Real men don't attack straw men

[Eric Furman-3]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:52:10 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:

>     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.

Many fascists have used this argument for centuries.
"Oh dear, the people are too stupid to make their own
decisions so we need to make them for them."

[Rafael Almeida]

On Dec 13, 2007 2:52 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> 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.
>

I have OpenBSD running on my machine, but I do not use the ports tree.
Therefore the option of having OpenBSD without ports exists. You could
still recommend OpenBSD except for its ports tree.

I realise, though, that the reason for you recommending something or
not is rather subjective and discussing it usually doesn't lead to
anything useful. What I oppose is to say that OpenBSD "recomends"
nonfree software.

When you say "OpenBSD recommends non-free software" it leads people to
think that the project tries to convince people to use non-free
software. That's not true at all. The project doesn't support it and
it doesn't try to tell the user he should use it. OpenBSD's port
system merely acknolowdges the existence of non-free software and
makes it easier for the people who chose to install it. That's hardly
recommendation. Moreover, and this is subjective highly subjective, I
think we all should try to make people's life easier and acknowledge
others efforts, even if we think differently. Letting people maintain
non-free packages is giving space to people who think differently than
the OpenBSD developers. And that's a positive thing.

[Raimo Niskanen-7]

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

>
>     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.

It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line.
For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution
it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free
software does not exist, but just not point where to find it.

OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free software
but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step by the
user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software.
Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view.

If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free
software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port
tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some
other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution
would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort.

If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation
about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that
would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher.


But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list
of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a
completely different question.

And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is
a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD
is already freer than most, and I also feel it is.
At least in spirit.

But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman,
and he is free to have that opinion.

--

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 13, 2007 12:53 PM, Tom Rosso <tom.rosso@...> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 9:51 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> > 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.

That would be  because this is BSDLand, whereas Richard lives over
there in GPLLand.  I'm sure things would be reversed if this thread
were to take place over in GPLLand (and it would look even more
differently in RedmondLand).

I don't actually think Richard is "diss'ing" OpenBSD.  That has not
been my impression all this while.

One big problem (beyond the current discussion) is that people seem to
want to throw all the Linux issues onto Richard's shoulders - and I
think he clarified pretty well above - if it's a FSF/GNU sponsored
program, he'll speak up about it, but otherwise, he'll only speak up
if he was asked to.  In the last bruhaha about firmware and
relicensing - remember this, Richard and Linus don't see eye to eye on
things - why would people even link Richard to that issue?

And for all those people who keep trying to say that OpenBSD doesn't
support ports - we do.  If we put it out, that's the support already.
But - seriously, as a project, do we need the validation from
FSF/Richard?

Now, on the other hand, the question for Richard is this - if OpenBSD
includes ports (on the CD), which is not an installable option, which
the FAQ discourages you from using, how different/worse is this from a
linux kernel that allows blobs to be installed?  This is, of course,
based on the assumption that you can load modules into gnewsense's
running kernel.  It may be that the option has been turned off (or
unable to load tainted modules).  If the kernel is compiled to retain
the ability to load tainted modules, isn't that just as bad?

--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

[Gilles Chehade-5]

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

How comes I can boot Windows XP and compile with gcc code that was written
with emacs ? Why is it so hard for you to answer that question and tell us
why there are specific portions of code to add support for Windows in code
supposed to be free software and *endorsed* by the FSF (by endorsed I mean
that YOU provide more than Makefiles with urls) ?

You failed to answer these several times already, yet you keep on bragging
and bragging. Can you please take your incoherent propaganda elsewhere ?

--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/

[Theo de Raadt]

> 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.

Please see

       http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html

And

        ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/

What's that, there?

Emacs *binaries* for *Windows*

Supplied right by Richard's http and ftp mirrors.

Richard, I may be unfriendly, but you are a lying hypocritical
asshole.

[Christopher Linn]

http://xkcd.com/356/

--
Christopher Linn <celinn at mtu.edu>  | By no means shall either the CEC
System Administrator II               | or MTU be held in any way liable
  Center for Experimental Computation | for any opinions or conjecture I
    Michigan Technological University | hold to or imply to hold herein.

[Marc Balmer]

Richard,

while we do provide a free operating system,
http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar.

(while others promise the moon, we deliver.)

- Marc

[StrongBad]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
> ... your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
>  
There's one for usr.bin/mg/theo.c

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@...
303-443-7000 ext. 527

[Marc Balmer]

Richard "Hypocrite" Stallmann,

we, OpenBSD, are endorsing non-free software?

what is that: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html ?

old man, stop trolling.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:51:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     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.

It is not just wrong it is fucking illegal.

