Real men don't attack straw men

[David Walker-3]

Richard.

Belief systems are vital for living.
Every conscious act is the result of a belief.

Thoughts are the waters from which belief systems are distilled.
None of us know everything. We know very little.
In our desire to provide for ourselves a framework to live by, many ideas
we have are distilled into beliefs - without full possession of all the
pertinent evidence.
This is pragmatic. How we get things done.
We can classify beliefs as critical or trivial.
The only important step is that we scan for evidence that disallows.
Vigilantly.

Why?
There are two types of belief system.
Sanity. Valid belief systems. No evidence available that disallows the
belief.
Psychosis. Invalid belief systems. Evidence exists which disallows the
belief.

As a result of our imperfect knowledge our belief systems are initially weak.
When we come across new evidence relating to one of our beliefs we
recognize the need to re-evaluate.
That engenders the possibility of relegating the belief to the scrap heap.
We imagine life without it and see chaos instead of opportunity.
That can be scary.
The scare can lead to resistance.
For many of our beliefs, no matter our resistance, life steps in and shows
us the error of our ways.

Awareness of this process, sometimes through much pain, leads to acceptance.

Why?
As we grow we realize the bigger danger is that we allow untenable beliefs
to to remain.
Somehow, the effort required to be vigilant is not as hard to muster as
the effort to swim against the current.
Furthermore, when we re-evaluate beliefs and find they are still tenable
they become more useful.
We turn straw houses into stone.
We become a bit wiser.

As we move through life we generally learn about ourselves and the way we
resist re-evaluating our beliefs.
One common method is to "play the man and not the ball". This is an
attempt at sidestepping and sending standard input to /dev/null with exit
0.
We do this by calling the emotion subroutine.
Although this is insightful programming - we recognize the conditions that
cause an error in our software - we do not deal with them skillfully but
rather program them out.
The real sadness is not the harm we do to others but rather the
opportunity we deny ourselves to pull down our straw houses and build
stone ones.

One method used to resist re-evaluation is mislabelling.
This is another emotion subroutine.
If one method is daring and another careful most men might see possibility
of success in either.
However applying labels such as "reckless" and "foolhardy" turns brave
into dangerous.
Likewise if cautious becomes "stereotypical" and "mainstream" who would
achieve anything by choosing it?

Computer software is an industry.
It is not life or death.
It is not killing babies.
It is not tipping cows over.

The licenses are (electronic) pieces of paper.
Nothing about the licensing is bad.
Nothing about the licensing is wrong.
Nothing about the licensing is immoral.
Nothing about the licensing is unethical.
Absolutely nothing about the licensing has to do with your conscience.

You may not like them. They may differ from yours.
They are only labellable with the terms you choose in two ways.
They are an affront to humanity. I expect to see media coverage and/or
rebellion.
They are an affront to other business. I expect to see other software
manufacturers causing a stink.
Instead there is one group swimming against the current.
I would expect in either of these two cases the government to step in.
After all, the government regulates industry for the people.
If the licenses are bad and wrong, etcetera that is under the government's
purview.
Trade practices acts, etcetera.
None of the labels fit.

Richard Stallman wrote in this thread:
"non-free software to be unethical and antisocial".
"with a clear conscience to someone".
"I might say the act was bad, or I might say it was good, depending on the
details not specified." On non-free software.
"then those users have done something bad". On installing non-free software.
"endorses it and takes on the ethical responsibility for it." On making it
easier to install non-free software.

Richard Stallman said on BSD Talk:
"there's no point in discussing how to use non-free software because you
shouldn't".
"in many parts of the world the governments uses servers that run windows
and you can only talk to them if you're using windows. So these
governments have essentially been corrupted into pushing the citizens to
use non-free (unintelligble) software" -7:15
"well actually I don't try to do that very much, I don't bring this issue
up from the viewpoint of why you, developing a program would find it
advantageous to respect other peoples freedom; because the point is it's
your moral duty. You've got no right to trample other peoples freedom,
non-free software is a social problem - it's wrong." -10:05
"well if it's a non-free license then you shouldn't use that code at all.
Period - because it's not ethical." -20:15
"the unethical nature of a non-free program is something more important.
It's an ethical question." -20:30
"Well, yes, There are, there are unethical distributions of gnu slash
linux. There are lots, in fact most of 'em do include non-free software
which means that if you're installing one of those you might get a system
that isn't entirely freedom respecting" -21:00
"this is the ethical standard I believe in and I follow" on not
recommending any "non-free" software.
"there's no point in discussing how to use non-free software because you
shouldn't".

