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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-01-04
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: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.
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.