Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they
construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and
then try to blame me for them.

For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous,
even inconvenient.  However, if anyone wants to know what I do think,
I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.

One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
recommend OpenBSD.  It is not about what the system allows.  (Any
general purpose system allows doing anything at all.)  It is about
what the system suggests to the user.

Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others.  Therefore,
if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
some non-free program, I do not recommend it.  The systems I recommend
are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
non-free software.

From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
(though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
blobs).  However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
recommend.  I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.

I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.

The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
important.  If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they
> construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and
> then try to blame me for them.
>
> For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous,
> even inconvenient.  However, if anyone wants to know what I do think,
> I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/.
> In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.

*yawn*

>
> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD.  It is not about what the system allows.  (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.)  It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.

What you recommend is quite boring what is not boring is your lack of
research into this topic.  It's ok to not know what you are talking
about; it is not ok to make blanket statements based on hearsay.

>
> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
> think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others.  Therefore,
> if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
> some non-free program, I do not recommend it.  The systems I recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.

OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape.  Everything that
ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it.  There is
not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD
on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents.  We actually have
standards.

>
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).  However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.  I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.

Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the
distribution.  Unlike linux OpenBSD does not have a HAL.  I can go on
for a while.

>
> I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
> I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
> am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
> to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.

Here is one, the code isn't bloated and doesn't mostly suck.  I find it
unethical to recommend a steaming pile of crap to someone.

>
> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important.  If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
>

Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones
intelligence.  You are basically saying: "you are retarded if you don't
let me tell you what you want".

[Nick Guenther]

On 12/10/07, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD.  It is not about what the system allows.  (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.)  It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.
>
> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
> think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others.  Therefore,
> if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
> some non-free program, I do not recommend it.  The systems I recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.
>
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).

Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
We're on the same side here.

> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important.  If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.

Sir, it was brought up that the linux distributions you do suggest do
often include in their ports systems non-free software. See e.g.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119726055819074&w=2
What do you say to that? Was that a lie or a mistake?

Respectfully,
-Nick

[Steve Shockley]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial, I
> think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others.  Therefore,
> if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
> some non-free program, I do not recommend it.  The systems I recommend
> are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
> non-free software.

Is the list at:
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
the list of operating systems that meet your criteria?  It appears that
gNewSense includes LAME in binary format, and BLAG "recommends" it at
https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Lame in much the same way OpenBSD does.
In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar
(https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is
non-free.

Since I have time to rant but don't have time and resources to download
and install two new operating systems, feel free to correct me if my
impressions are wrong.

> I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.

I don't think anyone is particularly upset that OpenBSD isn't among the
software you recommend, but to claim that OpenBSD includes "non-free"
software in its ports collection (using your definition of "free") while
claiming that gNewSense meets your criteria is disingenuous at best.

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:58:40PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
> > He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host
> > machine's processor.  Browse around under:
> > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/
> >
> > For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the
> > BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be
> > redistributed as object code only.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> anyway, i'm clearly against binary blobs in the kernel, and in
> contrast to most of the GNU/Linux dudes i _did_ some against it by
> writing ar5k, instead of pointing into the wrong direction.  this open
> firmware discussion is just a joke to make the relevant discussion,
> binary blobs in the OS kernel, irrelevant.
>

... and oddly enough it is the most activist of the _GNU_/Linux dudes who
did not care enough about your efforts in ar5k to raise his voice for the
freedom of software and yet feels the urge to teach us all a lesson about
the true meaning of free software.

Gilles

[Jacob Yocom-Piatt-2]

Marco Peereboom wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>  
>> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
>> important.  If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
>> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
>>
>>    
>
> Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones
> intelligence.  You are basically saying: "you are retarded if you don't
> let me tell you what you want".
>
>  

marco, you're forgetting that this is what "freedom" is all about in the
US: i tell you what free is... and what the definition of is is...

claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free
than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list
lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here.
the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;)

--

[Steve Shockley]

Nick Guenther wrote:
>> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
>> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
>> blobs).
>
> Um, OpenBSD is the only common OS that is actively against blobs. See
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
> We're on the same side here.

He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host
machine's processor.  Browse around under:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/

For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the
BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be
redistributed as object code only.

