On Jan 5, 2008 11:20 PM, William Boshuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote: > > > On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing > > > non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to > > > be documented for users to get their job done faster. > > > > > > > If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be > > putting the 'Free. ' in 'Free. Functional. Secure.' > > The word 'free' is there because OpenBSD is free. It is not > there because developers mind or don't mind users doing this > or that. >
You're missing the point why somebody is calling OpenBSD non-free. Or supposedly why emacs runs on non-free. > > ; You shouldn't be > > fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather, > > probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'. > > Should you wish to inform yourself, there are a number of posts > in the list archives explaining various specific reasons why the > OpenBSD developers are against blobs. Theo, in particular, wrote > at least one rather short and very cogent message explaining the > reasons. You should look towards the beginning of the threads, > because later on you are more likely to see Theo losing patience > with respondents who did not read the original posts (carefully > enough, or perhaps not at all). > Here is one: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-March/081313.html Notice how Theo talks about "because their firmware images were not free enough to ship in our releases" I suppose you can now explain the meaning of the term "free" in firmware in this context? Don't assume people don't read before replying in here. -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
