Real men don't attack straw men

[Mattieu Baptiste-2]

On Dec 15, 2007 11:46 PM, Firas Kraiem <firas@...> wrote:

>
> So what ? Are you telling me that, just because there is one thing about
> which Richard disagrees with OpenBSD, he shouldn't have the right to
> also tell the good he thinks about it ? Or the other way around,
> because OpenBSD makes efforts regarding freedom, he should not have the
> right to express his points of disagreement ?


No. I'm telling his points of disagreement are unfounded.

>
>
> I guess you should consider getting glasses, you're seeing things in
> black and white.
>
> Firas
>
> --
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
>
> GnuPG public key: http://itsuki.fkraiem.org/gpgkey
>

--
Mattieu Baptiste
"/earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can."

[Jeroen Massar]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far,
>
> What I said is that the ports system contains recipes for installing
> non-free software.

Just a quick question then: what about Debian GNU/Linux?
(note the GNU part there)

$ apt-cache show msttcorefonts
Description: Installer for Microsoft TrueType core fonts
 This package allows for easy installation of the Microsoft True Type
 Core Fonts for the Web including:

Or just check all the packages that are '*-nonfree', eg
flashplugin-nonfree and of course never forget all the nice things like
nvidia drivers along with all kinds of other installers. (zaptel drivers
anyone? :)

Should I take this that you don't endorse Debian, and thus also Ubuntu
and other deriviatives, either, as you are now stating that these
contain 'recipes for non-free software'?


One freedom that the GNU/GPL part of this world is forgetting is the
freedom to decide yourself what you want to do with something, instead,
especially with GPL you get forced to do a lot of things. This is
especially horrible when a developer wants to release code into the
public but then gets whining people on his neck complaining about
licensing issues, as it is not their license and thus is not good
enough. Blergh.

Greets,
 Jeroen
  (who just sticks BSD licenses on 'code I give away' and everything
else is nice and commercial and closed source: pay for it first)

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

[Gilles Chehade-5]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     There is a difference between "I have no obligation to answer each and
>     every message" and "I cannot find a coherent answer to several messages".
>
> One difference is that the first one is true, and the second one is
> false.  As you've seen by now, people were looking for something
> sinister in a simple delay.
>
>     I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on
>     gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on Windows.
>
> I am surprised by this statement, because in general I don't expect
> that very many users would switch to a different operating system just
> to use GCC.  Nonetheless, I would be interested in talking with them
> to see what they say about this.
>

What you expect (conveniently) is far from what happens to be reality.

In the real world, people need their work done and will take the necessary
steps to do so. If work involves cross compilation, as an example, and you
provide them with a free compiler (as in gratis) that does that job ok, it
will be used. If Linux is a prerequisite to this and that you provide them
for free (as in gratis), they will install it. When you write code to make
gcc work on windows and endorse it, you tell them that there is no need to
switch to Linux to get the work done.

You are doing precisely what you blame on BSD, except that we provide just
a set of Makefiles, and that you actually wrote code to make sure projects
will run on a proprietary system and will be used by a broader public.

And no, you will not get to talk to the people I worked with. It is not of
any interest for me to send them the average troll when they do not care a
tiny bit about discussing FSF/GPL and/or BSD philosophy. Live with it, you
do encourage people to use proprietary systems by providing them the tools
to get their work done without having to ever touch a free system.

Gilles

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

[Firas Kraiem-3]

On Saturday 15 December 2007 23:50:38 Mattieu Baptiste wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2007 11:46 PM, Firas Kraiem <firas@...>
wrote:
> > So what ? Are you telling me that, just because there is one thing
> > about which Richard disagrees with OpenBSD, he shouldn't have the
> > right to also tell the good he thinks about it ? Or the other way
> > around, because OpenBSD makes efforts regarding freedom, he should
> > not have the right to express his points of disagreement ?
>
> No. I'm telling his points of disagreement are unfounded.

He doesn't like the fact that OpenBSD provides a convenient way for
users to install non-free software. You can disagree with him, as I do,
but you can't honestly say those claims are unfounded !

Of course, what he said in that interview, (something like "the ports
tree contains non-free software") was evidently wrong, or at least very
clumsily put, but I think that the fact that Richard came here to
explain more in detail what he meant when he said that is a way to
admit his mistake, or at least that's how I see it.

Sadly, the harm is done and some people who blindly believe everything
Richard says - and I'm pretty sure he himself sees that as a bad
thing - might have been led to believe that OpenBSD actually contains
non-free software. But it's no use crying over spilled milk, and if
Theo said that OpenBSD people have a "giving nature", I also happen to
have a forgiving one.

