On Dec 16, 2007, at 2:24 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Ray Percival wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular
weapon and
you have the choice to retain the source code.
You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
provided you deliver the source code with it.
Agreed, but would you except either in ports ?
The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to
endorse.
The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including
something within
ports has meaning.
Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given tool
just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking arrogant.
But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
(be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby
mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001
That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is
exactly
what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent
from the
OpenBSD web site.
If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than
the watered down language on the website.
The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and
one of
security.
Yeah, those are the things that matter. Why do you need so many
guidelines and rules? If logic and commonsense isn't enough for you
then there are other projects for you to bother. Cause it's more than
enough for us. And since we've already established that your use of
the word "distribute" is wacky to say the very least you have not
point AT FUCKING ALL.
It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
free to all.
I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom
than the
FSF/GNU/RMS.
Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the
things you provide URL's for in ports,
then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important
to you.
If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in
ports.
Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is
freely
redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.
One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,
Speaking for myself. Damn straight it is. Put down the crack pipe for
a minute and think about if your argument there makes any sense at
all. Hint: No reasonable person would think it does.
including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I
think
you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would
deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.
No. My principles are to to live and let die. In other words I could
give a shit what anybody else does with a given system or if there
happen to be a URL or two pointing them at some app in ports that
might have a license I don't like. What business is it of mine? Since
I think everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want with
their stuff and that Big Mommy (as represented by Stallman and
everybody else who think that reasonable adults will be corrupted in
someway by being able to easily install software that might have a
less permissive license than others) should fuck off and die this is
PERFECTLY in line with what I think. And if you really can't see the
difference between a blob loaded into kernelspace and a pointer to a
userland app with a less permissive license well then you really are
a religious and political shill and I can see why you want somebody
enforcing various rules about thoughtcrime.
