Real men don't attack straw men

[Marco Peereboom]

This is illegal.  Repeating it over and over again will not make it so.

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:41PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
>     period!
>
> That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
> including distributing the code under other licenses.  The only
> requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.
>
> Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
> whether that involves changes to the code.  When I say "relicensing" I
> mean distributing the code with another license applied.  That doesn't
> mean deleting the old license.
>
> The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
> the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
> However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
> changes.  If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
> to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
> just silly (in most cases).

[Firas Kraiem-3]

On Friday 14 December 2007 21:49:23 Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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.

Remember what Linus said to the Gnome folks ? "If you think users are
idiots, only idiots will use it".

Well, that's pretty much the point. I do not intend to speak for OpenBSD
as a whole, as I am merely a user of it, but I guess the OpenBSD
developers just consider that it is up to the user to decide whether
he/she thinks, for whichever reason, that installing non-free software
is acceptable, or even if the difference matters at all to him/her, and
that the fact that it _does_ matter to them (why else would the base
system be 100% free ?) does not give them the right to impose that view
on the user.

You might say that some, maybe most, users of computer software are not
aware of the differences between free and non-free software, and what
they imply. That might be true. But I really don't think that making
the mere fact of "telling people [non-free software] exists" unethical,
to quote your words, would do much good to the cause of free software.
Since you know French, you might have heard this sentence by Victor
Hugo + Construisez une icole, et vous ditruirez une prison ;, "build a
school, and you'll destroy a prison".

Education is the key. If OpenBSD, or Debian, or Ubuntu, or any other OS
forbade the user to run his/her favourite piece of software "because it
is non-free" without he/she understanding what this "free" stuff is all
about, he/she would just think "those Linux/BSD/GNU/whatever people are
just over-zealous elitists, and I'm going back to Windows". The time
when everyone will be aware of the issues related to software freedom
has not come yet, so you and I and everyone attached to it should do
his best to reach that goal. That's what you do, not without talent, in
your essays and speeches, and that, to me, is a great thing. On the
other hand, speaking evil about another, free, operating system just
because it provides ways for the user to conveniently install non-free
software if he/she wishes to do so is not.

Firas

--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

GnuPG public key: http://itsuki.fkraiem.org/gpgkey

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc ]

[Gregg Reynolds-4]

On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>
> whether that involves changes to the code.  When I say "relicensing" I
> mean distributing the code with another license applied.  That doesn't
> mean deleting the old license.

That's a useful distinction, but I suggest you find a different term,
since, as I'm sure you are aware, this is not how the prefix "re"
works in English, so you readers will almost certainly not understand
your intended meaning.  Maybe "surlicensing", or "epilicensing" or
something even more impressively latinate, like "licentia auxillia"
(pun intended).

[Bob Beck-3]

> Having recipes for non-free programs in the ports system is more like
> including present-day neofascist web sites in the list of "interesting
> links" in your web site.  I am against censorship, so I do not believe
> in closing down those neofascist web sites.  But I won't refer people
> to them.

        And yet there are references to non-free programs inside the GCC
sources, and the Emacs sources.  I bloody *built* emacs once on
Windows with these helpful references to using non free software that
were provided in the distribution. Now doing this was rather
unpleasant and kind of like watching or helping a moose rape your
sister..  It left me feeling dirty all over on multiple levels. But
nevertheless it can be done, and the recepie is right there in the
distribution to do it.  Do you not ethically reccomend using Emacs
due to it's recepie for using non-free programs in it?

        So, that's where I lose this logic entirely Richard, and comparing
this to linking neofascist web sites really kinda walks into left field.

        It makes as much sense as A ligparnas hajsm tele van angolnakkal.
Sounds to me like publishing a phrase book with intent to cause a
breach of the peace. How do you plead?

