Ray Percival wrote:
>
> 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?
First that using reason, rationality and commonsense, it is not possible
to reach an answer to the question what is OpenBSD's position on
non-free software.
While there are some specific cases such as BSD/GPL/NDA software in the
kernel, where a clear answer exists in most cases, you must infer, and
in some there is no answer.
I am asking for the same precision and clarity you are demanding f RMS,
and I am asking for it from something you have had a decade to polish
rather than uttered as remarks off the cuff.
