Real men don't attack straw men

[Josh Grosse]

I have been reading this debate with interest, and am confused on one key
point.  

RMS wrote:

> Ututo and gNewSense have the policy not to include non-free programs,
> not even in a ports system.  

According to http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/Features, "Universe enabled
by default"

Does selecting Ubuntu "Universe" category for packages include Main and
Restricted?  If so, Restricted is non-free software, per

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components

[Lars Nooden]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>...
> 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.

Partitioning the non-free material from the free material in the ports
would be a first step.  There are many who might choose to put their
efforts into a free tool (or start one if it is missing) if the
licensing categories were more apparent.

-Lars

[mcb, inc.]

Watching the latest flame war, I can't help thinking that as
founders of their respective projects Theo and RMS are trapped
in a jail of rigid consistency and absolutism demanded by
children and utopians.  Only at home, with the door locked,
are they free to boot their home's sole computer, a Windows
box, watch some Real Media streams and play a few Valve-
controlled games.  And late at night, when the ice weasels
come, a hypnogogic fog provides cover for a last conscious
thought:  "I wish, I wish, I wish... *I* had written OS X."

--
Monty Brandenberg

[Karsten McMinn]

On Dec 11, 2007 11:00 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>
> 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.

just a layman here trying to make sense of it all. According to you,
gNewSense, an ubuntu (debian) derivitave -- is free software. I use
ubuntu on a laptop. According to gNewSense their policy supports use of
the universe and main package repositories from ubuntu with the
few mentioned changes. Apples to apples comparisons I say. I adjust
my repositories in a repository browser and poke away. I find java, I
find tools to work with many non-free pieces of software as well.

So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column
that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?

[Johan SANCHEZ]

Hi all,

> 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.

http://www.fsf.org/news/freebios.html

And especially :
--
The FSF uses laptops donated by IBM over the past few years. This
was one among several ways IBM cooperated with the GNU Project.
But the cooperation is incomplete: when I asked for the
specifications necessary to make LinuxBIOS run on these laptops,
IBM refusedbciting, as the reason, the enforcement of "trusted
computing"  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
Treacherous computing is, itself, an attack on our freedom; it is
also, it seems, a motivation to obstruct our freedom in other ways.

--
You can also help our campaign by writing to manufacturers such as
Intel, saying they ought to cooperate with a fully free BIOS. Calm
but strong disapproval, coupled with stating an intention to take
action accordingly, is more effective than venting rage. Please
send a copy of your message to bios@..., so we can monitor the
support for this campaign. The more mail they get, the more
effect, so please do add your voice to ours.

--

For me BIOS, is mostly software embedded so i have to live with
that 'closed source bios' (at least on peecee's )  i think i don't
have to accept closed binary blobs at higher level ...

Now, please, can we together stop feeding that awful troll ?

[Kenneth Ismert]

Darrin Chandler wrote:
 > 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.

I like both licenses and use software under both licenses. For software I
write, I can easily see scenarios where I would use BSD, and others GPL.

 > 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.

Debate is inevitable: freedom is difficult to define. An individual's
concept of freedom depends on their priorities and ideals. There just
isn't one license that can meet everyone's requirements, or agree with
everyone's ideology.

The real value in these discussions for me lies in exploring what freedoms
each license protects, and how they enhance the public good. Even stepping
on each other's toes is good in a way: it means free speech is happening.

In the end, I see licenses as tools, not dogma. As such, I refuse to
be converted to either side. I can't be more even-handed than that.

-Ken

[Dope Ice Apollyon the Third]

On Dec 11, 2007 2:55 PM, Josh Grosse <josh@...> wrote:

> I have been reading this debate with interest, and am confused on one key
> point.
>
> RMS wrote:
>
> > Ututo and gNewSense have the policy not to include non-free programs,
> > not even in a ports system.
>
> According to http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/Features, "Universe enabled
> by default"
>
> Does selecting Ubuntu "Universe" category for packages include Main and
> Restricted?  If so, Restricted is non-free software, per
>
> http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components

Um, that first link says "Restricted removed". So presumably they mean
gNewSense = Ubuntu.Universe - Ubuntu.Restricted

-Nick

[Jason Beaudoin]

On Dec 11, 2007 2:00 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> 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.
>
> 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.
>

While I completely understand this point of view - and (more
importantly) the motivation behind such decisions - what I am hearing
from you is that an individual's (or project's) actions in fighting
*against* proprietary and the closed-source mentality (whether it's a
blob, no documentation, not considering NDA's etc..) is *less*
important than whether or not users are allowed the *freedom* to add
in software, that might possibly not follow these other goals..