Firas

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

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

[Duncan Patton a Campbell]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:05:16 -0800
Ryan Corder <ryanc@...> wrote:

> 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.

It occurs to me that there is some wide misuse of the words Freedom and Free
in open-software community.  To be short, if somewhat cryptic, "Freedom's
just another word for nothin' left to lose".  Free needs context, as in
"MSG-Free brocolli" or "Free Beer".  

What "Free" software is about is enabling the Liberty of other people.  
Liberty is a peculiar kind of freedom that depends upon the use other
people's efforts in some unconstrained or previously unimaginable manner:
Liberty might get you to the moon, but freedom will only get you as high
as you can jump.  

Proprietary systems rigidly constrain what can be accomplished with them
to activities the owners imagine will profit them, thus the user is
limited to "pre-approved" uses where novelty is strongly discouraged.

Dhu

[Marco Peereboom]

> I realize that you are frustrated with the terms and their definitions.
> However, if someone is well-versed in the GPL philosophy and rhetoric,
> it is understood what is meant when I say free and when I say open.
> I don't see any other good way to discuss it.  Certainly in the BSD
> camp we don't think that the GPL is "free." Yes, it is a legal
> monstrosity and it limits your rights.  I just can't have a coherent
> conversation with someone all the while inserting that disclaimer
> every damn time I use a word.  However, I have to agree, Stallman's
> arguments are rhetorical, they do contain equivocations on words
> like free.

I don't care what he wants to call freedom.  I know what the dictionary
says.  I don't care how often GPL people repeat his nonsense; it still
isn't so.  Do what you can and always point this out to the GPL folk
until they start using the right definitions for their license.

So lets repeat it, GPL software is GRATIS.

[Marco Peereboom]

> I exercise my freedom of speech by not telling people about the Adobe
> flash plug-in.  I think you should, too.  But I will not try to force
> you to do that, because I respect your freedom of speech.

That's rich coming from someone who advocates limit of speech via a
restrictive license.  Shame on you for bending words to meet your
political agenda.

[Kimi Ostro]

Please can we stop this thread? hasn't this gone on long enough already? :(

--
Kimi

[Marco Peereboom]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:37:45PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
>     because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
>     choices,
>
> Convincing people to switch to free software is just one part of what
> we need to do to establish a society in which users are free.  We also
> have to teach them to appreciate their freedom, and recognize that
> non-free would deny them their freedom.  That way they will take
> actions to protect their freedom.

Gratis software.  Free software would allow the use to do as he pleases.

[Theo de Raadt]

>     > 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.
>
> Free speech means you are free to tell people about the Adobe flash
> plug-in, and also free to decide not to tell them.

Free speech also means our free ports tree can contain Makefiles which
point at non-free software.

> I exercise my freedom of speech by not telling people about the Adobe
> flash plug-in.  I think you should, too.  But I will not try to force
> you to do that, because I respect your freedom of speech.

You go onto a talk show and exercise your freedom of speech and your
powerful position as some supposed visionary ... to criticise our
exercising of our free speech.

At the same time, the specific criticism you have of us is not supposed
to stick to your own behaviour, in gcc end emacs.

You are a hypocrite, and any supposed visionary status you had in the
past is now nothing but mud.  None of the operating system
distributions will give your crack pot ideas any more credit in the
future.

[fuzzyping]

On Dec 15, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:

>    This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
>    because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
>    choices,
>
> Convincing people to switch to free software is just one part of what
> we need to do to establish a society in which users are free.  We also
> have to teach them to appreciate their freedom, and recognize that
> non-free would deny them their freedom.  That way they will take
> actions to protect their freedom.
>
> Messages of acceptance of non-free software undermine the efforts
> to teach people that appreciation, and that is why I have decided
> to reject them.

Except where you decide to modify your own software (emacs) to run on  
non-free software.  This is the definition of hypocrisy.  How can you  
claim otherwise?

---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

[Travers Buda-2]

* Marco Peereboom <slash@...> [2007-12-15 17:18:52]:

>
> So lets repeat it, GPL software is GRATIS.
>

The term gratis seems like a good one. However, the GPL states that:

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
for a fee."

And while I can't think of any instances where money exchanged hands
per the GPL off the top of my head, gratis could be misleading.
How about we say "GPL software" in the stead of "free software"?
That ought to remove any ambiguity so long as people understand
what the GPL is.  Atleast it won't result in misleading people like
"free software" can.

