On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would > promote non-free software. > > If it were included in or recommended by gNewSense, then gNewSense > would promote non-free software. I trust they wouldn't do that, > because their policies are not to do that.
On 12/12/2007, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I repeat again: > The OpenBSD ports tree is *neither included in nor recommended* by > OpenBSD. > OpenBSD *Does. Not. Do. That.* because OpenBSD's policies are not to do that. Ok, it looks like I made a mistake and I have to correct myself. My apologies. Apparently the ports tree metadata is available on the OpenBSD CD. I did not know that because I have in fact never used the ports tree, because OpenBSD recommends not to use ports (and use packages instead). I just found out here: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsFetch that there is a ports.tar.gz file on the CD. HOWEVER, that file is not installed by default, and the OpenBSD install program *does not even give the user the option* to install ports.tar.gz, be it from CD or otherwise. See here: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Filesets So yes, the ports.tar.gz file is on the CD, but it's not part of the OpenBSD installation, it's use is not recommended, it can only be installed manually outsite of the OpenBSD install program, and it only contains metadata, and only a minority of the ports metadata references unfree software. > Richard, I am just asking you to be consistent and avoid the > impression of biased decisionmaking based on a conflict of interest. Even with the above correction, I still believe it would be most consistent for you to recommend OpenBSD. The mere presence of info that users *could* use to do something stupid on the install CD (but *NOT* within the OS installation) does not IMHO come anywhere near to inclusion in OpenBSD or a recommendation by OpenBSD. > Thanks and regards, > --ropers
