Real men don't attack straw men

[Travers Buda-2]

* Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> [2007-12-14 21:35:57]:

> If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all:
> http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070907181228
>
> --
> Karthik
> http://guilt.bafsoft.net
>

What's your point?  Of course it exists...  this is Open BSD after
all, it's pretty Open about things: anoncvs, cvsup, cvssync, the web
cvs browser on openbsd.org, public mailling lists...

I think what you're trying to say is that the OpenBSD camp has some
morality against flash but it's included in the tree anyhow.  Wrong,
there is no ethical problem with flash in this camp.

However, we do _despise_ flash-based websites and ads.  It certainly
tops my list of things on the WWW that are unportable, inefficient,
and a pain in the ass.

Sorry, the only hypocrite here is Stallman; who, incidentally, I
did have respect for before this thread.

--
Travers Buda

[michael hamerski-2]

On Dec 14, 2007 5:43 PM, Breen Ouellette <admin@...> wrote:
> -----
> This is a reply to David's email to me. I have left out his original
> message since it was sent privately and without permission to repost to
> the list.
> -----

Yeah, I have a bunch of emails from him, which despite my best efforts
to have a public discussion, he keeps sending privately. For me, he
has failed the Turing test, and I now know him to be a particularly
viral new form of gnubot.

Anyway, I would like to beg the pardon of our technically-inclined
readers for my participation in this farce and bow out of this thread
gracefully with a little song:

GNU Man ( nicked from Black Sabbath's Iron Man )

Has he lost his mind?
Can he see or is he blind?
Can he walk at all,
Or if he moves will he fall?
Is he alive or dead?
Has he thoughts within his head?
Well just pass him there
Why should we even care?

He was turned to steel
In the great GNUmetic field
Where he traveled time
For the future of mankind

Nobody wants him
He just stares at the world
Planning his vengeance
That he will soon unfold

Now the time is here
For GNU man to spread fear
Vengeance from the grave
Kills the people he once saved

Nobody wants him
They just turn their heads
Nobody helps him
Now he has his revenge

Heavy boots of lead
Fills his victims full of dread
Running as fast as they can
GNU man lives again!

feel free to further adapt the lyrics to your own taste, we might have a hit...

over and out,

mike

[Erik Wikström-2]

On 2007-12-14 18:48, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
>
> You too.
>
> I still remember cheering when I read
>
> http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
>
>     * From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...>
>     * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600
>     * Cc: ports@...
>
>     > I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped?
>
>     Precisely because of what the commit message says:
>
>     > "Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield
>     > 2001-08-14]"
>
> Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word...
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html
>
> According to Sourceforge:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband
> License: Other/Proprietary License

           ^^^^^

It says Other/Proprietary, where I come from the / is usually read as
"or", which means that zangband is licensed under a license not known to
SF or it is proprietary, in this case it was the former:

"This software may be copied and distributed for educational, research,
and not for profit purposes provided that this copyright and statement
are included in all such copies."

--
Erik WikstrC6m

[Ted Unangst-2]

On 12/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:

>    > I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped?
>
>    Precisely because of what the commit message says:
>
>    > "Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield
>    > 2001-08-14]"
>
> Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word...
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html
>
> According to Sourceforge:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband
> License: Other/Proprietary License

duh, you retard, you think there is only one "Other" license?

[Breen Ouellette]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>  
>> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
>>    
>
> You too.
>
> I still remember cheering when I read
>
> http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
>
>     * From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...>
>     * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600
>     * Cc: ports@...
>
>     > I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped?
>
>     Precisely because of what the commit message says:
>
>     > "Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield
>     > 2001-08-14]"
>
> Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word...
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html
>
> According to Sourceforge:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband
> License: Other/Proprietary License

Its was not a question of the license being proprietary, it was a
question of qmail not allowing modification. To get it running on
OpenBSD required modification - so it was removed from ports.

The qmail licence was quite clear:

"If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports,
no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval.
This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your
intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant
information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you
want to distribute."