--
Travers Buda

[Darrin Chandler]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:29PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     Please note that I'm not saying gcc or emacs should not support
>     windows, solaris, ultrix or any other non-free operating system. I do
>     not hold these extreme ethical views. I merely question RMS's ethics.
>
> Is there anyone here that actually believes it is wrong for free
> programs to have code to run on non-free systems?  Such a person could
> honestly criticize me for thinking that is acceptable.  But I have a
> hunch that nobody on the list holds those extreme ethical views.  In
> other words, you and others are attacking me for agreeing with all of
> you on this point.

No, at this point it's not whether you agree with me (or "us"), but
whether you agree with your own stated beliefs. Merely ackowledging
non-free software is to suggest it to the user in your opinion, right?
How much more suggestion to actively support non-free software? It's
more than acknowlegement, it smacks of endorsement.

This, to me, is the issue now.

> Everyone has to draw lines between cases that are partly similar, and
> that is not hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy is a contradiction between one's
> stated views and one's actions -- for instance, criticizing someone
> else for doing that which you do not think is wrong.

See above.

> To reconcile these two needs, I concluded that I should generally
> accept compromises and part-way measures that are beneficial in the
> short term, as long as they don't undermine the long-term goal.
> However, we must not advocate part-way measures that imply rejection
> of the goal.
>
> More concretely, this means that I can grant legitimacy to installing
> free software, even if they don't go all the way and erase all the
> non-free software on their machines.  But I cannot grant legitimacy to
> installing a non-free program, because that would be treating the
> problem as a solution.  Thus, I can encourage installing Emacs, GCC or
> OpenOffice on Windows, but I should not encourage installing non-free
> programs on GNU/Linux or BSD, just as I should not encourage
> installing Windows.
>
> It sounds like you disagree with these conclusions, and also with the
> goal that they are based on.  I respect your right to your views, but
> I strive to act according to my views.

I think it's enabling the continued use of non-free software.

The single benefit of distributing "free" Windows software that comes to
mind is to introduce a user to the idea that free software can be a
viable alternative. I can't think of another reason at all. And the $200
Walmart Linux PC has already done more in that regard than years of GCC
and Emacs for Windows.

So I think the ideological reasons justifying GNU Windows software are
shaky at best and outright hypocritical at worst, and the pragmatic
reasons just haven't worked.

--
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

[j4nKy]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Not at all.  The point is to avoid things to lead users to install
> non-free software, and/or grant ethical legitimacy to non-free
> software.  gNewSense doesn't lead users to install blobs, and doesn't
> kegitimize them.

then you are apparently unaware that gNewSense does indeed lead users
into installing non-free software.  they keep finding non-free software
in their system.  it may not be their intention, but it is the reality.

contrast this with OpenBSD's license auditing efforts, and then
objectively decide which OS, gNewSense or OpenBSD is right now,
today, doing more to help users avoid non-free software.

further, people believe that gNewSense contains only free software,
because you told them so.  as a result you are leading people to
install non-free software without their knowledge.

perhaps helping gNewSense developers audit the licenses of the
software in their system would do more to promote your ideals
of freedom than fighting over the definitions of words.

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

[Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo-2]

El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 16:36 -0500, Richard Stallman escribiC3:

> Remember all the people who accused me of "lying" because at some time
> I described the presence of these recipes as "the ports system
> includes non-free software"?  That whole tangent was based on taking
> my words out of context.  My first message had already made it clear
> what I was talking about.

No, you have been accused of LYING on your talk, not in your message.

Also you have been accused of hypocrisy, because you recommend ututo
(look on the ofifial forums... nvidia, skype, blobs,  non-free...)
instead of openbsd (a cool tree of good and free code). And also because
a lot of GNU/GPL software SUGGEST and SUPPORT the user to use for
example windows, with more than URL's or  FREE LICENSED recipes of
makefiles.

> The people who created this tangent chose one way I described the
> facts, and picked a wrong interpretation, which my first message had
> already shown was not right.  In other words, they raised an imaginary
> issue, and denounced me for a claim they should have known I did not
> make.

I don't remember your first message, i remember your words on the talk,
and all the blablablu that you have been changing along the thread.

Greetings

[Darrin Chandler]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on
>     gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on Windows.
>
> I am surprised by this statement, because in general I don't expect
> that very many users would switch to a different operating system just
> to use GCC.  Nonetheless, I would be interested in talking with them
> to see what they say about this.

I have various books and known various consultants that say, more or
less, that you should pick the application you need first, and then buy
the computer system that runs it second. These books are not new, but
the idea is as true as it ever was.