        -Bob

[Tony Aberenthy]

I don't think relicense means what you think it does.
If I were to relicense emacs under a Microsoft license that would mean ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-misc@... [mailto:owner-misc@...]
> On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:50 PM
> To: Daniel Ouellet
> Cc: misc@...
> Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
>
>     You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the
> author consent
>     period!
>
> That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
> including distributing the code under other licenses.  The only
> requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.
>
> Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
> whether that involves changes to the code.  When I say "relicensing" I
> mean distributing the code with another license applied.  That doesn't
> mean deleting the old license.
>
> The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
> the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
> However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
> changes.  If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
> to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
> just silly (in most cases).

[Michael Spratt]

You could put your money where you mouth is and leave the united states
where people are selling and buying software legaly. You can't enforce your
left wing idealistic agenda. Capitalism drives a lot of things.. Including
the hardware your running. Why don't you set up a tent outside of TI or
Intel and try to basket weave yourself an DSP or and x86 processor. People
brew there own bear, why don't you go around campaigning that everyone must
brew there own bear or give bear away as a gift? I mean why don't we all
move to vermont and start a commune we can do away with money all together
and live in a fantasy land.
 

"Its much freer than a world in which non-free programs entice many people
into surrendering their freedom"

Why don't you move to a remote locationa and become a self sufficient
farmer, you can grow your own food so you won't be enticed into going to the
grocery store. Your as bad as Marvin Minskey.  I appologize for having to
address your pathology in a direct fassion, please do not take offense.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-misc@... [mailto:owner-misc@...] On Behalf Of
Richard Strawman
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:50 PM
To: michael hamerski
Cc: misc@...
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men

    >  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?

It is much freer than a world in which non-free programs entice many people
into surrendering their freedom.

[Matthias Kilian]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:19PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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.

You're twisting words. So do I (from your bsdtalk interview):

- I didn't want to accept beeing forbidden to share.

We share. We even share recipes for installing non-free software,
but doing so is still a real PITA of the user doing so. According
to several postings here, it's much more easy to install precompiled
non-free software on gNewSenses than on OpenBSD (since OpenBSD just
doesn't provide non-free binaries).

We've also some people spending shitloads of work for getting things
like Java to run on OpenBSD (e.g. kurt@). You call this unethical.
What did you (or anyone else from the FSF) do to make Java "free"?

Ciao,
        Kili

ps: laywer's keyword: a2ps, still undecided, still sitting in the
fsf queue, and i'm still seeing it on ftp.gnu.org -- better delete
it NOW!

[Tony Aberenthy]

If you can't or won't recommend anything
everything goes to Microsoft.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-misc@... [mailto:owner-misc@...]
> On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:50 PM
> To: Paul de Weerd
> Cc: hans@...; misc@...
> Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
>
>     | I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux.  The
> versions of Linux
>     | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have
> the blobs.
>
>     Interesting, these linux distributions.
>
> They are GNU/Linux distributions.  (See
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.)
>
>    They seem to be pretty new,
>     what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
>     these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
>
> Nothing!  For many years there was no system distribution I
> could recommend to the public, and that is what I said.
>
>     You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine
> these views
>     with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft
>     software packages of emacs and gcc.
>
> Yes, after one person brought this up, many others repeated it (as if
> sheer volume of namecalling meant something).  My message about this
> issue will go out in the same batch as this message.
>
> One person asked why it was "hard" for me to answer this question.
> It wasn't hard for me to respond, but it would have been impossible
> to respond quickly.  I have to sleep, you know.  And since I review
> my messages before actually sending them, I don't send mail quickly.
>
> It usually takes 12 to 24 hours from when a message is sent to when I
> send a response.  Plenty of opportunity--for those who seek one--to
> claim that my silence proves I have no comeback.

[Daniel Ouellet]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
>     period!
>
> That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
> including distributing the code under other licenses.  The only
> requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself.

I have to assume my understanding of the language is failing me then.

The BSD license is very simple, much shorter then the GPL.

If I am publishing software under a BSD license, I don't see *anywhere*
in it where I would have granted you the right to modify my license of
choice *under other licenses* that you sir might want to pick *without*
my explicit consent.

Rights not given away, or to you explicitly, are not granted, and as
such, are still reserved. Or you may have a different definition for
that too?

