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]>