Real men don't attack straw men

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Martin Schrvder wrote:

> 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?

Simply put in the years since then he's become much more shrill and
intolerant. Perceived success is, IMO, going to the collective head
of the FSF.

[Marc Espie-2]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:27:08PM -0500, Jason Dixon wrote:

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

Actually, no, I am criticizing RMS over his opinion.

He's supposed to have dedicated his life to such matters as free software.

His arguments towards not recommnending OpenBSD are just a front. They
sound logical, but he could interpret and present things differently.

The real reason he doesn't recommend OpenBSD is because OpenBSD represents
a viable alternative to his political views, and a very loud counter-voice
to the `GPL world'.

I've thought some more about it, and I cannot find any charitable
interpretation of Stallman's words.

You've got a choice of:
1/ complete idiot
2/ senile old fool disconnected from reality
3/ dangerous political activist with a hidden agenda

[Edd Barrett]

On 11/12/2007, Marc Espie <espie@...> wrote:
> You've got a choice of:
> 1/ complete idiot
> 2/ senile old fool disconnected from reality
> 3/ dangerous political activist with a hidden agenda
>


Also I like the way he posts and disappears.

[Lars Nooden]

Marc Espie wrote:
> ...
> You've got a choice of:

Or

4) not up on the OpenBSD projects goals and current licensing requirements


Some of that is probably due to the low profile of OpenBSD (low-profile
is good, though) and the yammering of the FreeBSD crowd (which both
includes a lot of MSFTers, and takes it upon itself to represent all *BSD).

I realize it's good fun in Redmond to poke at RMS, however, that will
not inform the public about the advantages of OpenBSD.  The only purpose
there is to make everyone look bad.

Articles and other means of providing information about OpenBSD will
increase knowledge of OpenBSD.

Regards,
-Lars

[Martin Schröder]

2007/12/11, Lars Noodin <larsnooden@...>:
> 4) not up on the OpenBSD projects goals and current licensing requirements

You mean not interested. He got to meet Theo personally, so he could
easily stay informed -- if he wanted too.

Best
   Martin

[Jan Stary]

> In particular, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html.

yeah, right.

> Since I consider non-free software to be unethical and antisocial,

LOL

> 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.

Therefore, you don't recommend linux. Oh wait ...

> From what I have heard,

(and carefully checked on the project's official
website to make sure I don't spread bullshit),

> OpenBSD does not contain non-free software (though I am not sure
> whether it contains any non-free firmware blobs).

Unlike linux, it does not.

> However, its ports
> system does suggest non-free programs,

No it doesn't "suggest" non-free programs in any way;
it just makes it possible and easy to install them.
As you well know.

> or > at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
> recommend.

Hm, you was told. Now one paragraph above you was told
the opposite. Does that confuse you?

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

Good for you! Your freedom of speech was once again in jeopardy,
perhaps forcing you to include OpenBSD in the list of "software
recommended by RMS." But it's over now, don't worry. Write a book
about it instead.

> 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.

As not being recommended byt RMS basically means an EOL
of any sytem, I will deinstall tonight to be on the safe side.

(I think I can guess a line or two of the 4.3 song)

        Jan

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 11, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Lars Noodin wrote:

> Marc Espie wrote:
>> ...
>> You've got a choice of:
>
> Or
>
> 4) not up on the OpenBSD projects goals and current licensing
> requirements
>
>
> Some of that is probably due to the low profile of OpenBSD (low-
> profile
> is good, though) and the yammering of the FreeBSD crowd (which both
> includes a lot of MSFTers, and takes it upon itself to represent
> all *BSD).
>
> I realize it's good fun in Redmond to poke at RMS, however, that will
> not inform the public about the advantages of OpenBSD.  The only
> purpose
> there is to make everyone look bad.
>
> Articles and other means of providing information about OpenBSD will
> increase knowledge of OpenBSD.

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.

[Peter N. M. Hansteen-3]

Lars NoodC)n <larsnooden@...> writes:

> Articles and other means of providing information about OpenBSD will
> increase knowledge of OpenBSD.

Yes.  I was pretty determined to stay out of this thread entirely, but
I think you touch on an important point here.  Like most people who
have been in the field for a while I have a lot of respect for
Richard's efforts, but whether he recommends using OpenBSD or not or
whether he is acting on incorrect information about what ships with
the system is in fact not that interesting.  Richard is entitled to
his opinions, and if his opinion of what 'free' means is different
from a some other group's, that's something I for one can live with.

What /is/ interesting, in my view, is the fact that OpenBSD is where
some of the best technology available today, certainly when it comes
to networking, is developed.  And there's more to come.

Using OpenBSD we build the systems we need, and they work a helluva
lot better than most of the other stuff out there.  OpenBSD is free
and lets us create reliable, high performance, low maintenance
networks and services, Stuff That Just Works.  In fact it's so good it
makes you *want* to contribute back.  That's what I want to emphasize.

- P
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.

[Daniel Ouellet]

Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
> Using OpenBSD we build the systems we need, and they work a helluva
> lot better than most of the other stuff out there.  OpenBSD is free
> and lets us create reliable, high performance, low maintenance
> networks and services, Stuff That Just Works.  In fact it's so good it
> makes you *want* to contribute back.  That's what I want to emphasize.