Yes, I do grant you almost everything! *BUT NOT* the right to change my
license of choice!

Rights not granted can't be taken away!

Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you may
write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify
my license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this:

/*
  * Copyright (c) 2007 Daniel Ouellet <daniel@...>
  *
  * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
  * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the
  * above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
  * all copies.
  *
  * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
  * WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED
  * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL
  * THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR
  * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM
  * LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
  * NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
  * CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
  */

You can't change it and make it GPL, nor should you either, just because
you want to do so!

If you feel my software is worth shit to you, then great and as such you
should appreciate it for what it is *FREE SOFTWARE* and as a gesture of
respect, should you find bugs in it and/or improvement to it, could send
them back, so that it can improve what I wrote in the first place as a
token of respect and appreciation of my work and more importantly keep
it *FREE SOFTWARE*.

You however, have no obligation to do so, should you choose not to
return the favor I extended to you in all *FREEDOM* without oppression
and such, if you really stand where your mouth is, should never sir try
to then limit the *FREEDOM of the *FREE SOFTWARE* I publish and given
you in also all *FREEDOM* in any ways as it would be in line with what
you try to convince me, is your life long goal.

Or are you saying that you would exercise what appear to be your self
proclaim given right to steel under your own license of choice, and in
doing so, appointing yourself judge and jury of a *FREEDOM* cause,
disregarding my work and license, and should I say restrict my own
*FREEDOM* and replace it for your definition of *FREEDOM*?

I already granted you almost everything and you would go as far as
steeling from me what I have *freely* given you in total *FREEDOM* to
exclude me from it under a GPL restrictive license that would forbid me
from that point on to benefit from improvement on my own work and to
validate my *FREEDOM* to offer *FREE* as I see fit improvement to it?

Yes, you have no obligation to do so, however, the end result is
restricting my *FREEDOM* never the less and make what was totally *FREE*
now questionable.

Sir, what kind of *FREEDOM* are you fighting for I might asked?

It appear to be Your *FREEDOM* to steel others *FREE* given work?

So, is your real meaning of "RMS" really mean at large that every *FREE
SOFTWARE* publish by any programmer on the Internet under any license
what so ever needs to become:

*Relicense My Software* distribution and copy in all cases?
  ^         ^  ^

And doing so at any cost discarding the *FREEDOM* and rights of the
author in the process?

I can't equal your actions and advocacy to any kind of *FREEDOM* sir!

It just doesn't fit. I can only explain it by my lack and understanding
of the language. That's the only explication I can come up with. I guess
as there isn't any other possibility here that is logical to me. Or may
be, could it be out of deliberate deceiving actions? I can't say.
Reducing *FREEDOM* and a *FREE SOFTWARE* already given away is not
promoting *FREEDOM* or *FREE SOFTWARE*. Regardless of may understanding
of the language, or lack there of, it can't mean that, can it?

I start myself to question why some great programmer would even consider
publishing under GPL, under this leading position of the GPL leader and
what appear to be convention to steel as they would under your rules
loose rights to their own work. Are they really realizing the *FREEDOM*
they are loosing or giving away without knowing it then? I do not know
and can't answer that question. But a fair one to ask I would say.

I understand the spirit of the license, or the goal it was suppose to be
use, but you Sir are really putting a new spin on it and really start to
put into light what you are really after by trying to have everyone
using and forcefully changing every license to GPL. You are not really
interested in *FREEDOM* or *FREE SOFTWARE* but looks like and appear to
be more like the meaning of GPLv3 to be the "Greatest Plagiarism
License* Vendetta 3 ever conceal.

I don't really know, but it would appear to be as such. I sure hope not
right?

> Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
> whether that involves changes to the code.  When I say "relicensing" I
> mean distributing the code with another license applied.  That doesn't
> mean deleting the old license.

What was I thinking when I asked that question, or what was I hoping
for? I must have been drunk thinking that it would be different.