If every port required 'a detailed review of the exact package that you
want to distribute' from maintainers then we would have far less ports.
We'd have far less maintainers! Theo made the right decision not to
tolerate it. To do anything else would open the floodgates of maintainer
hell.

Now that qmail is moving to the public domain I wouldn't be surprised if
it re-enters the ports system since it will no longer contain this
restriction. Of course, it will require someone willing to maintain the
port.

The zangband licence, on the other hand, reads:

/*
* Copyright (c) 1989 James E. Wilson, Christopher J. Stuart
*
* This software may be copied and distributed for educational, research, and
* not for profit purposes provided that this copyright and statement are
* included in all such copies.
*/

There is no explicit requirement to obtain the author's approval before
distributing a modified version. Since OpenBSD doesn't have to go out of
its way to please the original creator with unreasonable demands
zangband has been kept in ports.

You are wrong. It does not matter how sincerely you present your
misinformation, it still marks you as lazy, apathetic, and willing to
make statements without first understanding the situation or researching
your ideas.

If you don't like Theo because he doesn't handle you or others with kid
gloves, then just say so. Just say "I don't like Theo because he hurts
my feelings" and be done with it. Stop trying to make ridiculous
arguments based on misinformation. One thing I can almost guarantee -
Theo will be far more pleasant in response to you if you simply stop
spreading bullshit.

It would be so wonderful if people would simply read and understand the
essay /On Bullshit/ by Harry Frankfurt before posting anything to this
list. The traffic here would be succinct and entirely useful. Much like
OpenBSD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

Breeno

[Harry Menegay]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
 >> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
 >
 > You too.
 >
 > I still remember cheering when I read
 >
 > http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html
 >
 >     * From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...>
 >     * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600
 >     * Cc: ports@...
 >
 >     > I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped?
 >
 >     Precisely because of what the commit message says:
 >
 >     > "Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield
 >     > 2001-08-14]"
 >
 > Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word...
 >
 > http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html
 >
 > According to Sourceforge:
 > http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband
 > License: Other/Proprietary License
 >
 > Rui
 >
I'm glad you went to all that effort to show OpenBSD promotes
proprietary software....

 From the zangband website:

"Licensing:  You are free to distribute Zangband as a binary or as
source code so long as such distribution is in accordance with its
license. You may also hack Zangband to your hearts content so long as
your end product is distributed in accordance with the license restrictions.
The following license applies to Zangband: Copyright (c) 1997 Ben
Harrison, James E. Wilson, Robert A. Koeneke
This software may be copied and distributed for educational, research,
and not for profit purposes provided that this copyright and statement
are included in all such copies. Other copyrights may also apply."

Gee, what a horribly restrictive proprietary license.

I guess in your mind this equates to the JDB license Theo didn't like:

 > Quoting DJB's qmail license page :
 > "If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including
ports, no
 > matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval.
This does
 > not mean approval of your distribution method, your intentions, your
e-mail
 > address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant information. It means a
 > detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute."

To those not addled in the brain, they are vastly different.
It seems all RMSs backers arguments are as full of holes as his own.

[Unix Fan]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> You too.

>

> I still remember cheering when I read

>

> http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html

>

>    * From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...>

>    * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600

>    * Cc: ports@...

>

>   > I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped?

>

>    Precisely because of what the commit message says:

>

>    > "Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield

>    > 2001-08-14]"

>

> Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word...

>

> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html

>

> According to Sourceforge:

> http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband

> License: Other/Proprietary License

>

> Rui



Nice try, but... every file in that CVS repository has:

http://zangband.cvs.sourceforge.net/zangband/zangband/src/main.c?revision=1.44&view=markup



~~SNIP~~

/*

* Copyright (c) 1997 Ben Harrison, and others

*

* This software may be copied and distributed for educational, research,

* and not for profit purposes provided that this copyright and statement

* are included in all such copies.

*/

~~SNIP~~



According to the licence header on each one of those files, I don't see any reason why binary packages can't be made available...



Go away troll.. You're not welcome here...



-Nix Fan.