[Doug Fordham-2]

On Dec 10, 2007 12:55 PM, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <jy-p@...> wrote:

> Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones
> > intelligence.  You are basically saying: "you are retarded if you don't
> > let me tell you what you want".
> >
> >
>
> marco, you're forgetting that this is what "freedom" is all about in the
> US: i tell you what free is... and what the definition of is is...
>

Has nothing to do with what "freedom is all about in the U.S."...how
about keeping this apolitical and on subject; that being RMS's
comments as an individual.

[Jason Beaudoin]

RMS,

Given what I've read, listened to, and specifically what you've said here:

> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).  However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.  I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
>
..maybe you should look into the OpenBSD project, methods, and the end
result - not necessarily to promote OpenBSD in some way, because I
don't believe anyone here sees value in that - but to educate
yourself, rather than speak from what someone else has commented on,
or little bits of cursory research. I think it's difficult getting a
sense of what OpenBSD stands for without having used the OS itself, or
what it provides.

> I could recommend OpenBSD privately with a clear conscience to someone
> I know will not install those non-free programs, but it is rare that I
> am asked for such recommendations, and I know of no practical reason
> to prefer OpenBSD to gNewSense.

the ultimate freedom is that of free choice. As I've seen, the OpenBSD
developers have fought tooth-and-nail, in many cases to the bitter
end, to provide the cleanest and freest operating system available. It
is coherent, and cohesive. In some cases, it's frustrating, simply
because support for non-free entities are sketchy or flat-out aren't
available. But at the same time, the opportunity remains open for
folks to implement their non-free whatevers if they so choose, though
they probably won't get the support of the developers, they may get
support from other users.. all of us are working with varying levels
of conviction and outside influences. That being said, I believe those
of the developers, many openbsd users, are stricter and more focused
any other single group of computer users.

again.. my words come from my perspective, from what I've heard/read
on this list and across the internet, as well as my experiences in
using windows, linux, *BSD, and seeing the effects of these sorts of
issues even in the non-technical areas of our lives.


So again.. I think OpenBSD should be tried and explored before being labeled.


Thank you for your time,

~Jason

[Reyk Floeter-2]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:57:24PM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
> He's referring to firmware binaries, not software that runs on the host
> machine's processor.  Browse around under:
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/
>
> For example, the Atmel radio firmware's license is compatible with the
> BSD license, but incompatible with the GPL because it can be
> redistributed as object code only.
>

yes, but it is so stupid, the firmware is loaded into the device and
not running in OpenBSD itself.

in the past, the microcode was normally stored in non-volatile memory
on the hardware device, let's say a NIC, but now most of the devices
require to load the firmware into RAM.  it is cheaper to do it this
way, flash chips are just too expensive for the mass market.  mostly
all of the new ethernet and wireless cards require to load an external
firmware image into the _card's_ RAM, it wouldn't be possible to
support any of these chipsets without using their firmware.

but again, there is a major difference between binary blobs and
firmware images; the blobs are loaded as code into the OS kernel, but
the firmware runs directly on the device on crappy embedded micro
CPUs.  asking the vendors for releasing their firmware source code is
just ridiculous or a nightmare since I don't even want to see this
code (we wouldn't even have the right compiler for this)...

anyway, i'm clearly against binary blobs in the kernel, and in
contrast to most of the GNU/Linux dudes i _did_ some against it by
writing ar5k, instead of pointing into the wrong direction.  this open
firmware discussion is just a joke to make the relevant discussion,
binary blobs in the OS kernel, irrelevant.

reyk

[Uwe Dippel]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:20:00 -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:

> That being said, the OpenBSD developers have given their arguments why
> they include firmware and non-free ports, and RMS has given his
> arguments why he doesn't recommend systems that do.  I don't see this
> thread leading to reconciliation of the two sides.

Thanks, Matthew, for some balances in this thread.
I don't see a need to reconcile the two sides. (It would be good if that
was possible, though.)

RMS wrote, why in his personal opinion, he does not recommend the use of
OpenBSD. And some p*** at him. What a shame ! 'Freedom' is not only
one's choice of software, but also one's choice of an own opinion.
It would serve this list and the people on it well, to allow RMS to voice
his own opinion. And, if in personal disagreement, argue. Like some
actually did in here.

[Martin Schröder]

2007/12/10, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:
> From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).  However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.

Richard, do you still remember the 2004 FSF awards?
http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html
"Theo's leadership of OpenBSD, his selfless commitment to Free Software ..."
Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?