Just as I expected you would do. You can't shoot straight. Sure appear
that you always try to be devious aren't you? I asked a strait up,
direct, simple, and clear question, and you try to navigate your way out
of it that suit your needs at that moment that you pick on your own time
table.

If I may suggest, I very strongly believe you would have been a great
Lawyer, with how easy you can twist at your will the meaning of words,
you would have been extremely successful, no questions there, and may be
even the best ever, in contrast to be a defender of *Free Software*.
With all due respect sir, your actions do not fit with your expression.

Richard, I have to admit and give you credit as well as concede you
total victory on one thing and one thing only.

There is no question in my mind that you sir, have the gift of words and
find ways to twist them as you see fit. Congratulations!

I, on the other end, can't claim that gift. You sir have a gift with
words that I can't equal nor aspire to ever achieve! This is a great
power and gift you have and I do have to admire this in you, as well as
everyone else should too. It is sad to see it miss use however. I
couldn't possibly twist my writing as such as be able to do it and fell
comfortable do so.

See, my best T-Shirt that I am even wearing now, writing this email, was
given to me by my son and it say:

"Bad spellers of the world, UNTIE!

With the word "UNTIE" underline.

See, I didn't get it at first. (;>

But is is very funny and right to the point in my case anyway.

At a minimum, I know my weakness and I am at peace with it. I also know
and have to admit, my son of 12 years old can catch many mistakes in my
English, that makes my skills with the language at a level below a 12
years old I suppose, witch I am not necessary proud of, but totally at
peace with never the less. I can communicate, understand and be
understood by others and say what I mean. On the other end it looks like
you sir can't do that as efficiently. That bare the question as to what
level you might be? Very sad, I wish you would use your gift in a better
matter.

I am a pretty strait shooter and have been for years. And when I am
wrong, I have no problem saying so, even publically. I see no shame in
it nor as a weakness, but as a straight. It define where one stand and
sure doesn't remove anything from who I am.

On the other end, you sir, looks like you can't play straight and answer
simple direct question, without the needs to change their meaning and
answers at each turn.

But, when cut red handed, try to redefine the meaning of words to make
them what you need them to be at the time you use them instead of
admitting a mistake or wrong doing.

What is even more sad is that it been shown time and time again, many
are so confuse to your meaning that they fell the needs to take your
defense and try to make excuse for you, as well as trying to explain or
extrapolate what may have been your meaning to others on what you may
have said in equally devious ways. A very sad state of affairs I have to
say. There is nothing wrong to be strait and say what we mean, and mean
what we say. Both things that we will never know in your case I guess.

Many years ago, when I started to be expose to *FREE SOFTWARE*, I
started to see your name as an example of what *FREEDOM* and *FREE
SOFTWARE* was suppose to be, or what I guess it was suppose to aspire to
anyway. Didn't take to long to realize how wrong was I and how totally
mistaken and miss lead was I.

Don't get me wrong here. I applause what you were trying to do and your
convictions as well at the start anyway and it gives you great power and
great visibility and a lots of follower as well. However, all that power
looks like to me as it appear to be miss use. You are destroying the
legacy you may have put in history for decade to come Sir. But you must
know what you are doing I suppose.

> The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
> the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
> However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
> changes.  If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
> to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
> just silly (in most cases).

Honestly Richard, I read this part of your email no less then 10 times!

Specially this part:

"The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code."

I didn't give you that right, so you do not have it period!

I have to concede victory to you here however, and bow to you sir. I
can't in all honesty understand what you are saying or trying to say in
any convoluted way you are trying to make it appear. My mind is not that
twisted.

I do not have the gift of words like you obviously do, to argue with you
on this. I can't imagine make a foul of myself trying either. As much as
I want to and try to, with my proven to me by my 12 years old kid, that
my English language skills are not at pair with yours by any mean, to be
able to go down to the same devious level as you have, with as much
flexibility as you can do so. Nor can I redefine the dictionary in ways
to make every words in it, mean what ever I choose them to mean when I
use then as easy as you cleverly have proven to be capable of doing at
will. I just can't.

