Real men don't attack straw men

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 15, 2007 7:03 PM, Travers Buda <traversbuda@...> wrote:
> 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.

As I understand it, plenty of people have actually paid for tapes that
FSF/GNU was selling.




--
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

[Jon .]

While we're all on this subject (or were, I left for a couple hours), hand
in hand the philosophy that systems should crash loudly, apt, ports,
whatever (if ports doesn't already) should loudly yell at the user (the same
level of fear pushed with "this is cvs code this may break your system so
don't complain!!" since blobs can be just as scary if not scarier[1]) when
closed-source software is about to be installed. These are free operating
systems and like in a (truly) free society people will do very stupid things
with their freedom. Regardless of system be it ututo ubuntu or OpenBSD,
including or excluding blobs in a package list makes _very_ little
difference.

The systems should inform users (or just flag to sys admins yo this is a
blob) with something along the lines of:

"You and your system are now at the complete mercy of this vendor's
competence and self-interested wishes, expect to be degraded to the shit
standard of a windows or mac system, this is an extreme risk[1], would you
like to continue? =)" along with a link to the "Vendor Reasons and Excuses,
The Bullshit" presentation (
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-docs/mgp00020.txt).

This type of warning would deliver both the moral and practical reasons
while letting them re-enforce each other as they so well do still being
completely and properly interpreted regardless of camp you're in.

Just like we allegedly got whatever large percentage of the population off
smoking cigs, the GNU camp isn't going to get people off proprietary
software through omissions and on-the-side education. All camps can only do
so much through lobbying to get access to specifications. You gotta get not
just your well-informed users on this but let your average
zomg-*nix-is-leet-transparent-terminals!-guy able to make an informed
opinion too through bold red-lettered "this is lung cancer in a box"
stickers to shift the consensus in your favors regardless of your
motivations, whether they be moral (mercy of someone else sucks) or
practical (having more people screaming/initiating for specs).

I think all package managers list licenses in package info to be helpful to
everyone (those wanting to using a whole OpenBSD system for a "product"
would probably appreciate this the most) and scare the users with capitol
letters about how they're doing something stupid/scary[1] every time they
do.

[1]:  I don't think I have to explain to this group how much blobs suck.

This is something constructive both camps (along with all of us) with little
effort would possibly greatly benefit from. I'm sure the vast minority of us
are sick of having to deal with binary blobs when we are stuck between them
and paperweighting hardware because the vast majority are willing to put up
with them or don't have it shoved into their collective consciousness that
this is bullshit we are putting up with here and that this could and should
be solved.

On Dec 15, 2007 1:36 PM, 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.
>
> Free speech means you are free to tell people about the Adobe flash
> plug-in, and also free to decide not to tell them.
>
> 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.

[Darrin Chandler]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:07:19PM -0500, bofh wrote:
> 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.

Ok so far...

> 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.

So? You're talking about something else entirely. Read again above where
you quoted my words, please.

>  > 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).

In my limited experience, cygwin has only enabled people familiar with
unix to do a few more unixy things on Windows. This is a loss for giving
people a reason to give up non-free software.

--
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

[Marc Balmer]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     I doubt someone who is truly unfriendly could organize a hackathon, a
>     friendly social event.
>
> He may be perfectly friendly to others.  What is relevant is that he
> tends to be unfriendly to me.

What is relevant is that you are a hypocrite and come to our
mailing lists talking bullshit about OpenBSD.  You do not only
offend Theo, but all of the OpenBSD / OpenSSH developers.

We put a lot of effort into making a free operating system which
is accompanied by a free ports system.  Your stanzas are just
pure insult.

Someone acting like you must not complain about Theo being unfriendly.
You call for it.  Theo is only being direct and he is right.

>
>     The same argument could be made about your unfriendliness. We could not
>     talk to you since you have *proven* to be unfriendly:
>
>     http://z505.com/images/gnu-sign.png
>
> I criticized ATI firmly when it refused to release the specs for its
> chips.  I'm happy to say that in October another ATI speaker came to
> MIT and announced that ATI was supporting development of free drivers.
> I shook his hand.  I was also told that my protest had made an
> impression at ATI, so I think it played a role in bringing about the
> change in policies.
>
> However, that was nothing on the scale of unfriendliness compared to
> what Theo has said to me -- both in this discussion, and previously.
> I used the word "unfriendly" as a deliberate understatement, because I
> did not want to start an argument about that side issue.  (Others
> chose, in a hypersensitive fashion, to do so anyway.)
>
> I reserve my unfriendliness, such as it is, for the enemies of the
> free software movement -- which does not include OpenBSD.  I have
> never urged people not to use OpenBSD.  I do not campaign against
> OpenBSD and never did.