What is the effect?
When you misappropriate labels you run your emotion subroutine.
People who do not understand the technical questions of licensing may be
swayed by your labels.
Especially people who know who you are.
Ray Percival wrote:
"So a high profile public figure talking out of his ass and
representing things he's not informed about as facts as opposed to
asking questions to get informed is better ... how? That's what we
would expect from a political activist not an engineer."
I quite agree.
Ray is talking about your misinformation about OpenBSD.
It also applies to the manner in which you describe those that are
different to you.

As much as it may seem like you are playing the man and not the ball I
don't believe you are.
I believe you are running your mislabelling emotion subroutine to avoid
the consideration that you need to pull down your straw house.

Richard, it seems to me the recurrent themes of your 'philosophy' are
untenable.
However, what bothers me the most about it is your misappropriation of
terms. For example your "definition" of freedom.
It is much more damaging than influencing opinion and resisting
re-examination.
It is disrespectful to use terms like freedom and bad and wrong in the
manner you do.
These terms belong in four wheel drive and deodorant commercials as
reflections of the aspirations and failures of humanity.
Other than that in the humdrum of triumph and pain of people who are
oppressed and downtrodden.

What will you cry if a wolf ever comes?

David




And you post again.
"Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-free software?  Not I.  I think that software is
unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone.  But I
have not proposed that systems actually block its installation."

If I for one moment believed that any code I write should not be used with
some other software and considered it bad, wrong, unethical, immoral,
etcetera I would take what steps were available technically to prevent
that from occurring.
The steps I took would be directly related to the severity of the
potential problem.

Two methods for you.
1. Do what licensers do. Regulate the possibility.
Want to drive an automobile? Here is your license. Obey the road rules. No
drink driving, no speeding, etcetera. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It comes with driving.
Want to use this "free" software? Here is your license. Availability of
source and all that. No non-free software.
2. Do what manufacturers do. Design against the possibility.
Of course someone will hack you. "Happy hacking".

BTW, on the issue of government and Windows.
There are two different issues.
A. Transfer of information. Not a "free" software issue.
If a government uses Windows and you cannot access documents that is
government disregarding it's procedure (at least where I live). The
corruption is the disregard of their own policy regarding access to
information. It has nothing to do with the software they use.
The salient discussion is open document standards.
B. Transparency of procedure. Not a "free" software issue.
If a government uses Windows and you cannot determine what happens to the
information (is some "lost", "siphoned", "munged", etcetera) that is also
government disregarding it's procedure (at least where I live). The
corruption is the disregard of their own policy regarding transparency of
procedure. It has nothing to do with the software they use.
If this does not make sense to you, consider other government functions
such as security. Would you expect an audit of the operation of the
intelligence network of a nation to be made public?
The salient discussion is independent auditing of software.

Everything else is a furphy.

[ropers]

On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> If OpenBSD eliminates the non-free programs from the ports system
> that it recommends to users, then I will consider it good.

Richard,

I'm trying very hard here to assume that you're acting in good faith,
and frankly, your words make it A LOT simpler to assume that you are
acting in bad faith, which is what Theo and many others have long
since resigned themselves to assuming (hence the reactions you're
getting).

You said "Real men don't attack straw men". Yet this is *EXACTLY* what
you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write that OpenBSD
recommends the ports system to its users, *which it does not*. Let me
say that once again: OpenBSD recommends that EVERYBODY USE PACKAGES,
NOT THE PORTS TREE.

When you started this discussion, I assumed that you were simply ill
informed about the OpenBSD packages and ports systems and the
difference between them and how they intersect.
Misunderstandings or having a misconception are no shame,
But you now have already been told that OpenBSD recommends packages
and that it does not recommend the ports tree. Yet you continue to
criticise OpenBSD based on your (incorrect) view that it recommends
the ports tree.

