On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote: > 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.
I've been a user for years and could care less what Stallman thinks. > 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. The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so who cares? > 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. Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web site is Stallman kosher--I just hope Stallman can sleep at night. > 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. Who is Stallman that we as users should even care? > 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. Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that Stallman's licenses are *more* free than OpenBSD!? > But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman, > and he is free to have that opinion. He sure is (free to debate the merits of OpenBSD on *his* mailing lists). I've been an OpenBSD advocate for years. This stuff gets rather tired after a while (I can't even imagine what it must be like to be a core member of the OpenBSD team and have to read this stuff). -Rick
