Sir, please check my inline comments. On 12/11/07, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is the list at: > http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions > the list of operating systems that meet your criteria? It appears that > gNewSense includes LAME in binary format, and BLAG "recommends" it at > https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Lame in much the same way OpenBSD does. > > ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check. > > In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar > (https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is > non-free. > > What is the license of Unrar? I will try to access that page, but I > cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me. > I will see if it works with plain http:. > > I don't think anyone is particularly upset that OpenBSD isn't among the > software you recommend, but to claim that OpenBSD includes "non-free" > software in its ports collection (using your definition of "free") while > claiming that gNewSense meets your criteria is disingenuous at best. > > At best, it's an accurate statement. At worst, the gNewSense > developers made a mistake, and will correct it. > > My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted.
I just can't follow this. Let's see what's written in the OpenBSD ports page (http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html): "Motivation OpenBSD is a fairly complete system of its own, but still there is a lot of software that one might want to see added. However, there is the problem of where to draw the line as to what to include, as well as the occasional licensing and export restriction problems. As OpenBSD is supposed to be a small stand-alone UNIX-like operating system, some things just can't be shipped with the system." So, an operating system can born "free" (free as in speech, in the GNU sense) and then, become "non-free" just because some users decided to create a way to ease installations of software that "just can't be shipped with the system"? Despite some OpenBSD kernel developers are also port mantainers, I'd believe that the vast majority of the latter don't do kernel programming, so IMO, they could be labeled as "users" (since they're working in user space). > > Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their > mistakes. So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in > OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster. I > trust the developers will remove it once they find out. > Well, it seems that we have the following pattern: - gNewSense, if someone finds a non-free program in it, that's no disaster - anything else, if someone finds a non free program in it, that's surely a disaster Please, sir, clarify.... > On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed, > then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed. That's > what gives me stronger concern. The presence of non-free programs > in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional. > As a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like" software install package project for it? Thanks in advance.