To people who view computers solely as tools (almost all management),
providing GCC for Windows enabled and encourages the use of Windows when
GCC is the tool they need. Enables and encourages, not in some
hypothetical sense, but in fact.

Compare this with OpenBSD's ports tree pointing to some non-free
software. First, nobody here thinks that's wrong. You do, yet are fine
with making people cozy in Windows.

Whatever your ideals or beliefs, this just seems like major suckage on
your end. Can't you find a better way to pursue your ideology? To quote
a common saying on the net these days: "You're doing it WRONG!"

--
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

[Daniel Ouellet]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Come oh dilbert of gnu, stamp your licence upon all who code. Propegate your
>     gnu legacy through the universe down to the plank scale. Install your agenda
>     near and far. Come and spread the evangalistic word.
>
> All I can do personally is bless your computer.  But if it has
> non-free software installed, it needs an exorcism.

Richard,

You make me smile! I am glad to see you still have a sense of humor. (;>

I am convince you are wrong, and at the same time, genuinely happy to
see you still have a sense of humor in controversy.

Regards,

Daniel

[Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo-2]

El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 16:36 -0500, Richard Stallman escribiC3:

> I suppose so.  I don't see how anything could stop them.  Whatever the
> changes gNewSense has made in the source code of Linux, a user could
> revert them if he wants to.

Change te code to the point that it doesn't accept tainted modules,
firmware or reverting the code.

Changing gnewsense to don't accept other (vanilla) kernels.

Change all "minimal as a url" (a browser logo, a mp3 player, a jpg
viewer, etc etc from gnewsense. Change gnewsense to don't allow this
stuff.

Don't allow the user also to browse to internet non-free webs (you can
blacklist or filter), or change messages whit non-free mail clients.

Also it should have two repositories: GPL and nonGPL but compatible
software, as the LICENSES page of the FSF.

Then, we will see how many people will use your "recomendable"
distribution.
               
> Not at all.  The point is to avoid things to lead users to install
> non-free software, and/or grant ethical legitimacy to non-free
> software.  gNewSense doesn't lead users to install blobs, and doesn't
> kegitimize them.

The kernel is ready, they have make and modprobe.

Also they have teras of shit in .deb or .bin

> It's not the point to _stop_ users from doing anything.  Thus, while
> it's a fact that gNewSense users can reinstall the blobs if they want
> to, that doesn't affect the point.

It is not the point, but what you recomends is a castration project.

May be i am i, or may be i am not i. Or may it isn't, or it is.

Goodbye or hello.

[Daniel Ouellet]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     There is a difference between "I have no obligation to answer each and
>     every message" and "I cannot find a coherent answer to several messages".
>
> One difference is that the first one is true, and the second one is
> false.  As you've seen by now, people were looking for something
> sinister in a simple delay.
>
>     I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on
>     gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on Windows.
>
> I am surprised by this statement, because in general I don't expect
> that very many users would switch to a different operating system just
> to use GCC.  Nonetheless, I would be interested in talking with them
> to see what they say about this.

However surprising this might be, the question couldn't be raise if it
wasn't so, and as such your arguments would hold more water, and
hypocritical couldn't be clam if it wasn't available and promote to be
use under Windows!

Always easy to castrate the neighbor yard without looking at it's own.

Best,

Daniel

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 15, 2007 7:09 PM, Darrin Chandler <dwchandler@...> wrote:
> The single benefit of distributing "free" Windows software that comes to
> mind is to introduce a user to the idea that free software can be a
> viable alternative. I can't think of another reason at all. And the $200
> Walmart Linux PC has already done more in that regard than years of GCC
> and Emacs for Windows.

I respectfully disagree.  Linux was definitely the enabler for this to
happen.  How much of Linux's success was because of the GPL is
something only historians can tell us, but without FSF/GNU/GPL.
Unfortunately, right at that time, bsd was involved in the AT&T
lawsuit, or it could have been bsd, or bsd/linux.

And as misguided as OLPC is (in my personal opinion), I think that
will unleash a brand new population of free software users.

 > So I think the ideological reasons justifying GNU Windows software are
> shaky at best and outright hypocritical at worst, and the pragmatic
> reasons just haven't worked.

While, as I had mentioned previously, cygwin has stopped me from
buying a linux computer, cygwin has also exposed people to "unix" type
tools.  Whether familiarizing users with free tools help them to move
to free OSes is debatable, but I have personally moved people to both
OpenBSD and Linux (as in, make it their primary server/desktop).


--
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