Real men don't attack straw men

[Gordon Grieder]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:06AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

> 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.

Interesting.

So have you sent these types of "unrecommendations" to other OS'
mailing lists or just OpenBSD's?

gg

[marina-25]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

>    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.
>
>

An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports
tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to.

Your argument here fails.

--- Marina Brown

[L-9]

>>     Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
>>     conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
>>     even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
>>     first place.
>>
>> Someone else attacked me on this list for not discussing this with
>> Theo.  I explained the reason in the gentlest way I could think of.

The same argument could be made about your unfriendliness. We could not
talk to you since you have *proven* to be unfriendly:

http://z505.com/images/gnu-sign.png

Any programmer or philosopher worth his salt can appear critical,
analytical, or unfriendly at times. Security experts especially.

I doubt someone who is truly unfriendly could organize a hackathon, a
friendly social event. Remember, this is just email after all, Stallman.
Take some of it with a grain of salt.

Any time someone brings up the fact that openbsd has unfriendly
programmers, we are to call them on it.

Label it as:
     The OpenBSD Cliche

"Cliche: an idea that has been overused to the point of losing its
intended force or novelty,"

That way, when anyone regurgitates this same old tired "openbsd
programmers are unfriendly" argument, we can redirect them to a FUQ or FAQ.

An example demonstration of this:

Bum Bum wrote in message:
 > "blah blah blah OpenBSD programmers are unfriendly blah blah blah
 >  blah blah blah blah blah Not friendly blah blah Don't use it blah
 >  blah blah Because they are unfriendly blah blah blah"

Hello Bum Bum, that is an invalid argument. Please see:
     "The OpenBSD Cliche".

It is in the FUQ under the beaten dead horse section.

Regards,
L505

"A philosopher who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job."
--Plato (source: Wikipedia)

"A programmer who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job."
--L505 (source: Z505)

[Mayuresh Kathe]

Good people of MISC land, could we please drop this thread, its lasted
way longer than really needed.

RMS has his viewpoint and would prefer to defend it.
We have our own war cry, "Shut-up and hack" :-)

Best,

On Dec 13, 2007 10:22 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> 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.

[Mattieu Baptiste-2]

On Dec 13, 2007 5:52 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>    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.


You manipulate my comments. Your point was :

"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."

We all know that the linux kernel (on which gNewSense is based) has an "easy
way to install" binary blobs, like nvidia binary drivers. I wasn't speaking
about non free blobs that are in the Torvald's kernel but the nvidia one
that is NOT in it. Moreover, this facility to install blobs that the linux
kernel *provides* comes with the base gNewSense system... OpenBSD non-free
packages are not in the base system and not even available...


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


This sounds to me simply wrong because your statements are full of
contradictions.



--
Mattieu Baptiste
"/earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can."

[Tom Rosso]

On Dec 13, 2007 9:51 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I don't believe anybody who has followed this thread over the last couple
days could misunderstand your opinion on references to non-free software in
a distribution.  But I don't think I've seen a post from a single person on
this mailing list who agrees with that opinion.  If I'm wrong, let me know.

Tom

[Theo de Raadt]

>     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.

Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to
compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,
you are a slimy hypocrite.

> Thus, we should not steer people towards non-free software.

Both those software packages steer people towards being able to use
emacs and gcc on commercial systems.

You are a hypocritical liar, Richard.

[Dope Ice Apollyon the Third]

On 12/13/07, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> >  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.

What? No.. it is wrong. You can't just change the license on people!
You might have meant "I don't think it is wrong in general to get
permission from the original authors to relicense code from BSD to
GPL" but it doesn't sound like that.
And in *all* cases it is useful not to do so, because you should
always be trying to integrate fixes upstream.

-Nick

[Theo de Raadt]

>     > 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.

The actual real issue is that gcc has code in it to let it compile on
Solaris, and even on Windows.

That encourages users to continue using non-free software.

Richard, you are a big hypocrite.

[Theo de Raadt]

>     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.

GCC contains a file called config/sol2.h:

/* Operating system specific defines to be used when targeting GCC for any
   Solaris 2 system.
   Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

What does that say to the public?  It says you can use gcc on a non-free
operating system.

How's it feel to be a hypocrite?

What about

     gcc/config/rs6000/aix.h
     gcc/config/vax/vms.h

Or how about gcc/config/i386/win32.h:

/* Operating system specific defines to be used when targeting GCC for
   hosting on Windows NT 3.x, using a Unix style C library and tools,
   as distinct from winnt.h, which is used to build GCC for use with a
   windows style library and tool set and uses the Microsoft tools.
   Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002
   Free Software Foundation, Inc.

And hordes -- thousands upon thousands -- of #ifdef's and other crap
to support the Windows ABI.

I note that date of 1995 on the above file.  That's around the last time
when you were around actually touching code, right?

Richard, you are a total hypocrite.  You are in here creating a fuss about
our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same
thing yourself.

[Erik Wikström-2]

On 2007-12-13 17:51, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     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.