This I simply don't understand.

We are fighting for the same thing.

And you cast the OpenBSD project out because there are users that
invest the effort to provide other users ports that may or may not
follow the *projects* goals and work?

Mr. Stallman, it is with great respect that I say these things, as I
believe your noble efforts in these areas are commendable and have had
a great influence on our communities, but I do not understand the
discrepancies here.

>     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.
>
>

that's awesome, can users add these back in if they choose? is your
project worthless because of these users 'actions?


kind regards,
Jason

[StrongBad]

mcb, inc. wrote:
> Watching the latest flame war, I can't help thinking that as
> founders of their respective projects Theo and RMS are trapped
> in a jail of rigid consistency and absolutism demanded by
> children and utopians.
Well, yes and no.

Theo's absolutism has kept OpenBSD pretty much the last
blob-free OS in the Free Software world.

RMS's absolutism has kept alive an ideal that launched
the mainstream open source movement.

So it's not non-functional. It's emotionally hard on the
individuals concerned, and often emotionally hard on
us who bask in the reflected glow of these geniuses :-).
But it  all seems to work out in practice. Has for a cuple
of decades now, give or take a few years.

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

[Darrin Chandler]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:41:27PM -0600, Ken Ismert wrote:

> Darrin Chandler wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Debate is inevitable: freedom is difficult to define. An individual's
> concept of freedom depends on their priorities and ideals. There just
> isn't one license that can meet everyone's requirements, or agree with
> everyone's ideology.

No, I'm not talking about "what Freedom means to me." Freedom isn't
difficult to define. Just look it up in a dictionary. BSD/MIT/ISC
licenses are more Free than GPL. There's nothing to debate about that.
It's just the way things are.

> The real value in these discussions for me lies in exploring what freedoms
> each license protects, and how they enhance the public good. Even stepping
> on each other's toes is good in a way: it means free speech is happening.

If you stop saying "free" and "freedoms" and find a more accurate word I
think your meaning will come through better.

> In the end, I see licenses as tools, not dogma. As such, I refuse to
> be converted to either side. I can't be more even-handed than that.

You are correct. They are tools, and should be used as such. After
having discussions with some people I have seen them *correctly* pick
GPL, since it has the effects they desire. And, I've also seen people
pick a BSD license even though they are GNU/Linux users. Good, in both
cases, since the license represented their views.

--
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

[Dope Ice Apollyon the Third]

On Dec 11, 2007 3:21 PM, Karsten McMinn <tenyou@...> wrote:

> On Dec 11, 2007 11:00 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column
> that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?

It may be relevant to point out:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119731456628749&w=2
> > Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports
> > tree would be useful.
>
> PERMIT_*=(not Yes)

The infrastructure is all there, it's just not emphasized.

-Nick

[RedShift]

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.
>
>
>

You've got too much time on your hands.

[William Boshuck]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:00:14PM -0500, 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?

Strictly speaking, no.  If you unpack ports.tar.gz
you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
& c., all of which are free.  OpenBSD's ports system
depends on programs in the base system which are free.
On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible,
even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl,
sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate
the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free)
software.  Your asking the question indicates that you
might have done better to exclude OpenBSD from the
scope of your remarks.  When one does not know, the
most appropriate statement is 'I don't know.'

Loosely speaking, you can get away with saying
pretty much anything that suits you at the time.

Loosely speaking is the problem.

[Theo de Raadt]

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:00:14PM -0500, 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?
>
> Strictly speaking, no.  If you unpack ports.tar.gz
> you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
> & c., all of which are free.  OpenBSD's ports system
> depends on programs in the base system which are free.
> On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible,
> even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl,
> sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate
> the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free)
> software.  Your asking the question indicates that you
> might have done better to exclude OpenBSD from the
> scope of your remarks.  When one does not know, the
> most appropriate statement is 'I don't know.'
>
> Loosely speaking, you can get away with saying
> pretty much anything that suits you at the time.
>
> Loosely speaking is the problem.

