Ted Unangst wrote:
> On 12/15/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>>
>
> "Copyright law is complex, OpenBSD policy is simple - OpenBSD strives
> to maintain the spirit of the original Berkeley Unix copyrights."
>
> how much clearer can it be?
>
It is very clear about alot of things, but it provides no information
regarding any position on free/non-free software.
>
> do you know what the words "freely redistributable" mean? "non-free
> URLs" are freely redistributable. and who cares what OSI says? it's
> just a bunch of clowns dicking around to approve the latest license of
> the week.
>
Freely Redistributable is used twice. In both context's at best it
applies to OpenBSD
itself, the most natural reading would be that it applies to nothing in
ports and packages,
yet I am fairly certain, OpenBSD has rejected projects because they were
not freely redistributable.
Further taking Freely Redistributable and applying OpenBSD's
interpretation of Free would preclude including
anything GPL's, because it is not freely redistributable, redistribution
is restricted to the terms of the GPL
including the requirement to continue to provide source - therefore less
than free.
If only the URL's have to be freely redistributable, then OpenBSD is not
much more constrained than The Pirate Bay.
They only provide URL's
While you are "distributing" the URL, you are also "distributing" the
target of the URL too. Distribute means to deliver. The URL came from
OpenBSD
and it delvers software. TPB does not even directly provide URL's to
software etc.
They are atleast one level of redirection further removed then OpenBSD is.
My reference to OSI was not intended to be favorable.