That is a straw man argument.

OpenBSD does not recommend the ports tree.
It says right in the FAQ in *bold* letters:
"Everyone is encouraged to use the pre-compiled binary packages."
( http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports )
You should know this.
I alone have told you so again
  http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119741909911558&w=2
and again
  http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119743259725428&w=2
and again
  http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119745441717134&w=2
and again
  http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119746948206930&w=2
and others have concurred
  http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119746051925719&w=2

Richard, I if you are in fact merely ill-informed and not acting in
bad faith, then I would like to offer you to have a one on one email
conversation, where I will be happy to explain to you exactly the
nature of the OpenBSD ports and packages systems. But let's do that
off-list, because people here already know this, and having that
discussion on-list would just further worsen the signal to noise
ratio.

But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119741909911558&w=2

A long time ago, possibly after your post-FOSDEM '05 clash with Theo,
I had a private email discussion with Theo where he held that you were
acting in bad faith. Without knowing you personally, I said that I
didn't think you necessarily did and there could be other reasons for
perceived sleights, such as unfamiliarity with the subject matter at
hand. Your repeated inaccurate statements and apparent straw man
arguments weaken my side and lend more credence to the assumption that
you are purposefully acting in bad faith, which an increasing number
of misc readers now subscribe to.

Again, please answer my emails, and please send me a private email, so
we can both better familiarise ourselves with each other's reasoning
without further irritating the readers of the very busy misc list.

Thanks and regards,
--ropers (Jens Ropers)

ropers@...
ropers@...

[Travers Buda-2]

* Richard Stallman <rms@...> [2007-12-12 17:52:29]:

>     In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
>     software
>
> Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
> running non-GPL-covered software?  Not I.  I frequently run OpenSSH,
> whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if
> my memory serves).  It is free software, so why not use it?
>
> Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
> running non-free software?  Not I.  I think that software is
> unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone.  But I
> have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.
>
> If no one is in favor, why argue against?
>

So you support the freedom to install whatever the hell you want?
However, the OS should not suggest that to the user?

I guess everything is fine unless the secret gets out...
Especially since it's pretty easy to add new repositories on many
ports systems.

I think that if you do get what you want,
Stallman, it's going to be because the user wants that too.  It's
their choice, and _I don't see how operating systems should be
incharge of morality._

The people who ought to be incharge of morality are people themselves.
Every person needs to make a conscious decision to act in such and
such a manner.  You can certainly advise them, but heavy-handed
action such as gNewSense is a bit too much for me.

It also seems silly to me this idea between "tainted" and "clean"
oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively.  Take for example
a user that runs Ubuntu Linux but proscribes to your free-only
philosophy.  They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin
(which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not
to.  If they are choosing not to do it because of ideological
grounds, they are probably well-informed.  The only difference in
the end is choice.  It's the choice that matters, not what the
distribution ships with.  Hell, still on this example user, adobe
flash could even come installed and they never use it, what's the
difference between that and gNewSense?  Is it the orientation of
the bits on their hard drive that matters?  How about their neighbor's
hard drive?

Where do you draw the line?

--
Travers Buda

[badeguruji]

David, wonderful writeup!

there is a guy here at work, he is full of extra(sometimes called crap or standup), nobody takes him seriously. He is always talking(trying to discuss) religion/philosophy/societies/real-estate/what-not! etc... which people quietly skip. BUT once in a while, he says something which sucks otherwise sane and hardworking people into his nonsense... and then we see: trying-to-talk-sense vs nonsense. Its hilarious, and complete waste of time. We have moved him to midnight shift: to help midniters stay awake.

mud: more you try to wash it, more muddy it becomes...

Love you all.
-BG
 
________________________________
~~Kalyan-mastu~~

----- Original Message ----
From: David Walker <david@...>
To: misc@...
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:40:28 PM
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men


Richard.

Belief systems are vital for living.
Every conscious act is the result of a belief.