[Aaron Glenn]

On Dec 14, 2007 8:33 AM, Ted Unangst <ted.unangst@...> wrote:
> On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> > The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not
> > install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists.
>
> so much for free speech.
>

I think from now on, when people argue with me about RMS being
completely off his rocker, I'll just refer them to this comment.

[Edward A. Gardner]

Along with Godwin's law, there must be some rule of flame fests that people
forget
how it started or fail to note when they make ridiculous statements.


Example, how it started.  Some recent comments:

>RMS made statements first.  RMS will pay for his lies.

>Nobody here asked for or WANTS his endorsement. He started the
>thread.

>Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first.
>Richard then came to the OpenBSD mailing lists looking for a fight.


The flame fest began with this thread:

http://marc.info/?t=119725688900001&r=1&w=2

and specifically this message:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119725673616073&w=2


Mr. Stallman did not join in until 13 hours later, when he posted this message
starting the current thread:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119730630513821&w=2



Example, whether OpenBSD gives a shit.  Some recent comments:

>Nobody here asked for or WANTS his endorsement. He started the
>thread. We could give a shit about what he thinks. Now it's just

>I highly doubt that many OpenBSD developers or users care whether or not
>RMS endorses OpenBSD. I know I don't.

>OpenBSD does not, pardon the french, give a shit about RMS' "seal of
>approval".

These statements disprove themselves -- if OpenBSD really didn't care, no
one would be
posting such impassioned messages claiming no one cares.



It's said when the following is one of the more intelligent messages seen
on misc the
past couple days:

>Dearest Partner,
>
>
>I am Mrs.Rose gomo, From Abidjan Cote'd'ivoire West Africa. I am a widow
>being that I lost my husband a couple of years ago. please can u help me
>invest in your country like Real Estate and Industrial Production??
>
>
>I need an urgent answer please.
>
>
>Mrs.Rose .
>
>- Mrs Rose

[Kenneth Ismert]

misc, Richard:

As someone from a relatively outside perspective, I find this
thread puzzling. My feelings have swung from one side to the
other as the thread has surged on. I just don't know the
players well enough to draw a firm conclusion.

The nub of the perceived slight is this: RMS can't endorse
OpenBSD /at all/ over what turns out to be a very small point
of principle. But I feel any impartial observer would conclude
that OpenBSD has a clearly articulated open source policy, and
goes to great lengths to adhere to it.

In thinking back, a key point for me is that RMS never
out-and-out said he was /seeking/ to endorse OpenBSD.

If RMS *is* seeking to endorse OpenBSD, then his message
might be 'Of all the OS distros I don't approve, I find yours
to be the freest. If you would but cast this mote out of your
eye, we could advance free software'. If that is close to what
he means, he has just been rather clumsy and undiplomatic in
his approach, or he has a talent for saying things in
controversial ways in order to draw attention to his words.

But if he is *not* looking to endorse OpenBSD, then it is hard
to not draw the conclusion that he is a clever provocateur, and
the OpenBSD list has shown a lot of forbearance in tolerating
him for as long as they did before the flames got really hot.

So, I ask you respectfully, Richard: what is your intent in
making your original comments, and starting this thread?
That would be the deciding factor for me.

-Ken

[Unix Fan]

 "Michael Spratt" wrote:

>I have a question, I'm trying to recompile a flavor of bind but I can't find

> the port because its part of the base install.

>

> Could you point me in the right direction on how I would do it ?

>

> I downloaded the bind source and compiled it but obviously the original

> version that ships on base should be un-installed from openbsd first..

>

> I don't know how to do it because its part of the base system.

>

> Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong area if so please direct me to the proper

> area. I don't have experinece interacting with the community here.



If you have src.tar.gz downloaded from an FTP mirror, You can use the local modified version of BIND instead of trying to "hack it out" of the base system.



/usr/src/usr.sbin/bind/Makefile.bsd-wrapper would be the file to look at...



I hope this helps, Good luck.



-Nix Fan.

