then it gets down to Godwin's law, first:

"Many fascists have used this argument for centuries.
'Oh dear, the people are too stupid to make their own
decisions so we need to make them for them.'"

Which is EXCELLENT. But then, comes the best post in the thread:

---
> I'm enjoying watching RMS struggle and fail to make any headway with his
> argument.

isn't it like hitler in '44 ?
cu
---

Which reminds me of Rik in The Young Ones going, "Neil, are these lentils South African? You BASTARD!"

It's worth reading the thread for entertainment but be sure to skip by all of the measured, fair-minded posts and instead observe the psychology of the more foaming-at-the-mouth participants, mainly DeRaadt's snotty toddler schtick, followed by people who like REALLY WANT TO CURRY FAVOR with deRaadt - I MEAN, REALLY WANT TO *BE* THEO DERAADT, pouring on further abuse, and then comparing Richard Stallman to Hitler because we can all agree that Richard Stallman is basically exactly like Hitler. In '44, apparently.

It's like DeRaadt's act of losing his composure gives the whole list permission to just go BUCK WILD and lose all mooring.

It gets really paranoid soon after, moving beyond parody into the surreal:

---

"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."

---

And so on. Like this thread is the END OF RICHARD STALLMAN AS WE KNOW IT. All of Richard Stallman's life - everything he was, everything he is, destroyed by a thread on an OpenBSD mailing list. It's GREAT. I wouldn't have thought it was true but saying so might now MAKE it true in a kind of Jedi Mind Trick Thelema Temple of Set kind of "coming into being" willing it to be true magick kind of way.

Soon after all of the Hitler stuff, things become completely unintelligible - and NINE DEGREES OF AWESOME:

"Mr. Stallman you are nude, please stop."

I have no idea what this means, but it is GREAT nonetheless. (this is an actual post to the list)

I have no opinion on either Stallman's allegation or DeRaadt's response but holy crap a lot of people who subscribe to that mailing list are complete lunatics.

And I love them for it. I'm thinking of subscribing. And trying out OpenBSD, which may well be, if these personalities are any indication, the operating system at the End of Time.

There'll be plenty of chicks for these tigers on the way to the Promised Land! Who cares about Thatcher and unemployment? We can do just exactly whatever we want to do! And you know why? Because we're YOUNG ONES! BACHELOR BOYS! CRAZY, MAD, WILD-EYED, BIG-BOTTOMED ANARCHISTS!

LOOK OUT! CLIFF!

(This thread is either excellent publicity for OpenBSD for people like me, or terrible for people who choose OSes, at least in part, by the sense they get from the community. Let's hope everyone has more of a life than I do and stops reading early, or else actively seeks out hardcore insanity, which I do. Which is no reflection on you, osnews.com reader. Really.)

Reply Score: 8

Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

"Mr. Stallman you are nude, please stop.

I have no idea what this means, but it is GREAT nonetheless. (this is an actual post to the list) "


Not sure (not reading the list), but the poster may have referred to this:
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1620.html

Reply Score: 1

Quag7 Member since:
2005-07-28

I suspect you may be right. People love bringing that old story into just about any argument, and it just makes it even better.

Still, it is amazing how, with time, the term "nude" has developed very different shades of connotation from "naked." Nude is a much funnier word.

Reply Score: 1

Only post you need to read
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2007 10:37 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18
Damn
by shapeshifter on Tue 18th Dec 2007 12:24 UTC
shapeshifter
Member since:
2006-09-19

Rms woke up all five BSD users.

Reply Score: 4

v RE: Damn
by Coxy on Tue 18th Dec 2007 15:25 UTC in reply to "Damn"
RE[2]: Damn
by archiesteel on Wed 19th Dec 2007 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Damn"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Why should one of the requirements be that it is recursive?


Because it's more fun that way. From Wikipedia:

"In computing, an early tradition in the hacker community (especially at MIT) was to choose acronyms and abbreviations that referred humorously to themselves or to other abbreviations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_acronym

How can an Acronym be a real word?