Thoughts are the waters from which belief systems are distilled.
None of us know everything. We know very little.
In our desire to provide for ourselves a framework to live by, many
 ideas
we have are distilled into beliefs - without full possession of all the
pertinent evidence.
This is pragmatic. How we get things done.
We can classify beliefs as critical or trivial.
The only important step is that we scan for evidence that disallows.
Vigilantly.

Why?
There are two types of belief system.
Sanity. Valid belief systems. No evidence available that disallows the
belief.
Psychosis. Invalid belief systems. Evidence exists which disallows the
belief.

As a result of our imperfect knowledge our belief systems are initially
 weak.
When we come across new evidence relating to one of our beliefs we
recognize the need to re-evaluate.
That engenders the possibility of relegating the belief to the scrap
 heap.
We imagine life without it and see chaos instead of opportunity.
That can be scary.
The scare can lead to resistance.
For many of our beliefs, no matter our resistance, life steps in and
 shows
us the error of our ways.

Awareness of this process, sometimes through much pain, leads to
 acceptance.

Why?
As we grow we realize the bigger danger is that we allow untenable
 beliefs
to to remain.
Somehow, the effort required to be vigilant is not as hard to muster as
the effort to swim against the current.
Furthermore, when we re-evaluate beliefs and find they are still
 tenable
they become more useful.
We turn straw houses into stone.
We become a bit wiser.

As we move through life we generally learn about ourselves and the way
 we
resist re-evaluating our beliefs.
One common method is to "play the man and not the ball". This is an
attempt at sidestepping and sending standard input to /dev/null with
 exit
0.
We do this by calling the emotion subroutine.
Although this is insightful programming - we recognize the conditions
 that
cause an error in our software - we do not deal with them skillfully
 but
rather program them out.
The real sadness is not the harm we do to others but rather the
opportunity we deny ourselves to pull down our straw houses and build
stone ones.

One method used to resist re-evaluation is mislabelling.
This is another emotion subroutine.
If one method is daring and another careful most men might see
 possibility
of success in either.
However applying labels such as "reckless" and "foolhardy" turns brave
into dangerous.
Likewise if cautious becomes "stereotypical" and "mainstream" who would
achieve anything by choosing it?

Computer software is an industry.
It is not life or death.
It is not killing babies.
It is not tipping cows over.

The licenses are (electronic) pieces of paper.
Nothing about the licensing is bad.
Nothing about the licensing is wrong.
Nothing about the licensing is immoral.
Nothing about the licensing is unethical.
Absolutely nothing about the licensing has to do with your conscience.

You may not like them. They may differ from yours.
They are only labellable with the terms you choose in two ways.
They are an affront to humanity. I expect to see media coverage and/or
rebellion.
They are an affront to other business. I expect to see other software
manufacturers causing a stink.
Instead there is one group swimming against the current.
I would expect in either of these two cases the government to step in.
After all, the government regulates industry for the people.
If the licenses are bad and wrong, etcetera that is under the
 government's
purview.
Trade practices acts, etcetera.
None of the labels fit.

Richard Stallman wrote in this thread:
"non-free software to be unethical and antisocial".
"with a clear conscience to someone".
"I might say the act was bad, or I might say it was good, depending on
 the
details not specified." On non-free software.
"then those users have done something bad". On installing non-free
 software.
"endorses it and takes on the ethical responsibility for it." On making
 it
easier to install non-free software.

Richard Stallman said on BSD Talk:
"there's no point in discussing how to use non-free software because
 you
shouldn't".
"in many parts of the world the governments uses servers that run
 windows
and you can only talk to them if you're using windows. So these
governments have essentially been corrupted into pushing the citizens
 to
use non-free (unintelligble) software" -7:15
"well actually I don't try to do that very much, I don't bring this
 issue
up from the viewpoint of why you, developing a program would find it
advantageous to respect other peoples freedom; because the point is
 it's
your moral duty. You've got no right to trample other peoples freedom,
non-free software is a social problem - it's wrong." -10:05
"well if it's a non-free license then you shouldn't use that code at
 all.
Period - because it's not ethical." -20:15
"the unethical nature of a non-free program is something more
 important.
It's an ethical question." -20:30
"Well, yes, There are, there are unethical distributions of gnu slash
linux. There are lots, in fact most of 'em do include non-free software
which means that if you're installing one of those you might get a
 system
that isn't entirely freedom respecting" -21:00
"this is the ethical standard I believe in and I follow" on not
recommending any "non-free" software.
"there's no point in discussing how to use non-free software because
 you
shouldn't".