[Gilles Chehade-5]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:50:41PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     Why is it so hard for you to answer that question...
>
> To answer the question was not hard.  To answer it before I saw it
> would have been very hard.
>
>     You failed to answer these several times already,
>
> When you said that, it was 21:00 here.  At that time I had not even
> seen any of those messages; they were not in my computer.  They
> arrived in my next mail transfer, today at 12:00.  Subsequently I saw
> them and wrote an answer.  You will get the answer in my next
> transfer, which is likely to be at 22:00.  That will be 25 hours after
> the first of those messages was sent.  I regret the delay, but it is
> inevitable.
>

Sorry, but i find it hard to believe that you couldn't take a minute to
answer my simple question and that you did find the time to put up with
this mail that further delays an explanation.

My question is simple and it doesn't require much thinking.


> It must be quite common that a person doesn't answer in 2 hours.  You
> may not know the details of how I transfer mail; but there are many
> other reasons why someone may not answer so fast.  He might be
> sleeping, which many people do for 8 hours at a stretch.  He might be
> checking some facts before before responding.  These are things you
> know about.
>

Checking which facts ?

- gcc runs on windows because it has code that specifically makes it
        work on that system.
- the fsf distributes that code.
- you *know* that gcc works on windows.

What fact that you don't already know prevents you from answering my
simple question as to why you do support windows ?


> I think it indicates that you are looking for excuses to put me in the
> wrong.  If something happens which you can interpret as putting me in
> a bad light, you seize on that interpretation, ignoring the other
> possibilities.
>

You looking good or bad is not something that particularly matters to
me, what matters is that you were not honest and people need to make
an opinion based on facts.

The facts are as follow:

        - you say that OpenBSD is not free and you don't encourage
                it's use. I could care less but the reasons that
                you mention are wrong and misleading for users.

        - you and your project actually encourage the use of many
                applications on proprietary systems. There is an
                long list of gnu tools that I have used on a
                Windows computer.

        - you refuse to admit you were wrong and you refuse to explain
                why your own rules don't apply to you. Why does OpenBSD
                providing optional makefiles for those who explicitely
                want a non-free application is bad because it encourages
                users to install non-free applications, and why is it ok
                for the fsf to support Windows and MacOSX ?

What are the other possibilities that I missed ?


> Such an attitude can be seen in many of the messages on this list.
> It is not one you should want to adopt into your heart.
>

There is no bad attitude, I am frustrated that I don't get an answer
to a very simple question that doesn't call for long research. It is
your foundation and your projects after all ...

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

[Jason Beaudoin]

> I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version
> of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we
> don't have enough people to make this work very well.  If you would
> like to help, please let me know.  It is an important project.
>
>

One last question..

simple: how is this a useful venture of "engineering" effort?

more involved remarks: The people who'll use an application such as
this, with these restrictions, won't be installing said non-free
software any way... and trying to provide other folks (i.e. the
general public, who wouldn't otherwise know better...in that they'll
use whatever application they're given) with this type of software is
simply upsetting and frustrating for them (what?! no youtube??),
resulting in them not wanting to use "open source stuff" (because they
don't know the basic difference in what you've provided versus what
opensource, or free software, or whatever we're trying to provide the
world, is about, etc).. and *avoiding* applications *they* label as
such.

Why does that matter? well.. it would seem to me, that it should
matter to you because this would effectively work against the software
world you are trying to create.


Regards,

~Jason

[Marc Balmer]

Aaron Glenn wrote:

> On Dec 14, 2007 8:33 AM, Ted Unangst <ted.unangst@...> wrote:
>> On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>>> The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not
>>> install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists.
>> so much for free speech.
>>
>
> I think from now on, when people argue with me about RMS being
> completely off his rocker, I'll just refer them to this comment.
>

you totally forgot to CC the old man hypocrite.

[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."

    We all know that the linux kernel (on which gNewSense is based) has an "easy
    way to install" binary blobs, like nvidia binary drivers.

You've taken my words out of context.  I was talking about a specific
thing, the inclusion in the ports system of a recipe to install a
particular non-free program.  Someone else described such a recipe as
an "easier way to install" that non-free program.  I responded using
his words, in quotation marks.

