> From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:53 AM
> To: Openbsd Misc (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:38:08AM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> > >From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > >
> > >He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just
> non-free-friendly because some
> > >non-free are distributed in the ports site.
> >
> > And yet, you still don't have it quite right. Saying that
> the ports system
> > distributes software is not correct. The ports system only
> distributes some
> > make files and a few patches (all free).
>
> I'm not talking about the CVS tree, I'm talking about
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
>
> I'm sorry for the "abuse" of language if you want to make a strong
> difference between port and package.
>
> That is an OpenBSD site which has software, like for instance
> zangband,
> which is proprietary and is compiled and distributed from:
>
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2
> .6.2p1-no_x11.tgz
>
> > These make files contain links to
> > where to download said "evil" software and make them easy
> to install...
>
> This is no mere link to a file, it's plain forward availability of a
> conveniently pre-compiled package which is installable and is
> tantamount
> to a recommendation.
>
> > should the user choose to.
>
> Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
> I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
> want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software
> operating systems,
> this can be seen as a severe drawback.
>
> I don't understand such violent answers from some people, they are as
> unproportional as some of their claims are false.
>
> > choose to run IE on OpenBSD if he wanted to.
> > So I ask you: How does that limit freedom?
>
> When you promote the usage of proprietary software, you're promoting a
> network effect that ends-up with more people being less free:
>
> those who chose to entrust others with their good judgement because
> they are not knowledgeable enough to make the decision just by
> themselves and get to accept your recommendations.
>
> Then some pages which only work with IE are now accessible, and maybe
> more people will use IE instead of Free Software browsers, and where
> does this road lead to? No good, IMHO.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> All Hail Discordia!
> Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?
>
Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty
obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on.
The world will fall because OpenBSD "recommends" that people
install a game... a game that is free to copy and use for non-
commercial use (I looked it up), and you had to go through almost
the ENTIRE package collection all the way to the Zs before you
could find such a pitiful example.
This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly
stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software
in it's ports tree. I am pretty sure he had no knowledge of
zangband and it's non-free license. He was talking about non-free
software in the ports tree.
Let us further examine this. The statement was: since this non-
free software is in our ports tree, it means that we are
recommending it to those who don't know any better than to use
non-free software (and therefore should be protected from it). I
have to take that as a great compliment to the OpenBSD ports devs
because you are basicly saying that the ports tree is so easy to
use that even someone that is clueless can use it! Sadly, your
complement is an empty one. As wonderful as the ports tree is,
a person would have to have at least some technical know-how to
use it and that kind of know how doesn't grow inside a bubble.
This theoretical person would surely have come across at least
a little knowledge about open-source software principles while
gaining the knowledge to use the ports tree. So what are we left
with? We are left with you having a political/religious belief
in your ideals of "free software" that you want to limit the
choices of others as to if they want to use this software or not.
Hmm... lets look through history for others who want to limit
people in the name of protecting them:
Hitler - The Jews would be better off in containment.
USA - We must confine Japanese Americans for their own
good while we are at war!
USA (again) - McCarthyism... We must imprison and destroy
the lives of all communists in America. Basicly going
after people for their thoughts!
Much of the world - slavery (particularly USA)
Catholics (and many other christ-based religous types) - we
must kill all the witches and satanists! (pretty much
all pagan faiths were targeted).
I am not seeing one example of anything good coming from limiting
people based upon a person or groups own ideals. Before you get
all in a huff... no, I am not saying you are like Hitler or as
bad as Hitler. I am saying that a persons ideals become evil
when they try to push them onto others no matter how good the
intentions are. The only freedom is the freedom of choice,
everything else is a limit. It would be nice if everyone used
free software, but that doesn't excuse anyone to try to force
people to use free software.
Disclaimer: I am an American, if you are one of those patriotic
types who think America can do no wrong and I am an asshole for
bringing up the evils of Americas past or think that I was un-
duely picking on America.
GROW UP!
s