Best
   Martin

[Jacob Yocom-Piatt-2]

Doug Fordham wrote:

> On Dec 10, 2007 12:55 PM, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <jy-p@...> wrote:
>  
>> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>>    
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones
>>> intelligence.  You are basically saying: "you are retarded if you don't
>>> let me tell you what you want".
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> marco, you're forgetting that this is what "freedom" is all about in the
>> US: i tell you what free is... and what the definition of is is...
>>
>>    
> Has nothing to do with what "freedom is all about in the U.S."...how
> about keeping this apolitical and on subject; that being RMS's
> comments as an individual.
>
>  

how about keeping this on subject and including my directly relevant
comment in your response claiming that my response is not relevant:

"claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free
than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list
lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here.
the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;) "

the initial comment is an obvious tie-in to the second one i made: by
choosing how to define free, rms twists the issue at hand and spins it
as he sees fit, in this case to support his own interests and projects
he likes. i am merely pointing out the connection between the tack that
many US institutions take and his, IMO, acutely misleading comments. in
this context the analogy is directly relevant. if such blatantly
self-serving comments were to come from me, another US citizen, i would
not be one bit surprised if i were criticized on the same grounds.

--

[Matthew Dempsky-3]

On 12/10/07, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <jy-p@...> wrote:
> "claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free
> than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list
> lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here.
> the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;) "
>
> the initial comment is an obvious tie-in to the second one i made: by
> choosing how to define free, rms twists the issue at hand and spins it
> as he sees fit,

You're misrepresenting his argument.  RMS does not recommend OpenBSD
because it distributes binary firmware without source code and
includes non-free software in the ports system.  His position has
nothing to do with BSD/ISC vs. GPL.

That being said, the OpenBSD developers have given their arguments why
they include firmware and non-free ports, and RMS has given his
arguments why he doesn't recommend systems that do.  I don't see this
thread leading to reconciliation of the two sides.

[Marc Espie-2]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD.  It is not about what the system allows.  (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.)  It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.

[...]
> >From what I have heard, OpenBSD does not contain non-free software
> (though I am not sure whether it contains any non-free firmware
> blobs).  However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
> at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.  I therefore exercise my freedom of speech by not including
> OpenBSD in the list of systems that I recommend to the public.
[...]
> The fact that OpenBSD is not a variant of GNU is not ethically
> important.  If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.

You do realize that that specific stance is *completely* hypocritical.

You do not recommend OpenBSD because its ports system states upfront
that there *are* non-free pieces of software that works under it.

But you recommend Linux distros, even though every one out there knows
there are *more* pieces of non-software that work in it.

Even though Linux contains hooks to allow for binary blobs, or is careful
to stay compatible with binary drivers from nvidia and ATI for people to
choose from.

But noooo, linux distros are white as a cygnus, since they don't suggest
out-right you can install non-free software. They just happen to make it
very easy, and you can just simply run into extended distros and sites
that make it *as trivial* to install non-free stuff as the OpenBSD ports
system.

Heck, *most linux distros out there* have a non-free section as well.

You *do know* that the non-free section of the OpenBSD ports tree is
labelled as such, don't you ? you do know we forbid redistribution
on CD-Rom of various pieces of software. Hence, non-free stuff does not
make it to the official CD-Rom. It does not even make it to the ftp
site.

This includes such prominent stuff as sun's java, which is not free...
and which is probably one of the most commonly installed linux software
out there... along with binary drivers for nvidia cards and other hardware.

Hypocrit.

[Doug Fordham-2]

On Dec 10, 2007 3:31 PM, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <jy-p@...> wrote:

>
> Doug Fordham wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 2007 12:55 PM, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <jy-p@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Marco Peereboom wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Speaking of strawman arguments; this is such an insult to ones
> >>> intelligence.  You are basically saying: "you are retarded if you don't
> >>> let me tell you what you want".
> >>>
> >> marco, you're forgetting that this is what "freedom" is all about in the
> >> US: i tell you what free is... and what the definition of is is...
> >>
> >>
> > Has nothing to do with what "freedom is all about in the U.S."...how
> > about keeping this apolitical and on subject; that being RMS's
> > comments as an individual.
> >
>
> how about keeping this on subject and including my directly relevant
> comment in your response claiming that my response is not relevant:
>
> "claiming products that use binary blobs and GPL-ed code are more free
> than BSD or ISC stuff is about the dumbest thing i've heard on this list
> lately, and there's plenty of retarded statements that circulate here.
> the pot calling the kettle black never fails to put a smile on my face ;) "
>
> the initial comment is an obvious tie-in to the second one i made: by
> choosing how to define free, rms twists the issue at hand and spins it
> as he sees fit, in this case to support his own interests and projects
> he likes. i am merely pointing out the connection between the tack that
> many US institutions take and his, IMO, acutely misleading comments. in
> this context the analogy is directly relevant. if such blatantly
> self-serving comments were to come from me, another US citizen, i would
> not be one bit surprised if i were criticized on the same grounds.
>

Actually, I'm not claiming that your response is irrelevant and In
fact, I agree with your points concerning the rms spin doctor
techniques and misleading comments. The only contention was with the
"this is what freedom is all about in the US".

