(apologies to Karthik who will receive this mail twice) On 05/01/2008, Karthik Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
And you apparently missed the posts where the leading developers of OpenBSD stated that they don't care about your definition of free. As a non-English speaker I am aware of the multifacetted English word 'Free' and its many connotations. So it is not hard for OpenBSD to name itself free. Coming out and saying that OpenBSD should not call itself free because it freely allows users to install non-free software is gNonsense. > > > ; 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. I assume that Theo were not referring to firmware supposed to run in the kernel but on some kind of expansion card. Furthermore, I assume that the original firmware license prohibited free distribution. In any case: what is your point? Jacob Grydholt