If the letters of the acronym happen to spell a real word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnu

Hand's up here how many people get a lot fun out of out saying (or singing) Gnu?


Say it twelve times in a row, you'll see, it's funny.

With a website like that, I can see why most people stick to windows


You sound like PC from the Apple ads.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Damn
by Coxy on Wed 19th Dec 2007 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Damn"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

'Because it's more fun that way.'

- Whatever rocks your boat.

'Say it twelve times in a row, you'll see, it's funny.'

- Tried it, still not getting a lot of fun out of it.

'You sound like PC from the Apple ads.'

- It's true, most people would stick with windows or go and buy alternatives. I tried downloading gnu chess after finding it on a free game site. The download went to a geek friendly ftp page filled with filenames that meant nothing to me. Gave up and found something else.

I can't see the ordinary person doing much different.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Damn
by archiesteel on Wed 19th Dec 2007 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Damn"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I don't think you would know fun if it hit you in the face. What are you going to do next, try to steal Christmas?

FYI, GNU Chess is an engine. It's used by chess frontends, such as the one that comes with the default Ubuntu setup.

Anyway, I fail to see the point you're trying to make, here. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and seems like nothing more than a cheap way to sneak in some good ole MS FUD. Rather pathetic, if you ask me. Modded down as off-topic.

Oh, and there's no such thing as an "ordinary person." Every person is different, with different needs and different tastes. The only reason so many people use Windows is that it comes with the PCs they buy, and most people will stick with what they know - even if they dislike it.

Edited 2007-12-19 11:17

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Damn
by Coxy on Wed 19th Dec 2007 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Damn"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Funny, seconds after you reply to a buried thread that people would be hard pressed to find, it gets bumped up one, just like your last. Funny that. Anyone would think you were doing it yourself.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Damn
by archiesteel on Wed 19th Dec 2007 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Damn"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Are you talking about moderation? If so, you should learn that people who have a certain ratio of positive scores in their posting history eventually get a basic comment score of 2.

No conspiracy or sockpuppets here, son, just the way OSNews works. Now please try to stay on-topic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Damn
by andrewg on Wed 19th Dec 2007 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Damn"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, and there's no such thing as an "ordinary person." Every person is different, with different needs and different tastes.

I see this sort of argument coming up a lot lately. I am sure if you look at your statement you will see it is clearly a false dichotomy (false dilemma).

But I really don't think that the quote ordinary person unquote would find there way onto the GNU website to download a chess program and if they did get confused by the names I don't think the FSF would care much because that part of their site is not for the quote ordinary person unquote.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Damn
by archiesteel on Wed 19th Dec 2007 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Damn"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I see this sort of argument coming up a lot lately. I am sure if you look at your statement you will see it is clearly a false dichotomy (false dilemma).


Actually, I don't. Please elaborate.

Personally, I think that the logical fallacy resides in considering that such generalizations are valid in the context of this discussion. It seems to ascribe a certain behavior as "normal", therefore insinuating that does who don't follow it are somehow abnormal, when in fact it is not the case.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Damn
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Dec 2007 07:12 UTC in reply to "Damn"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And all 3 people who like the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

I don't understand
by Xender on Tue 18th Dec 2007 15:50 UTC
Xender
Member since:
2006-06-28

I don't understand this discution. Using PORTS is officially not recommend by OpenBSD, this is the opposite of suggest.

Reply Score: 2

Mouthing Theo
by PrimalDK on Wed 19th Dec 2007 12:19 UTC
PrimalDK
Member since:
2005-07-12

I completely understand Theo's reaction, if his blunt directness and uncanny ability to piss people off is sometimes a bit too much for the general public. Here's why:

You spend some 14 years coding one of the most portable pieces of code, then once of the most secure, allowing people to use it according to your - what mostly look to me as - libetarian ideals, i.e., not sticking your nose in what other people do with it, and perhaps it gets to be a bit too much when someone equally idealistic, but by now somewhat less actively coding, criticizes your project - as it has been criticized - for the umpteenth time, only based on a disagreement on who is the most "free".

