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."
Thread beginning with comment 291670
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
Member since:2007-08-10
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.
Member since:2006-04-05
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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!