[Marc Balmer]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.  (I
> also have not net connection much of the time.)  To look at page I
> send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
> It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.

and it shows that you are a complete dork.  you are disconnected
from reality.  how can we take you for serious?

[Ryan Flannery]

On Dec 15, 2007 3:08 PM, L <l@...> wrote:

> Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> >>> Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each
> >>> other,
> >>> sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
> >>> there looking
> >>> sheepish, all covered with poop.
> >>>
> >>
> >> How is this my fault?
> >>
> > It's not your fault. You're still standing there waiting for more poop to
> > be flung on you though.
> >> Richard slagged our efforts.  In the public space.
> >>
> > Over the 1/4 century of flamefests I've seen online, the truth of the
> > proposition under debate was obvious from the first few lines. The
> > rest is gratuitous verbal violence.
> >
>
> Flamewars do have benefits.. they get slashdot/kerneltrap publicity and
> developers can be attracted to the operating system if they see things
> in the flamewars that define where the projects are headed. OpenBSD is
> headed for open code. GNU is headed for fighting for freedom. People can
> see this from the flamewar and choose an OS that suits them.
>

Amen.  Despite how others may say "this brings an overly negative look
to the group", I find it refreshing and absolutely needed.  I've loved
the honesty of this group for ages.  Although the flame wars can get
brutal, they are so very appropriate for the times.
"Oh, this guy Stallman and his words should be respected, no matter
how odd they seem... he's done *soo* much for the open/free
movement!!"  Give me a break.  Stallman speaks.  Theo and this group
*do*.
Since '98 I've been using various Linux and BSD distro's both for work
and in private.  For the past few years, I've noticed that the only
real community who "shuts-up and produces" is OpenBSD.  They may move
slow in some areas, the progress may be brutal/ruthless on the mailing
lists, and some may leave for "nicer" more "friendly" communities...
but damn these people produce.  And they don't produce crap.
Everything original from this group has been nothing less than
top-notch software with excellent documentation.

I can rarely afford to donate (honestly), but this flame has done
nothing but re-affirm my belief that the OpenBSD community is FAR more
than a net positive for good, quality, free software... they don't
just preach, THEY PRODUCE.
As such, my ass (no matter how poor...and in all honestly, not *that*
poor... I just like good beer :)
got out of my chair and donated.

I encourage the rest of you who support obsd to do the same.

> True, flamewars can also detract developers who are sensitive and weak
> and cannot accept a little beating.
>
> (p.s. I submitted the flamewar to slashdot a day ago. Go to firehose.pl
> script and vote it in if you want. So far it has been ignored, yet it
> made it to kernaltrap already.. hmm.)
>
> For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that
> doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't
> fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my instinct
> that openbsd is not about some idealistic freedom of speech. So the
> flamewar has positive points, because I confirmed that it's the
> operating system I am installing on a few servers of mine that host over
> 5 million pages.
>
> On the other hand, wimps can say 'blah, OpenBSD people are mean, I'd
> never use that OS (The OpenBSD Cliche).
>
> I will repeat some previous quotes I brought up once:
>
> "A philosopher who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job."
> --Plato (source: Wikipedia)

An appropriate quote.
For someone who's not that old, and only been involved in "free"
software since I was 18, I constantly find myself attacked for being
"too young to appreciate what others have done".
Basically, I'm told to "respect my elders no matter what they say now".
OK - I haven't followed Stallman et alia since their inception, so I
can't really speak for what happened before my time (at least not with
the first-hand 'authority' that others seem to demand).
...But since I have been working in the community, this group has
PRODUCED while others have only SPOKEN.

>
> "A programmer who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job."
> --L505 (source: Z505)
>
> One has to speak up and stick up for his programming/philosophy
> practices sometimes, otherwise he won't be heard. The guy who spoke up
> about earth not being flat was ridiculed, flamed, and arrested.
>
> If you just give in and back down in a flamewar, you may not refresh and
> define your true goals in a project. You may not attract more developers
> who have similar beliefs. You may not gain publicity. Bad publicity can
> be good publicity.
>
> ALL PROGRAMMERS are aggressive online. Every time you fix a bug, you are
> being aggressive to the computer. All security experts are aggressive
> online.. how do you think we aggressively find exploits and bugs? That
> doesn't mean they are bad people in person and as a whole. Every time
> you make a sign with the word ENEMY OF YOUR FREEDOM on it you are being
> unfriendly too. Blah, who cares. Judge an operating system by its open
> code and open attitude.. not some random occasional fun flamewar.
>
> Flamewars are natural and sometimes they can actually help define a
> projects goals and weed out some of the weaker folk who just can't take
> a fun flamewar.
>
>
> L505
>
>

I haven't commented until now, and I don't intend to contribute further...