So much for ethics.

>
> 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.

Go talk to some of those wireless developers in Linux.  You'll find
plenty examples of unethical behavior and blatant breaking the law.

>
> 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.
>
Your advice is as useful as your recommendations.  Last time the
wireless issue was brought up you simply declined to comment.  Ethics in
action again!

I don't know what your agenda is but it stinks.  Tell us, who pays you
again?

[Michael Shalayeff-2]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:58:51AM -0700, Tom Rosso wrote:
> 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.

isn't it like hitler in '44 ?
cu
--
    paranoic mickey       (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)

[Daniel Ouellet]

Richard Stallman 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.

How could you in all conscience come and *talk, arguing, judging and
pretend to defend and promote freedom* when you are in fact publicly
promoting license to steel!?

Richard, *the secret software agent 007 with license to kill*?

How dare you to come and talk about freedom and promoting actions like that!

You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!

No wonder that it looks like the GPL code base is loosing it's ethics
and integrity so fast these days with such statement position and
advocacy statement from it's head leader!

What is really *your hidden agenda* here one would asked?

I hope it's worth it as you destroy, very quickly, what looks like you
spend a life time trying to built.

To really *talks, promote advocate and defend freedom and already free
software*, the right thing to do would be to *respect the author
freedom* and keep it under the author license of choice and *feed all
improvements and fixes upstream period*.

But what do you know about the right things to do here going, making and
promoting statement like this!

Of all people Richard, you have great power and with that comes great
responsibility, how could you make such nonsense statement!

In these circumstances, I don't think this gives you any rights or power
what so ever, to discuss other projects choices of software packages,
distributions, etc.

Best regards,

Daniel

[Jason Beaudoin]

This is what I've learned - and how my perspective has changed - In
following this thread, over the last two days:

 - Stallman cares more about appearances and outward responses than actions
 - Stallman is a hypocrite, circles himself within his words, and
attempts to confuse others in the process.
 - Words seem to mean more to Stallman than actions.
 - Stallman is incapable of admitting any wrong doing. What an ego.
 - Stallman has yet to actually use OpenBSD, least I have yet to see
evidence otherwise
 - Not only has Theo been awarded the open-whatever award from the
FSF, which Stallman seems to play a great role in leading, Theo was
also a finalist *two* other years, yet OpenBSD seems to be a problem
for Stallman..
 - Stallman likes to lose people in speech.
 - Stallman's arguments make no sense.
 - Stallman's greatest actions are that of requests. At best, he will
ask developers to make the changes which he sees necessary.
 - Stallman will overlook facts to further prove a failing point.
 - Theft of BSD code (or any other code for that matter.. and theft in
the sense that something has been taken, expanded upon "for the
greater good of the community," and later cannot be returned to its
original owner), means nothing to Stallman when for the "greater GPL
good."
 - Stallman cares little about "empowering" people through code and
software, caring more about folks following in his ways.. even when
this concerns or involves intellectual theft.
 - Stallman sees the *use* of a given application or pieces of code as
a mechanism that *supports* said application, BUT his use of linux
(despite being "free" of "non-free" software/code), is seen as not
supporting the greater use of "Linus'" linux itself, which he agrees
is "non-free"
 - Stallman hasn't looked at (or thought about) his own gcc code in a
*long* time


Mr. Stallman, while it may mean little to you, it's pretty clear  you
have made a fool out of yourself on this list. I personally, have lost
what respect I had for you.

You make no sense.


~Jason

[Gregg Reynolds-4]

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

Dadgummit!  Now we're going to have to tell everybody to stop using
emacs!  I hate that, since I love using emacs!  But I had no idea that
the FSF was leading me into software slavery!  Look!
http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/emacs/windows/!  And can you believe the
README?

 "This directory contains source and precompiled distributions for GNU
  Emacs on Windows NT/2000/XP and Windows 95/98/Me.  This port is a
  part of the standard GNU Emacs distribution from the Free Software
  Foundation; the precompiled distributions are provided here for
  convenience since the majority of Windows users are not accustomed
  to compiling programs themselves."

I just can't believe it.  I'm crushed - crushed, I tell you! - to
discover that the great Richard M. Stallman and his FSF have been
actively encouraging me all these years to imperil the very
foundations of a free society - not to mention the moral purity of my
immortal soul! - by using non-free software.  It would be bad enough
if they had only provided a url, but - a precompiled binary?  O
misery!  O shame!  O, betrayal!

[michael hamerski-2]

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

> 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".

No one has control of their own life. Why? Because in a society we are
not separate from others. By definition. We enter, or rather are
entered at birth, into a social contract which includes us, the
government and other members of that society.