RMS' comments really do not relate to what freedom (whatever
definition one chooses to employ) is all about; in the US or anywhere
else. RMS's philosophy is "citizenship" neutral, and in order to
properly counter his (misguided)  concepts, opposing arguments should
be politically neutral as well.

From RMS' comments, it is obvious that he has not used OpenBSD and his
position is based on a "From what I've heard..." His obvious lack of
research and preparation prior to posting to this list, and his subtle
comparision of OpenBSD and gNewSense confirms that a hard grasp of
reality is missing. For, while it is admirable that the gNewSense
folks are putting together a "blob-free" distribution (on the backs of
the Debian & Ubuntu Projects), comparing the gNewSense project to the
OpenBSD Project is akin to comparing a glider to the space shuttle; in
terms of functionality, complexity, and the overall knowledge,
experience and professionalism of the developers.

Regards,

df

[j4nKy]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:18:47AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

> One question particularly relevant for this list is why I don't
> recommend OpenBSD.  It is not about what the system allows.  (Any
> general purpose system allows doing anything at all.)  It is about
> what the system suggests to the user.

http://marc.info/?t=119658331900002&r=1&w=2

http://forum.skype.com/lofiversion/index.php/t96248.html

OpenBSD "suggests" non-free software?

--
jakemsr@...
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[fuzzyping]

On Dec 10, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Uwe Dippel wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:20:00 -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>
>> That being said, the OpenBSD developers have given their arguments  
>> why
>> they include firmware and non-free ports, and RMS has given his
>> arguments why he doesn't recommend systems that do.  I don't see this
>> thread leading to reconciliation of the two sides.
>
> Thanks, Matthew, for some balances in this thread.
> I don't see a need to reconcile the two sides. (It would be good if  
> that
> was possible, though.)
>
> RMS wrote, why in his personal opinion, he does not recommend the  
> use of
> OpenBSD. And some p*** at him. What a shame ! 'Freedom' is not only
> one's choice of software, but also one's choice of an own opinion.
> It would serve this list and the people on it well, to allow RMS to  
> voice
> his own opinion. And, if in personal disagreement, argue. Like some
> actually did in here.

Nobody is criticizing RMS over his opinion.  They are criticizing him  
for ignorance and misrepresentation of the facts regarding OpenBSD.

---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

[Tito Mari Francis Escaño]

2007/12/11 Uwe Dippel <udippel@...>:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:20:00 -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> I don't see a need to reconcile the two sides. (It would be good if that
> was possible, though.)
Unfortunately, BSD and GNU come from different perspective, hence
different philosophy of what free and open source software
could/would/should be.

In my opinion (and I welcome correction on this one), BSD historically
came from the perspective of academically improving a proprietary AT&T
software while moving away from the original proprietary code and
fully disclose the improved code while still providing for the
proprietary software to incorporate those academic improvements with
further option to keep their proprietary enhancement to themselves.
This option for incorporating and optionally withholding those
improvements is what many cite as BSD's more liberal licensing
feature.

GNU and GPL, on the other hand, comes from the struggle against
proprietary software entities and ward off interest of incorporating
free and open source code into the fold of closed-source proprietary
software thus ensuring the availability of the source code for
enhancement and oblige the availability of those improvements to all.
This obligation on the part of those improving the source code is
criticized as restrictive, but it guarantees full source code
improvement/change disclosure.


--
Tito Mari Francis H. Escaqo
Computer Engineer and Free Software Proponent

[Lars Nooden]

Jason Dixon wrote:

> Nobody is criticizing RMS over his opinion.  They are criticizing him
> for ignorance and misrepresentation of the facts regarding OpenBSD.

And the solution for that is to point out the factors which
differentiate OpenBSD from the others, because it is these
characteristics which RMS actually praised during the BSDTalk interview.

Possibly there is a bit of confusion between FreeBSD which is oriented
towards proprietary binaries and OpenBSD which requires full source code.

-Lars