... except to say that if you feel remotely similar, then get off your
ass and donate.
A hackathon is not too far in the future, and this group could use it.
 Oh, and they will not be using the hackathon to sit around and debate
"freedom"...they will actually be producing something.

I hope this group never changes.

-ryan

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 14/12/2007, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> 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.

The only practical difference is that a free system that _practically_
conforms to your proposed definition still doesn't exist nor is it
ready for production.

> 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.

Switching operating systems is no bigger deal than switching
application software.  It is only a big deal if one tries to impose
artificial restrictions that certain applications could not be run on
certain operating systems.

Consider that by providing an easy way to install (and deinstall!)
non-free userland application software, a free operating system is
simply compensating for the lost revenue that increased availability
of the free application software has caused for many people and
organisations to remain with non-free operating systems.  Please note,
that FSF is directly responsible for this revenue loss, too; as it
happily provides vast amount of software for Windows users.

C.

[fuzzyping]

On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.

Richard Stallman is like the wife of a drunk.  He is an enabler.  
Until he comes to this realization and cuts the ties, no progress will  
be made.

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

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 15/12/2007, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> 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.

However, it has been pointed out many times today that you fail to
reject non-free operating systems in your own free application
software.  If so, who are you to tell us that we should reject
non-free application software in our free operating system software?

C.

[Rico Secada]

Who am I Theo asked, a big fat nobody (maybe), but I started this issue
to begin with and after criticizing Theo for being unnecessary rude to
Richard I have noticed that Richard keeps avoiding the facts!

Richard you continue to avoid the questions or issues brought forth by
Theo, could you please focus on the issue rather than commenting the
same statements over and over again!

Theo wrote:

> On the bsd talk show you did not withhold your recommendation because
> the ports system suggests non-free programs.  No way, that's not what
> you said on that show.
>
> What actually happened is that you withheld your recommendation
> because it CONTAINS non-free programs; that is what your words were.

This is the TRUTH, anybody can hear that for himself, and that's why I
wrote to the list in the first place!
 
> It turns out that the above assessment was based on a complete lack of
> research.  It was uneducated, and you should have apologized for the
> error.
>
> You were really clear in your interview.  And wrong.
>
> Later on, on this mailing list, you have changed your statements to
> say that your recommend against OpenBSD because it now... RECOMMENDS
> non-free software.

Clearly the TRUTH as well! We have all witnessed that!

> We've made it quite clear that Emacs and gcc recommend the use of
> non-free software, by directly containing code to support those
> systems.  The ports tree does not contain code to support non-free
> components.  It simply provides URLs to a few select things which
> people might wish to use.  Itself, it contains no non-free code and
> makes no recommendations.  But gcc and emacs directly contain code
> which RECOMMENDS compilation on non-free systems, by actually
> compiling and running there.

This is the TRUTH! By containing code which recommends compilation on
non-free system then Richard you are doing MORE to support non-free
than the OpenBSD ports system is! That's a fact! That's NOT an opinion.

> You are a hypocritical liar, Richard.
>
> Your lies taint the efforts of the entire FSF and GNU communities.
>
> Shame on you all for letting Richard mislead you so.

I am sorry Theo, I know you don't give a rats ass, but you are right,
and you have been right all along!

Dear Richard unless you actually address the above mentioned issues, in
context of the e-mail from Theo, you will look hypocritical! You say
what you don't do yourself.

Best regards.

Rico Secada.

[Firas Kraiem-3]

On Sunday 16 December 2007 02:28:12 Marc Balmer wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.  (I
> > also have not net connection much of the time.)  To look at page I
> > send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
> > It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
>
> and it shows that you are a complete dork.  you are disconnected
> from reality.  how can we take you for serious?

Reality equals the internet ? D'oh...

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

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

[Unix Fan]

Some day in the future, RMS will die while having sexual intercourse with an android running proprietary software... and on that day, I will buy everyone a round of beers.



Sure I'm terrible, but he's just crazy... ;)



(I may be drunk, but you are ugly, and tomorrow I'll be sober.)



-Nix Fan.