What is the effect?
When you misappropriate labels you run your emotion subroutine.
People who do not understand the technical questions of licensing may
 be
swayed by your labels.
Especially people who know who you are.
Ray Percival wrote:
"So a high profile public figure talking out of his ass and
representing things he's not informed about as facts as opposed to
asking questions to get informed is better ... how? That's what we
would expect from a political activist not an engineer."
I quite agree.
Ray is talking about your misinformation about OpenBSD.
It also applies to the manner in which you describe those that are
different to you.

As much as it may seem like you are playing the man and not the ball I
don't believe you are.
I believe you are running your mislabelling emotion subroutine to avoid
the consideration that you need to pull down your straw house.

Richard, it seems to me the recurrent themes of your 'philosophy' are
untenable.
However, what bothers me the most about it is your misappropriation of
terms. For example your "definition" of freedom.
It is much more damaging than influencing opinion and resisting
re-examination.
It is disrespectful to use terms like freedom and bad and wrong in the
manner you do.
These terms belong in four wheel drive and deodorant commercials as
reflections of the aspirations and failures of humanity.
Other than that in the humdrum of triumph and pain of people who are
oppressed and downtrodden.

What will you cry if a wolf ever comes?

David




And you post again.
"Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-free software?  Not I.  I think that software is
unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone.  But I
have not proposed that systems actually block its installation."

If I for one moment believed that any code I write should not be used
 with
some other software and considered it bad, wrong, unethical, immoral,
etcetera I would take what steps were available technically to prevent
that from occurring.
The steps I took would be directly related to the severity of the
potential problem.

Two methods for you.
1. Do what licensers do. Regulate the possibility.
Want to drive an automobile? Here is your license. Obey the road rules.
 No
drink driving, no speeding, etcetera. Ignorance of the law is no
 excuse.
It comes with driving.
Want to use this "free" software? Here is your license. Availability of
source and all that. No non-free software.
2. Do what manufacturers do. Design against the possibility.
Of course someone will hack you. "Happy hacking".

BTW, on the issue of government and Windows.
There are two different issues.
A. Transfer of information. Not a "free" software issue.
If a government uses Windows and you cannot access documents that is
government disregarding it's procedure (at least where I live). The
corruption is the disregard of their own policy regarding access to
information. It has nothing to do with the software they use.
The salient discussion is open document standards.
B. Transparency of procedure. Not a "free" software issue.
If a government uses Windows and you cannot determine what happens to
 the
information (is some "lost", "siphoned", "munged", etcetera) that is
 also
government disregarding it's procedure (at least where I live). The
corruption is the disregard of their own policy regarding transparency
 of
procedure. It has nothing to do with the software they use.
If this does not make sense to you, consider other government functions
such as security. Would you expect an audit of the operation of the
intelligence network of a nation to be made public?
The salient discussion is independent auditing of software.

Everything else is a furphy.

[Amarendra Godbole]

On Dec 13, 2007 4:58 AM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:

> > Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
> > running non-free software?  Not I.  I think that software is
> > unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone.  But I
> > have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.
>
> Yet you were in an interview where you argued against using OpenBSD,
> because it permits users to run non-free software.
>
> Your argument was that OpenBSD contains non-free parts in it's
> ports tree.
>
> This has been proven to be false.
>
> Here, go have a look
>
>       ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/poerts.tar.gz

The correct URL is:
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/ports.tar.gz (~13.5M)

-Amarendra

> It's just an entirely free scaffold of Makefiles and little patches.
> Nothing more.  It is 100% source, and it is 100% free.
>
> If you are going to go around making pronouncements from your pulpit,
> you might want to go educate yourself.
>
> But once again, you failed to educate yourself before you opened your
> big fat mouth on a talk show and stated utterly uneducated and false
> statements .  You have had ample opportunity to say "I was wrong", yet
> you have not done so yet.
>
> You keep argueing, and that is because you are a coward.