You Sir, I have no dough about it, would be very successful to no end at
sailing refrigerator in the north pool to Inuit in Canada in the middle
of the winter convincing them that to keep their meat frozen, they need
your freezer, instead of just having their meat at 20 below zero
already, figure of speech obviously.

I am obviously too strait, direct and forth coming to be able to do that
with you and as such, I bow to you with all due respect to you and your
meaning of the English language. It is obvious to me now, that no matter
how direct, simple and clear I may try to be, there is no way, will I
ever make any sense to you and definitely not out of your answers.

So, Richard with all due respect. I bow to you and will leave the stage
left (*suppose to be the FREEDOM and FREE SOFTWARE side* ) to your
majesty and let others that may have the tools needed to understand your
usage of words.

In any case, the words of the license are very simple and clear to me, I
can't possibly subscribe to your interpretation of them. That would go
against all I learn in school.

You win the argument with me. I can't go down and argue to your level,
but make no mistakes about it. I NO NOT agree with your interpretation
of it in any case.

I just don't have the tools to make you understand it.

Richard, you are very good at what you do, what ever your end goal might
be, however, I fear you are miss using your gift and power. I sure hope
for you it's wort your effort!

With all due respect.

Best regards,

Daniel

[PuffyBSD]

> The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and
> the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code.
> However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big
> changes.  If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them
> to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is
> just silly (in most cases).
>

Public domain aside, in what other case would it be legal to change a
license, where no changes were made to the code, and the original
author has not granted permission?
certainly someone could not take BSD licensed code  and change it to
GPL if they have changed nothing and do not have the authors
permission.

keep in mind I have limited knowledge at best of software licensing

Sam Fourman Jr.

[Jonathan Gray]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:41PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and
> whether that involves changes to the code.  When I say "relicensing" I
> mean distributing the code with another license applied.  That doesn't
> mean deleting the old license.

That is not relicensing, it is adding restrictions and rules.

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 14, 2007 5:44 PM, Gregg Reynolds <dev@...> wrote:
> On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> > 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

This may be true 10 years ago.  However...

> That's one risk; the flip side is the risk of preventing people from
> exploring free systems by making the non-free systems so cozy.  Is
> this hard?
>
> From where I sit, few people do more than the FSF to minimize the cost
> of staying with non-free systems.  If all free software developers
> were to follow the lead of emacs, nobody would have any reason to
> switch from proprietary systems - everything useful would just run on
> windows, or osx, so why bother switching?

I am in that exact situation at work.  I want to run another OS, but
corporate policy dictates that we use Windows XP.  At my 3 last places
of work (fortune 100, fortune 1000, fortune 50), I fought against
corporate guidelines, and installed Linux (gentoo) on my laptop.

At my current place, because cygwin is available, I am currently
running XP on my laptop.

A more concrete example, one of the people who works for me is a big
time Windows fan.  However, in order to run nessus, he was going to
order a linux desktop to run nessus, and have it on his desk.
However, upon discovering that nessus will run in his windows XP
laptop, he is not looking for a linux box now.

However, on the flip side, it does allow me to have conversations with
people on open source software, and I've been pointing out
inconsistencies in peoples words and actions - on one hand saying
opensource is not as good, on the other hand, relying on some
opensource things.

--
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

[Leonardo Rodrigues]

> 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.


I believe that what you object (facilities to build non-free software)
is a really irrelevant issue. People should have the liberty to use
any software they so desire.
With that point of view of yours, one could condemn the use of Linux,
BSD or any other free OS on hardware platforms that are not open,
because the OS "encourages use of non-free hardware", but that is
taking things out of proportion :)

I also personally think that your concept of "freedom" is actually
less free then OpenBSD's project concept of freedom. But everyone
knows that already.