[Eric Furman-3]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:08:16 -0700, "L" <l@...> said:

> Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> >>> Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each
> >>> other,
> >>> sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
> >>> there looking
> >>> sheepish, all covered with poop.
> >>>    
> >>
> >> How is this my fault?
> >>  
> > It's not your fault. You're still standing there waiting for more poop to
> > be flung on you though.
> >> Richard slagged our efforts.  In the public space.
> >>  
> > Over the 1/4 century of flamefests I've seen online, the truth of the
> > proposition under debate was obvious from the first few lines. The
> > rest is gratuitous verbal violence.
> >
>
> Flamewars do have benefits.. they get slashdot/kerneltrap publicity and
> developers can be attracted to the operating system if they see things
> in the flamewars that define where the projects are headed. OpenBSD is
> headed for open code. GNU is headed for fighting for freedom.

No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view
of freedom. Not *real* freedom.
To the GNU folks, freedom=slavery.

[Matthew Dempsky-3]

On 12/15/07, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@...> wrote:
> 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'?

Correct.  RMS does not recommend Debian or Ubuntu.

[j4nKy]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 05:16:54PM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:

> 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".  

so you can define freedom?  "Freedom's just another word for nothin'
left to lose?"  great song lyric;  here's another.  "I ain't often
right but I've never been wrong; it seldom turns out the way it does
in the song."

>
> 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.  

according to Wikipedia:

Liberty is generally considered a concept of political philosphpy and
identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to
act according to his or her own will.

according to Merriam-Webster:

1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from an arbitrary or
despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political,
or economic rights and provileges e: the power of choice
2: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant: PRIVILEGE b:
permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3: an action going beyond the normal limits: as a: a breach of
etiquette or propriety : FAMILIARITY b: RISK, CHANCE <took foolish
liberties with his health> c: a violation of rules or a deviation from
standard practice d: a distortion of fact
4: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours

synonyms see FREEDOM

only meaning 2 from Meriam-Webster mentions others' actions, and
it specifically says "within specified limits".

please quit trying to redefine liberty, or any other word for that
matter.

> 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.

and if you forget about your own liberties, then you have fallen into
the trap.  most people here understand that they have liberties.  most
people here think for themselves.  most people here realize that
educating themselves is the best way to protect their liberties.

neither you, nor Richard Stallman redefining words and attempting
to make people forget their liberties by talking about the drawbacks
of proprietary software is going to change that.

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

[Daniel Ouellet]

bofh wrote:
> 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.

Where are you going with your sky in the desert?

"bsd/linux"

It is GNU/linux because Linus Trovald save the asses of GUN as their
HURD kernel never worked and may never will. It was the perfect marriage
between the two as neither one could have had a life without the other.

A symbioses in heaven for both of them.

However, I never thought I would have to remind you that BSD IS a
complete OS, kernel and userland standing on his two feets by itself in
one place.

The true part is the lawsuit that had an impact that no one sure can
know to what extend it also benefit the GNU/linux and will never know.

Don't forget that.

With all due respect.

Daniel.

[Marco Peereboom]

Then you can talk to me.  Every single piece of firmware that goes
though my hands these days was written in gcc on windows.  Or on gcc on
cygwin.  Arches I used in the past were gcc on solaris and gcc on Linux
(everything prior to that was proprietary).  The only reason gcc is
being run on windows is becasue IT IS THERE.  People would totally run
Linux to run gcc; making it available on windows just makes it
clickable and useful with visual slick edit.  The FSF single handedly
destroyed the embedded market with gcc on windows.  The reason for that
is because the compiler is gratis and it runs on their fav OS to boot.
GCC has kept people from running Linux or other gratis OS' by the virtue
of windows availability.

I guess you are all surprised now, eh?

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.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports
>> system suggests non-free programs.
>>    
>
> On the bsd talk show you did not withhold your recommendation because
> the ports system suggests non-free programs.  No way, that's not what
> you said on that show.
>  
http://cisx1.uma.maine.edu/~wbackman/bsdtalk/bsdtalk132.ogg
This is the link to the ogg file of the show.

Anyone that wants an accurate impression of what Richard said
would be much better served by listening to the interview than
by reading, this thread.

   

> What actually happened is that you withheld your recommendation
> because it CONTAINS non-free programs; that is what your words were.
>  
The word used was "include"

[Marco Peereboom]

The software is still gratis; one paid for the media.

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:10:02PM -0500, bofh wrote:

> On Dec 15, 2007 7:03 PM, Travers Buda <traversbuda@...> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> As I understand it, plenty of people have actually paid for tapes that
> FSF/GNU was selling.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:55:10PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 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)

Interestingly, the only thing on my Debian box from non-free are GNU
documentation e.g. tar-doc, gnupg-doc.  They don't meet Debian's
definition of free documentation due to invarient sections.

Doug.