Amen, There is nothing more to say. There is the one still looking for
an OS that might work for some of their needs, and there is OpenBSD for
a lots of them. And yes, it just work!

[ropers]

> > You've got a choice of:
(...)
> > 3/ dangerous political activist with a hidden agenda

> Or
>
> 4) not up on the OpenBSD projects goals and current licensing requirements

To quote Robert Steele (from memory):

"Given a choice between incompetence and conspiracy, always go for
incompetence, because incompetence is vastly more likely."

( cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele )

[Kenneth Ismert]

 From my perspective as someone outside the BSD and GPL cultures,
both camps seem to have many more similarities than differences.
I see both Theo and Richard as principled iconoclasts, stubbornly
creating and promoting software that meets their individual high
standards, meeting and overcoming difficult opposition.

It seems likely that no one license can preserve all possible
freedoms. In my view, both licenses have advantages the other
cannot possess. So I don't think reconciliation is required, or
even desirable (and, from a purely selfish standpoint, I find
following these threads to be far more entertaining than sports).
Despite your differences, you probably remain the other's
closest ally.

There is ample room for GPL and BSD. We need eternally free
software, if only as a counterbalance and last resort to
encroaching commercialism. But there are also essential
functions in a networked world that are best served by
software that can be used for any purpose. I value the
liberty of deciding what freedoms are most important to
a project and its goals, and picking the license that
best suits it.

-Ken

[Darrin Chandler]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:28:29PM -0600, Ken Ismert wrote:

> It seems likely that no one license can preserve all possible
> freedoms. In my view, both licenses have advantages the other
> cannot possess. So I don't think reconciliation is required, or
> even desirable (and, from a purely selfish standpoint, I find
> following these threads to be far more entertaining than sports).
> Despite your differences, you probably remain the other's
> closest ally.
>
> There is ample room for GPL and BSD. We need eternally free
> software, if only as a counterbalance and last resort to
> encroaching commercialism. But there are also essential
> functions in a networked world that are best served by
> software that can be used for any purpose. I value the
> liberty of deciding what freedoms are most important to
> a project and its goals, and picking the license that
> best suits it.

There seems to be a subtext in your message that one license is more
free than the other, and that the more free license is the GPL. This is
not true.

Offering something to someone as "free" with one hand, while taking back
rights with the other is not free. BSD/MIT/ISC licenses retain a very
minimal set of rights to the original author(s), and give away
everything else. Whatever the merits of ISC v. GPL, there's really no
debate on which is more free.

--
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

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

Yes, that's what I was told.  I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
system includes non-free programs.  Is that accurate too?

      There is
    not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD
    on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents.

Maybe that is true, but it's not the issue I'm talking about.  I'm not
a supporter of open source anyway; I fight for free software.

Ututo and gNewSense have the policy not to include non-free programs,
not even in a ports system.  Thus, they don't do anything that
contradicts the philosophy of free software.  That's why I can
recommend them.

    Unlinke linux OpenBSD does not contain proprietary firmware blobs in the
    distribution.

Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software, for this reason.
Ututo and gNewSense include a version of Linux which remove the
firmware blobs, in order to make it free software.

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check.

    In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar
    (https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is
    non-free.

What is the license of Unrar?  I will try to access that page, but I
cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me.
I will see if it works with plain http:.

    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.

At best, it's an accurate statement.  At worst, the gNewSense
developers made a mistake, and will correct it.

My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted.

Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their
mistakes.  So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in
OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster.  I
trust the developers will remove it once they find out.

On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed,
then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed.  That's
what gives me stronger concern.  The presence of non-free programs
in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional.

[Richard Stallman]

    Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?

Because he tends to be unfriendly.

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

That is good.  (gNewSense and Ututo are also against blobs.)

    Sir, it was brought up that the [GNU/]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?

What they have told me is that they do not.

I will send mail to try to fetch the page at that URL and see what you
are talking about.

[Marcus Andree]

Sir, please check my inline comments.

On 12/11/07, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>    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.
>
> ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check.
>
>    In fact, BLAG suggests other unfree programs, such as unrar
>    (https://wiki.blagblagblag.org/Unrar), even noting that the software is
>    non-free.
>
> What is the license of Unrar?  I will try to access that page, but I
> cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me.
> I will see if it works with plain http:.
>
>    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.
>
> At best, it's an accurate statement.  At worst, the gNewSense
> developers made a mistake, and will correct it.
>
> My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted.

I just can't follow this. Let's see what's written in the OpenBSD ports
page (http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html):

"Motivation
OpenBSD is a fairly complete system of its own, but still there is a
lot of software that one might want to see added. However, there is
the problem of where to draw the line as to what to include, as well
as the occasional licensing and export restriction problems. As
OpenBSD is supposed to be a small stand-alone UNIX-like operating
system, some things just can't be shipped with the system."

So, an operating system can born "free" (free as in speech, in the GNU sense)
and then, become "non-free" just because some users decided to create a way
to ease installations of software that "just can't be shipped with the system"?

