Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Dec 2007 16:32 UTC, submitted by lmvaz
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."
Permalink for comment 292350
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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?