[Richard Stallman]

    his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a
    "social failure".

If some people think that, they did not get it from me.  I do not call
BSD either of those things.  I say that releasing free software under
a non-copyleft free software license is basically good (i.e., not
evil), but that using copyleft is better.

    recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
    GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
    BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.

I don't think it is wrong in general to relicense code from BSD to
GPL.  However, in some cases I think it is more useful not to do so,
in order to contribute changes back to the original BSD-licensed
project.

If such an issue arises for a GNU package, and people think it is not
doing the most useful thing, I will look at the issue and then if
necessary discuss it with the developers.

However, if such an issue arises for a program which is not a GNU
package, I will not get involved unless the developers ask me for
advice.

[Richard Stallman]

    Richard's words are the essence of the Free Software Foundation and
    the GNU General Public License: people _must_ use free software,
    people _can_ decide whether to use free software or not, but people
    _must not_ be free to exercise that desire.

That is not what I said.  See several other postings of mine today for
a statement of my views.

    // Check whether this is good shit
    if (allows(project, free_software) && ! allows(project, non_free_software))
           add_to_list(project);

If you replace "allows" with "contains or recommends"
then it will accurately reflect what I said.

    Since The Free Software foundation mission is to "preserve, protect
    and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute
    computer software" (free software), please, Richard, remove Linux from
    the Free Software Directory (since "Torvalds' version of Linux is not
    free software", and that is the version listed in the directory);

I will ask the person who maintains the directory to remove Linux
or else point to a free version of it.  Thank you for pointing out
this problem.

[Richard Stallman]

    Users have responsability for what they do. We do not take responsability
    for them. We give them enough information to make their informed decision.

    In my opinion, that's the ethical way to do things.

In my opinion, we ought to take responsibility for the recommendations
and assistance we give to others.  Thus, we should not steer people
towards non-free software.  Even though they are not forced to follow
our advice, we are still responsible for having given it.

    In BSD land, we trust the human nature. We're not condescending to our
    users, we treat them as adults and we let them make *their* own ethical
    choice and take their own decision.

You cannot claim the credit for "letting" them, because it is a fact
that they can do so in any case.  It is misleading to speak of "letting"
or "stopping" the users from installing non-free software.

What's really going on is that you are helping them use the non-free
software, which grants it legitimacy.  That is what I object to.

[Richard Stallman]

    > However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
    > its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
    > the ethical responsibility for it.

    Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical because it allows
    compilation of non-free software.

That isn't the same argument, or even the same issue.

You are talking about what the user can do.
I'm talking about something else: what the system distro suggests
that the user do.

[Richard Stallman]

    If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
    imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the
    book?  Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect
    the citizenry?  Absolutely not.

A system distribution is more like an anthology than like a library.
We do consider the editor of the anthology book responsible for the choice
of what to include.

[Richard Stallman]

    However, it is trivially easy to use the
    gNewSense apt system to install unfree software.

Any general-purpose system can run non-free software, but that's not
the issue.  The issue is whether a distribution refers people to the
non-free software or not.

Since so many messages have been based on disregarding that
distinction, I suggest that everyone reread the paragraph above.

    From
    https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Skype#head-5c18cc60f56f7f5f651ee9abeca60f0ab62545f7

Ubuntu does many things that suggest installing non-free software.  I
did not know about this example, but I know of others which are worse.
That is why I refuse to recommend Ubuntu.

[Richard Stallman]

    gNewSense uses the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel facilitates utilization of
    non-free blobs.

gNewSense does not include, or refer to, or tell people about
the drivers that use non-free blobs.

Torvalds's decision to put blobs into Linux was a bad one, but
gNewSense is ok because it does not follow Torvalds' bad decision.

[Richard Stallman]

    Interestingly enough, if you specified that as the reason you recommend
    against using OpenBSD, this thread would have been a lot shorter.

Maybe it would have led to a shorter thread, but it would not have
been accurate.  My decision not to recommend OpenBSD was not based on
personalities.