Freedom of speech allows someone to do just that, and freedom of speech allows Theo the luxury of answering in full honesty, displaying his irritation at the many who talk but hardly walk (code).

RMS sees the world as black and white, a view which it's a trivial exercise to prove unrealistic (take a look through the local library's philosophy section if you don't believe me). Hail to him for being steadfast in his beliefs, so the rest of us can have gcc, emacs and the rest of the gnu world.

And hail to Theo for walking the long path that few have the patience and skill to.

You are both colourful personalities, though you may wear different colours, and the world is a better place for it.

Edited 2007-12-19 12:36

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mouthing Theo
by pinky on Wed 19th Dec 2007 14:16 UTC in reply to "Mouthing Theo"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>I completely understand Theo's reaction

I don't

>but by now somewhat less actively coding, criticizes your project - as it has been criticized - for the umpteenth time, only based on a disagreement on who is the most "free".

That was not the point. RMS neither talks about "more free" nor he criticised OpenBSD. He was just asked in an Interview why he doesn't recommend OpenBSD and he explained why. You can argue that the words he used to explain it were a little bit unclear and allow different interpretation. But his basic argument is simple true and this was neither an attack against OpenBSD nor against any person. It was only the explanation why he doesn't recommend OpenBSD.

Also if you read the full discussion you will see that RMS was/is the only one who was always politely while the others insult him and went totally off-topic.
The whole discussion could have been finished in 2-3 mails. But most of the people on this list preferred to bash RMS completely unrelated to the topic.

Edited 2007-12-19 14:21

Reply Score: 3

Both smoke crack and I think they're awsome
by Bounty on Wed 19th Dec 2007 18:47 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

I think they're both right. FREEDOM!

-Bounty

Feel free to think about my comment, but if you reply to it, you must include the source and this garbage. This includes telling someone about it. You may not 'restrict my comment's freedom?' by only including part of it. Please feel free to comment out the obsolete portions. Also all changes and the original must have datestamps and author names on all modified portions. You may not include any copyrighted information in any reply (verbal, typed or written), even if you own the copyright, because that would be totally evil or something. In fact, don't link to any websites with copyrighted material. You may not post any reply from non-open source hardware, cuz that promotes EVIL something something or stuff. Same goes for the network gear your hardware is connected to and the server you're reply will be hosted on. 12-19-2007

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Just thought you should know that you cannot legally require people to comply with your requests. That is all.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

First of all, your comment is not software and as such you cannot compare your "joke" to GPL or BSD licenses.. Secondly you're trying to set rules/restrictions on the use of a service (OSnews) which you don't own. That already nullifies your whole comment. And nope, GPL and BSD licenses aren't jokes....

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I'm not trying to restrict your use of OSNEWS, the restrictions are on the use of my work.

But if you dictate how one can reply to your comment on OSnews comments system then you are indeed trying to restrict how one can use OSnews. And I just doubt anyone would consider a comment on a news site as a "work". And besides, even in theory if it was "work" it still wouldn't be software and as such comparing your license to a software license would be like comparing apples and oranges. It's the same as comparing Artistic License with BSD license: not at all the same thing and inherently pointless ;)

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Someone like RMS does it, http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html he specifically says "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. " He seems to point to a relation between free speech and software licences.

Well, he isn't comparing speech with software, he is comparing the liberty to use either ;) But well, I am not saying anything definite about how one could actually use your comment cos I am not a lawyer nor can I say I know a sh*t about licenses really. I do admit it that I haven't studied the subject ;) But AFAIK atleast if one doesn't quote any line of your comment then one can reply to it anyway one wishes ;)

Anyway, maybe we should call this off now? It's getting rather off-topic IMO.

Reply Score: 2

I have news for RMS!
by Kishe on Wed 19th Dec 2007 21:11 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

OS'es he supports have web browsers what you can use to surf on sites with non-free software on them!!!

thats exactly the same thing he trolls openbsd for!

Reply Score: 0

Puffball
by jsagazio on Fri 21st Dec 2007 19:26 UTC
jsagazio
Member since:
2006-10-26

Puffball -

Reply Score: 1