Despite some OpenBSD kernel developers are also port mantainers, I'd
believe that the vast majority of the latter don't do kernel programming, so
IMO, they could be labeled as "users" (since they're working in user space).

>
> Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their
> mistakes.  So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in
> OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster.  I
> trust the developers will remove it once they find out.
>

Well, it seems that we have the following pattern:

 - gNewSense, if someone finds a non-free program in it, that's no disaster
 - anything else, if someone finds a non free program in it, that's
surely a disaster

Please, sir, clarify....

> On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed,
> then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed.  That's
> what gives me stronger concern.  The presence of non-free programs
> in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional.
>

As a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like"
software install package project for it?

Thanks in advance.

[Tom Van Looy-2]

Hi

About the ports tree, maybe you are right and OpenBSD should go kick out
the possibly 50 ports that you have a problem with.

Now, about BSD/GPL that's an other story. But that doesn't mean we can't
learn from each other and help each other.

I hope it has to do Richards efforts on the GNU/Linux side of the
open-source world that even Ubuntu works on a completely free edition
(Gobuntu) nowadays.

OpenBSD "refuses to accept it's users being forced into depending on
vendor binaries" and pushes people to "send a message that open support
for hardware matters". Unix is becoming mainstream again. You should all
work together at educating new people.

Kind regards,

Tom



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.
>
> 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.

[Daniel Ouellet]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     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.
>
> Yes, that's what I was told.  I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
> system includes non-free programs.  Is that accurate too?
>
>       There is
>     not a single open source OS out there that is more careful than OpenBSD
>     on licensing, copyrights and frivolous patents.
>
> Maybe that is true, but it's not the issue I'm talking about.  I'm not
> a supporter of open source anyway; I fight for free software.

In that case, if you are really fighting for free software Richard, and
I very much respect that, regardless of licenses, or ideology, or what
not. I have only one request/question for you and I hope you will
consider it fair and in the interest of "Free Software" for all as you
clearly put it.

Why not advocate and request also from the FSF and from the GPL
developers as you are the main person in the GPL license to extend the
same hand and "Free Software" as you fight for and when a BSD write a
great piece of software and that anyone in GNU, FSF or using the GPL
find it worth to use and import, why not request to keep it under the
same license as it's origin instead of locking it in the GPL at import
time and then lock out the original developers of the BSD side.

All fight aside, I really do not think it is asking to much is it?

This way, what was given as "Free Software" will stay as free software
of all and not exclude a big part of them.

If you just sit back and think about this and about your goal in life of
"Free Software" I would think you would fine it fare would you?

You don't bite the hand that feed you and as such, I would think working
together in the interest of "Free Software" would benefit all and having
you also request the same would just be fair and fantastic in the
interest of "Free Software".

Let a software be under it's license of choice by the author from it's
birth to it's death.

If a great GPL software is written and xBSD would love to use it, an in
case of OpenBSD for example will have to re-write it under a BSD license
if they want to have it in base and they will do so if worth the effort.
However the GPL can just import it as is and as such the burning of the
license choice is on the BSD side, not the GPL side.

So, why not respect it and keep it as such and contribute back under the
BSD, when the original BSD license software was taken. It's only fair
and it is fully in the interest of "Free Software".

It sure in that case anyway allow for more users to fully use that "Free
Software" and if your goal as clearly stated here is that "Free
Software" then doing so, would actually spread that "Free Software" even
more.

Just something to think about in this holiday season. It sure would make
a wonderful gift of "Free Software" to all if you would see it as such
and not deviate from your goal, but fighting for it even more and
respecting other introductions of "Free Software"

Please, think about it before you reply if you do. It's important and is
fully in line with your life time fight and goal of "Free Software"

Best regards,

Daniel

[Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo-2]

El mar, 11-12-2007 a las 14:00 -0500, Richard Stallman escribiC3:

> My main basis for judging any distro is the policies it has adopted.

So a distro that comes (de-binaryzed) from ubuntu, that comes from
debian that any of them allow you to install a (nvidia) blob or any of
the non-free ports of openbsd, is more convenient that a system that
fight over all, about the freedom of the users, developers and of the
code.

Please, dear rms, you can use any thing like opera on ututo or
gnewsense, also you can taint the kernel, or browse in emacs for a flash
web (the last is a fake, i think ;).

> Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their
> mistakes.  So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in
> OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster.  I
> trust the developers will remove it once they find out.

Pretty, even if they could develop something on the O.S. to avoid the
use of blobs, firmwares, and non gpl'ed software by the users, it could
be a killer Linux distribution.

> On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed,
> then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed.  That's
> what gives me stronger concern.  The presence of non-free programs
> in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional.

Yes, like all the really free developed drivers, like the fight for
documentation of hardware, excellent code and better license, like the
really hard decisions that OpenBSD has chose about software and licenses
on his time line. It is intentional and appreciated :)

But say that OpenBSD is not a "recomendable" distribution for people
that wants freedom, is like say that it is insecure by default, and is
better a popolulufufulunix that comes whit a firewall activated by
default.

Greetings, and have a nice day.
IC1igo