[Richard Stallman]

    Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the
    freedom of choice in the name of freedom.

Freedom means having control of your own life; "Freedom of choice" is
a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and
taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions.
Thus, I say I advocate "freedom" -- not "freedom of choice".

This always leads to the question of "which freedom?"  In the area of
software, I want a society in which users are free to run software,
free study and change its source code and make their changed versions
run, and free to redistribute changed and unchanged versions.  In
other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't
exist.

Establishing a free society that endures generally requires not
allowing people to give up freedom.  In other words, it requires
inalienable rights.  I do not want a society in which people had those
freedoms only until they gave them up.

I do not say this with the expectation that you will agree with me.
It sounds like you are as firmly convinced of your views as I am of
mine.  I hope, though, that at least you will understand better
what my position is.

[Richard Stallman]

    > > Yes, that's what I was told.  I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
    > > system includes non-free programs.  Is that accurate too?
    >
    > Strictly speaking, no.  If you unpack ports.tar.gz
    > you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
    > & c., all of which are free.

I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system
includes instructions for fetching, building and installing specific
non-free programs.  I usually simplify that to "includes" because I
figured anyone who knows about the ports system understands those
details, and because they don't change anything.

    It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
    knows how to build that non-free software.   But the entire ports
    tree has no non-free software in it at all.

    Does that make it non-free?

Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
non-free programs.  It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".

    Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
    to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?

No, that's a totally different question.

Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO.
Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO.

The answer to Q1 is always yes.  I'm concerned with Q2.

[Richard Stallman]

    As far as I understand, the OpenBSD position appears to be that trying
    to police users by forbidding them to maintain and retrieve port
    metadata about unfree software via this adjunct service (that is not
    included in the OS) would be a restriction of the users' freedom.

Obviously I disagree with that position.  This isn't an issue of the
users' freedom at all.  It is an issue of what OpenBSD says to the
public.

[Richard Stallman]

    Do you believe that The Pirate Bay is guilty of copyright infringement?

That is a legal question, not an ethical question.  I do not know what
the law of any given country would say about the Pirate Bay.  You
would need to ask a lawyer.

Instead of that legal question, we could ask an ethical question: is
The Pirate Bay's activity right or wrong?

In general, I think people have a moral right to share copies of
published works, so I see no reason to criticize the Pirate Bay in
general.  However, I would not recommend that as a place to look for
software, both because some of the software might be non-free, and for
security reasons.

If OpenBSD could spin off the ports system (perhaps people could put
it on the Pirate Bay), and break off connection with it, then it would
cease to convey any message from OpenBSD to the users.  Then I could
recommend OpenBSD while not recommending its ports system.  Currently,
that option does not exist.

[Richard Stallman]

LAME is free software, but distributing it may be dangerous.  I do not
criticize those who distribute it.  Meanwhile, the FSF support efforts
to reject MP3 format and adopt OGG formats.

[Richard Stallman]

     From license.txt in the unrar source archive:
    -----
    The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives
    without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the
    RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
    -----

UnRAR seems to be a real problem.  I will discuss it with the BLAG
developers.

[Richard Stallman]

    So, it would seem that (barring human error) the primary philosophical
    difference between the packaging systems of OpenBSD and gNewSense is
    that gNewSense tries to prevent you from seeing any packages they
    consider non-Free, while OpenBSD directly provides only Free software
    (Packages) but gives the user a choice of installing any software
    (Ports).

The above description of gNewSense is inaccurate.  gNewSense doesn't
try to "prevent" you from seeing anything.  How could stop you?

What gNewSense does is avoid suggesting non-free programs you might
use.

The above description of OpenBSD is not false, but it is misleading.
OpenBSD can't "give" (or not give) users the the choice of installing
non-free software, any more than I could "give" you (or not give you)
the choice of what to eat for dinner tomorrow.  It's simply a fact
that non-free software can be installed on any general-purpose system.

The difference between gNewSense and OpenBSD which is the cause of my
different judgment of them is that OpenBSD presents non-free software
in the list of programs it can install for you (through the ports
system), and gNewSense doesn't.