William is right.

The OpenBSD ports tree is just a scaffold, and that scaffold is 100%
free.  It contains no non-free parts.

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?

Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?

Richard -- you spoke out of line.  You are wrong.

[STeve Andre']

On Tuesday 11 December 2007 14:00:43 Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
>
> Because he tends to be unfriendly.

Now *that* I find humorous.

I find it Kafka-esque, your inability to reccomend OpenBSD because
of some "unfree" items in the ports tree.  Effectively you are taking
away the right of people to choose the software they wish to use.

Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the
freedom of choice in the name of freedom.

That is bizarre.

--STeve Andre'

[Ryan Corder-3]

I'm a very happy user of both OpenBSD and GNU/Linux systems, but what
I don't get is,  how is limiting a users choice in what he/she runs on
his/her system more free than one that doesn't?

Absolute freedom is to be able to do whatever the hell you want to
with no limitations placed on you whatsoever.  By this definition,
public domain is the only truly free "license".

I understand and appreciate the "freedom" that is defined by both the
BSD and GPL licenses; that of ensuring the authors continual right of
ownership.  However, in terms of true freedom, both have limitations in
place.

Not that I disagree with the limitations they have, in fact I support
them both as the current systems in place require the need to protect
your original copyright.  It's Utopian for me to think this, but in an
ideal setting, there would be no need for any licesnes and everything
would be available in the public domain.  But since we are arguing about
which license ensures more freedom, I think they both fall short of
what it actually means to be free.

[Kenneth Ismert]

Darrin Chandler wrote:
 > ... BSD/MIT/ISC licenses are more Free than GPL. There's nothing
 > to debate about that. It's just the way things are ...

I don't doubt your claims one iota. But in saying that, don't
believe you have convinced me that the other side somehow has
less valid claims.

And yes, that's inconsistent. Maybe it's because of growing older,
world-weariness, or just plain mental inferiority, but I have
come to a place where I realize I hold some inconsistent and
contradictory views, and I've found that I'm OK with that.

In this case, it's just pragmatic: I want both licenses, and
argument seems pointless.

-Ken

[RedShift]

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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>

Where's the freedom in not being able to use (under your definition of
non-free software) non-free or otherwise "restricted" software?

Freedom is about being free to make your own choice, no matter what the
content of that choice is. Even if that choice inhibits freedom.

Glenn

[Steve Shockley]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check.

The source code of LAME is licensed under the LGPL; however, the mp3
format itself is patented and restricted.  Further reading:

http://www.mp3-tech.org/patents.html
http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developers.html

In short, the patents don't affect what you can do with the source code,
they affect what you can do with the program after you compile it.  So,
you can modify, compile and distribute the program all you want, but if
you actually execute the program you need a patent license.  I suppose
that could be considered Free Software, with a very narrow definition of
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:.

Unfortuately, several of the sites linked from the FSF page require
viewing using their self-signed SSL cert for some reason.

 From license.txt in the unrar source archive:
-----
The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives
without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the
RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
-----

That seems to run completely counter to the ideals of the GPL, but I
suppose you're the expert.

> 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.

I'm not sure I see how this is an issue.  With gNewSense, I can point to
the Debian/Ubuntu repositories and install unfree software binaries.
With OpenBSD, to run unfree software I need to check out the Ports tree,
find the package I want to run, compile it, and install it.  (Note the
distinction between Ports, which contains all the third-party software,
and Packages, which contains only Free software.)

So, it would seem that (barring human error) the primary philosophical
difference between the packaging systems of OpenBSD and gNewSense is
that gNewSense tries to prevent you from seeing any packages they
consider non-Free, while OpenBSD directly provides only Free software
(Packages) but gives the user a choice of installing any software
(Ports).  So, from my point of view, OpenBSD provides the user with more
freedom by not imposing artificial restrictions.  After all, this
removes "the overhead of considering who owns the system software and
what one is or is not entitled to do with it"[1].  Do you disagree?


[1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html, "Why All Computer Users Will
Benefit"

[Steve Shockley]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>>     Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
> Because he tends to be unfriendly.

Interestingly enough, if you specified that as the reason you recommend
against using OpenBSD, this thread would have been a lot shorter.
Somehow I think Theo is more interested in writing code and changing the
world than making friends.  Personally, I think he's made the right choice.