By attributing his words to me, and by disregarding the context, you
misunderstood the point of my message.  I'm not talking about any and
all things that make installation of anything easier.  Just about
giving recipes for installing particular non-free programs.  That's
what the issue is.

                                                              OpenBSD non-free
    packages are not in the base system and not even available...

That's true, but the ports system gives recipes for installing them.

    Moreover, this facility to install blobs that the linux
    kernel *provides* comes with the base gNewSense system...

Could you tell me the name of that facility, or something else about
it?  If it is specifically and only useful for blobs, perhaps it
should be remove from gNewSense.  On the other hand, if it is a
general purpose feature and blobs are merely one thing it could be
used for, then I probably don't have anything against it.  I don't
criticize general facilities merely because someone could use them
to do things with non-free software.

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.

There is a big practical difference between making a free system
suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a
non-free system.  We treat the two issues differently because they are
different.

People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is
unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them
about a system and they will then switch to it.  Also, switching
operating systems is a big deal.  People are unlikely to switch to a
non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it.

Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a
free program run on it is small.  However, it is our practice when
doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and
bad for your freedom.  If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows
don't say this, I'll make sure to add it.

By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and
installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything
else you do.  Thus, even telling people about a non-free application
could very well lead them to install it.

I've published both of these positions before, but in this discussion
I only mentioned the one that is relevant to my views about OpenBSD.
Is that hypocrisy?  Is that lying?  No, just sticking to the point.
But now that people have raised the other issue, here is my position
on it.

[Richard Stallman]

    > 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.

What I said was the same thing, in different words.

When the ports system contains a recipe to build and install P, it's
natural to say that P is "included in the ports system".  You are
interpreting the word "included" in a very literal sense, but that's
not the only normal usage of the word.

As a courtesy to the OpenBSD developers, and avoid the risk of
confusion, I will try from now on to state this in a more precise way.

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

When you buy a copy of a non-free program, you pay with your money and
with your freedom.  You apparently don't assign much value to the
freedom that you would give up.

I respect your right to your views.

[Richard Stallman]

    > 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.

When speaking privately to someone I know is not likely to install
non-free software, that is true.  I can say to him, "You could use
OpenBSD, as long as you take care, if you use the ports system, to
check that the programs you install are free."

When speaking to the public, that is not a real option; if I tried to
do that, it would get simplified in transmission down to "Use
OpenBSD", and that would lead people to use OpenBSD including the
ports system.

It's much like the situation for Debian.  When speaking privately to
someone who is not likely to install non-free software, I can
recommend the official Debian GNU/Linux system and warn him to avoid
the nonfree section which is also on the Debian servers.  But if I
said that to the public, it would get simplified in transmission down
to recommending everything on Debian's servers.  Thus, I don't
recommend Debian.

[Richard Stallman]

    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?

OpenBSD certainly doesn't need my permission for anything.
If people don't care what I think, they can ignore me.

I posted the first message on this list, a few days ago, because
people had published inaccurate statements about my views towards
OpenBSD.  My aim is to explain what those views really are.  Once that
is done, the readers of this list may agree or disagree with me, but
at least they won't criticize me for views which are not mine.

    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?

I don't know any details about what part of Linux "allows blobs to be
installed", so I can only guess that it is a general feature which
permits installation of firmware into devices, and that it works
regardless of whether the firmware is free or non-free.

I don't see anything wrong with general features that can install or
build any sort of software.  Thus, for instance, I don't think it is
bad that OpenBSD and gNewSense have general-purpose features that a
user might employ to install a non-free program.  I don't think it is
bad that GCC can compile a non-free program, or that you can use Emacs
or VIP to edit one.  (It's inevitable that general purpose facilities
can operate on non-free code.)

The ports system may contain a general facility which could build and
install any program.  (I don't know if it does.)  If so, I have
nothing against that.  But it certainly contains specific recipes for
installing specific non-free programs.  That's what I object to.