Yes, but we do not automatically assume that he recommend or endorse
what the included text discusses. If that was so we would have to assume
that anyone writing a book about the holocaust also approves. Telling a
person about something is not the same thing as telling someone to do it.

--
Erik WikstrC6m

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 13/12/2007, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>     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.

OpenBSD neither includes nor promotes any non-free software.  However,
like any unbiased material, it does contain a complete and detailed
reference list, called 'ports'.

Please note, that there is no automated process about getting ports
onto your system. The only thing that the OpenBSD install process can
install for you is the base system, which actually happens to have a
lot of software in it as it is, from X and apache, to gcc and lynx. So
unlike other BSD systems, which heavily depend on you installing both
ports and packages for various components of the system, OpenBSD
requires neither ports nor packages for the day to day operation.

C.

[Darrin Chandler]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:14AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     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.

Then there's the practical side to consider. Most computer users simply
do not care about freedom. They only want their stuff to work. Even
among the local Linux crowd in my town, if I bring up an issue of
freedom I get a frigid response, or even outright anger. Mostly they
want a blanket blessing for using Free Software (even when it's not),
and they want to stick it to Microsoft. And... they don't want to think,
or evaluate, and make a tough choice.

So, in that sense GNU, the FSF, and your personal recommendations aren't
having the effects they should. Hmm.

In the past years I've been using OpenBSD I've had more education on
software freedom than the previous decade of using Linux. As a
community, OpenBSD users are much more aware of these issues, I believe.
If you can accept that, then consider that a more educated user base is
more capable of making their own decisions. The ports collection
includes some licensing information about each port's Makefile. The
binary packages do not contain non-free software at all. So OpenBSD has
given me plenty of information to make a choice.

So, in practice, OpenBSD is doing just fine to promote software
freedoms. If principles are important then it's important to see those
principles used in everyday life by the community at large.

If you can't recommend OpenBSD from where you stand maybe you should
have a fresh look from somewhere just a few feet away. Things look
different from here.

--
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
dwchandler@...   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2007/12/13 11:51, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I'm talking about something else: what the system distro suggests
> that the user do.

OpenBSD does not suggest that people use ports. We suggest people
use binary packages.

With two exceptions (which look like they're marked in error since
their licenses do indeed allow source code redistribution), where we
provide a binary package, we also provide the source distribution
files used to build them.

[William Boshuck]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     > > Yes, that's what I was told.  I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
>     > > system includes non-free programs.  Is that accurate too?
>     > (William Boshuck replied:)
>     > 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.

Yes, that would be the truth.  What you did say, however,
is not the truth.

>   I usually simplify that to "includes"

At which point you would not be telling the truth about OpenBSD.

> because I figured anyone who knows about the ports system
> understands those details, and because they don't change
> anything.

It does change one thing (at least).  Namely, it changes a true
statement about OpenBSD into a lie about OpenBSD.

Don't confuse my aims with those of others with whom you are
exchanging messages.

I am not trying to convince you to recommend OpenBSD.

I want you to tell the truth.

[Eric Furman-3]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:52:01 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:
>     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.

##The following does *NOT* in any way express the opinions or
##goals of OBSD. They are mine alone.##

So what? I couldn't care less about the FSF or any free software
initiative. I don't see any problem with someone trying to sell a
piece of software that they produced through their own hard labor.
If people want to write software and give it away for nothing, they
are *free* to do that too. I don't get this whole "unethical" stance.
It's total BS. If you don't want to pay for software, fine don't, but
don't go on some religious crusade trying to get me to believe it's
unethical so I won't either. If someone painted a picture and then
tried to sell it for money in an art gallery then that would be
"unethical" too? Oh, come on!
I also don't give a rats ass whether Richard Stallman recommends
OBSD or not and I don't think any of the developers do either.
All this crappy thread has done is make Richard Stallman more
Googleable. And I'm sorry that I facilitated that.

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 13/12/2007, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     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.

That option does exist. Ports tree is not installed by default. Users
are not required to install the ports tree. When installing software,
the ports tree is viewed as a last resort by both users and developers
of OpenBSD. So if you refer someone to use OpenBSD, and tell them not
to use the ports tree, they'll do just fine without using it.

C.

[ben calvert]

Would everyone in the room who maintain a complete, working operating  
system please raise their hands?

would everyone who is forced to co-opt or recommend other people's  
operating systems... because their own is unfinished... please go away  
and write some code or something?

thank you very much

[Theo de Raadt]

> >    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.
> >
> >
>
> An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports
> tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to.

Yet on Richard's side of this fence, emacs and gcc _directly include_
code which lets users use those two pieces of software on commercial
operating systems.

The gcc and emacs developers -- led by Richard -- have decided the
directly include support for commercial operating systems in their
respective distributions.

Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
REMOVE such commercial operating system support.  That's a fork
Richard would surely approve of.

Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.

[Tom Rosso]

On Dec 13, 2007 10:30 AM, Mayuresh Kathe <kathe.mayuresh@...> wrote:

> Good people of MISC land, could we please drop this thread, its lasted
> way longer than really needed.
>

I'm enjoying watching RMS struggle and fail to make any headway with his
argument.