On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: : > > It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that > knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports > tree has no non-free software in it at all. > > Does that make it non-free? > > Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those > non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy, > and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free". > > Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used > to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software? > > No, that's a totally different question. > > Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO. > Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO. > > The answer to Q1 is always yes. I'm concerned with Q2.
It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line. For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free software does not exist, but just not point where to find it. OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free software but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step by the user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software. Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view. If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort. If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher. But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a completely different question. And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD is already freer than most, and I also feel it is. At least in spirit. But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman, and he is free to have that opinion. -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
