On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:21:44PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > 2) If supporting non-free software is bad, > > What I object to is referring people to non-free software as something > to install. "Supporting" is a broader term, and includes various > different practices. I don't object to all of them. > > I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for the second time > and this is what I think: > Richard explains in the interview that all BSD distributions (not > OpenBSD specifically) INCLUDE non-free software in their ports system. > Using the "normal" definition of include, this statement is incorrect. > > I've offered to ask them to post a note to clarify what I meant. I > have not seen a response to that offer, but I have decided to ask them > anyway. I do not want to misinform anyone.
If you wanted to say something short and correct, you could say that (parts of) OpenBSD's ports tree facilitates the installation of (some) non-free software. If you wanted to include a nod to the enormous effort that the OpenBSD developers have put into providing an entirely free operating system, you could mention that OpenBSD itself is entirely free, and that getting the ports tree on your system requires a separate, deliberate, act from that of installing OpenBSD. I don't know whether your statements, or these statements, apply to any of the other BSD's. (Notice how that works. Also, notice the lack of vague reference to hearsay.) But I can well imagine how to find out, and how to determine what would be correct statements about them. It would be responsible to take those measures before pronouncing on the other BSD's. It is not sufficient to just think (or say) 'Well, nobody complained, so it must be true,' or some such.
