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:2006-09-18
Then why did he use the word "speech?" You did say something definite about how one could actually use my comment. You infer that I can't put any restrictions on it, if it infringes on your ability to use OSnews.
You're right about reply's to my comment. Fair use of free speech... But you're missing the point then, I was trying to show how if we put licenses like GPL or BSD on free speech it would hurt your ability to reply... not help it.
Member since:2005-07-02
Incorrect. You can certainly reply to a comment without including it in your reply: your request that it *should* be included has no legal value whatsoever, even if your comment itself is copyrighted.
Look at it this way: if I write a program that will convincingly argue that the sky is green and license it under the GPL, you could very well write another program to respond to mine, arguing that the sky is in fact purple. As long as you didn't base your program on mine, you don't have to abide by the terms of the GPL.
In other words, responding to a copyrighted opinion doesn't violate copyright laws, and your freedom of speech cannot limit mine by imposing a format on how I can express my disagreement with your position.
Simply put, your argument was flawed from the start, and was rightly called out as such.
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.
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 
Well, he isn't comparing speech with software, he is comparing the liberty to use either
Anyway, maybe we should call this off now? It's getting rather off-topic IMO.