This is getting _tiresome_. Really... =(

--
An OpenBSD user... and that's all you need to know =)

[Chris Zakelj]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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 really didn't expect to get involved in this, but if I were to buy a
copy of Hy-Tek's Meet Manager
(http://www.hy-tekltd.com/swim/mm/index.html), I would not feel any less
free than when I started.  Granted, I would need to plunk down a
significant amount of coin for it, but having a copy of that software
would allow me to not only go forth and recoup my initial expenditure,
but turn a profit as well.  But since there is no free (or otherwise
non-proprietary) equivalent, your version of freedom means the swim meet
never happens.

How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
freedom, given that not only does it allow me to make money doing
something I find fun, but also enjoy summer weekends in the sun
watchings kids have fun, too?

Oh, and before you even consider it, running the meet by hand is not an
option when you're dealing with over 20 teams and nearly 2000 kids, so
don't even go there.

[Theo de Raadt]

>     So have you sent these types of "unrecommendations" to other OS'
>     mailing lists or just OpenBSD's?
>
> I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time.
> I did not start this discussion.  I posted on this list because people
> were making inaccurate statements about my views.

You lied on a recorded show.

Richard, you are a Hypocrite.

[Theo de Raadt]

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, "Ken Ismert" <kismert@...>
> said:
>
> > 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.
>
> Self aggrandizement has been RMS's only agenda for a long time.
> His 15 minutes are up and he has become irrelevant. He refuses
> to accept this. This crap just makes him more goggleable.

When was the last time he wrote some code?

1995?  Or is that being generous?

He takes money that people donated to the FSF, and he flies all over
the world talking bullshit and rhetoric and being a hypocrite.

> BTW, gcc is crap and I pray everyday someone will come up
> with a BSD licensed replacement (there was ipf and now there
> isn't. Wish the same effort would happen for gcc) and I much
> prefer vi to emacs.

We fight all the time against microcode and non-free firmware.

Guess what compiler most of that microcode and firmware is compiled
with?

[Theo de Raadt]

>    They seem to be pretty new,
>     what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
>     these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
>
> Nothing!  For many years there was no system distribution I
> could recommend to the public, and that is what I said.

It is fascinating how you are recommending Linux distributions which
contain two non-free source code files in their X distributions.

Richard, you know what I am talking about.  You have heard about
this issue already.  It is those two SGI files.

Yet, you are endorsing Linux distributions which contain those
files.

Shame on, you hypocrite.

[Theo de Raadt]

> On Dec 14, 2007 1:49 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>
> > ...I don't
> > criticize general facilities merely because someone could use them
> > to do things with non-free software.
> >
> >
> Except in the case of the OpenBSD ports system.

This last week, Richard has only criticized OpenBSD.

Why is that?

Why is he is a hypocrite and a liar?

Noone knows, except Richard.

[j4nKy]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:05PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>  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.

do you give a no-recommendation to the internet as well?  do you
suggest that gNewSense users should not use the internet because
it gives recipes for installing particular non-free programs.
in your own words, "That's what the issue is."

you deny that when you say things, people misinderstand, yet you
continue to argue the semantics of what you said with what people
understand.

accept reality or quit posting.  I find it rather ulikely that any
other message from you or anyone else is going to further your
stance.

further, educate yourself about OpenBSD or quit talking about it.
I find it rather unlikely that any other clumsy-at-best statement
by you about OpenBSD is going to further your stance.

--
jakemsr@...
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 14, 2007, at 5:44 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Ray Percival wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:18 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> Just as an example most advertisers choose not to name their
> competition. Politicians go out of their way to elicit denials from
> their opponents, because even denying something inextricably ties  
> you to
> it. Ghandi claimed "first they ignore you, then they fight you,  
> then you
> win". The first step to victory for is to get from being ignored,
> because even fighting something constitutes recognition.
<snip>
>
> I guess major advertising firms, politicians, and ghandi are not clear
> thinking adults.

Good one. For a minute there I thought you were serious but now I see  
that you're just taking the  piss since anybody who will hold up  
advertising firms and politicians as shining beacons of how to hold  
public discourse and intellectual honesty and imply that the Ghandi  
quote can be mentioned in the same statement HAS to be joking around.  
Very funny joke, well done.