On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:21 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me
that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
polices page lists software licenses that are acceptable, and a few
that
are not, but I could not find an statement dfining what was and was
not
acceptable aside from by example.
The goals page section on the kernel prefers BSD Licenses over
the
GPL, requires source, explictly bans NDA's, but provides no
guidance on
the remainder of the cosmos of source providing licenses.
Would proprietary software with source be acceptable ? The
requirement to respect copyright's and licenses might narrow the field
somewhat, but it still leaves alot of possibilites, pretty much any
license that allows redistributing source.
I could not find any reference or guidance concerning what is
acceptable outside the kernel itself.
It is possible to read all of this and conclude that OpenBSD is a
free OS and that non-free software is unacceptable - including
prohibiting non-free URL's in ports. It is also possible to understand
this as allowing the inclusion - even in the kernel of code that does
not even meet the weak OSI definition of Open Source.
That's all because reasonable, rational, intelligent adults don't
need to have every little commonsense thing spelled out for them.
Only people overly concerned with rules need such things the rest of
us are more than happy with solid general guidelines and principles.
So what the FUCK is your point?
