On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
> IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
> this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
> here) to be something that most people would express as "not
> deliberately erect barriers against".
>
>The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
>for what I am saying.
You've apparently been reading a very different set of responses from
the ones I've read. AFAICT from their messages, most of the people
responding here to this issue agree with me.
> Many of the people on this list were told that
>I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
>programs.
That's the only plausible conclusion I can draw from your own words.
AFAICT from your messages, the absolute minimum that would satisfy you
is for OpenBSD to never mention anywhere, in any manner (except perhaps
a negative one), anything which is non-free (by your definition).
Since this would require explicitly rejecting any proposed addition to
the ports collection which would install something which is 'non-free',
you do require erecting barriers.
> And their words show that they think this means designing
>the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible. (I
>have not suggested such a thing.)
>
>My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. "Mentioning" and "recommending" are very
different things, and what OpenBSD does is no more than mentioning.
> If you include
>program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
>that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.
>
>Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
>particular case.
It would be closer to reality, but would still massively overstate the
case.
Dave
--
Dave Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