>  In
> other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't
> exist.

And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the
very right to exist. How free is that? Perhaps we should tar up all
the non-free software in the world and untar it in a data-crypt on a
remote island where the murky odour of its tainted code does not
attack our refined sensibilities? Is that acceptable on the road to a
free, by your definition, society?

You use a lot of grand words: good, evil, freedom, but seem unaware of
the logical conclusions of your own thinking, or for that matter, the
several millenia of debate surrounding these concepts. If I take your
words at face-value I must conclude that you are either seriously
misguided or downright dangerous. In any case, you do not stand for
any definition of freedom that I could ever subscribe to.

But I would actually like to thank you for having made this clear to me.

michael

[Jason McIntyre-2]

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

there are reasons for the saying about rules being meant to be
broken.  it's great to have morals, if you can afford them, but if
you stick to rules too rigidly (for example about what you should
and should not recommend), sooner or later you'll end up arguing
to justify your stance, rather than because you believe it to be
correct.

in the case of this thread, you are arguing against recommending
openbsd based on criteria you have decided need to be met. i
understand that.  we all need to draw a line somewhere...

given what the openbsd project stand for, and do, i wonder whether
your stance is furthering the cause of promoting what we all want,
or harming it.

jmc

[daemon1]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
...

>
> 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".

...

This philosophy disturbs me, and reminds me of the rationale for  
censorship in dictatorships and police states. Admitting the  
existence of something.... even referencing it.... does not give it  
legitimacy. Should we remove any reference to nazi germany from our  
history books in order to avoid legitimizing the nazi point of view?

Seems rather absurd to me. Perhaps you disagree.

-Jonathan

[David Vasek]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> 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.

OpenBSD used to send its April 1st announcements. I bet Richard has turned
the wrong page in his calendar today. Richard is obviously joking! He
can't mean it, really!

Now seriously.

Theo, you are completely right. Again. Not only GNU Emacs (which is
developed and maintained by Richard personally) includes code allowing
people to run it on non-free platforms, GNU Project also _actively_ and
_publicly_ supports use of such non-free operating systems, see `Supported
Platforms' on GNU Project's website:

http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html#Platforms
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/MACHINES

   Emacs 22 runs on these operating systems regardless of the machine type:

        GNU/Linux                   NetBSD
        FreeBSD                     OpenBSD
        AIX 4.3.3 and higher        Solaris
        Mac OS X                    SunOS
        MS DOS                      Ultrix
        MS Windows
          and others...

GNU Emacs also contains code which GNU Project developed specifically to
support those non-free platforms and maintaines native builds for them:

(from http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-faq.text)

    4.5 What is different about Emacs 22?
    =====================================
[...]
      * Emacs 22 features support for GNU/Linux systems on S390 and x86-64
        machines, as well as support for the Mac OS X and Cygwin operating
        systems.

      * The native MS-Windows, Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X builds include full
        support for images, toolbar, and tooltips.


Richard, you really have a perverted sense of humour. It isn't April 1st
today.

Regards,
David

[Gregg Reynolds-4]

On 12/13/07, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:

> Please see
>
>        http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html
>
> And
>
>         ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
>

Not to mention:

  http://directory.fsf.org/project/reactOS/ - "ReactOS is a project to
create a free operating system that is compatible with Windows NT so
users can have access to a free operating system but still run their
favorite Windows PC programs and drivers."

  http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/ - "It is a set of
header files and import libraries that can be used by GNU tools for
compiling and linking programs to be run under operating systems
supporting the Win32 Application Programming Interface. "

  http://directory.fsf.org/project/gtmess/ - "gtmess is a console MSN
Messenger client for GNU/Linux and other systems that conform to the
POSIX standard. It supports the MSNP9 protocol version."

  http://directory.fsf.org/project/macssh/ "...This is a Macintosh
version for SSH."

  http://directory.fsf.org/project/djgpp/ "Complete 32-bit C/C++
development system for Intel 80386 (and higher) PCs running DOS."

Etc. etc. etc. - it's all over the place.  If the cygwin stuff (dunno
if it is or not) is merged into the main source repository, then we
can assume that virtually every piece of GNU code has been designed to
work with windows, so it can't be recommended.  Thus does the
revolution devour its children.

Given the plain weirdness of the arguments "Richard Stallman" has been
making, maybe we should consider the possibility that we've been had
by an impostor trying to get a rise out of the OBSD crowd. ;)  If not,
then the interesting question is, why is he doing this, really?  All
the pronouncements about freedom, and the Important Life Lessons about
how mentioning a thing is tantamount to endorsing it - it just doesn't
add up, it's too silly.  I wonder what the real agenda is.

-gregg