Real men don't attack straw men

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Ray Percival wrote:

>
> On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>
>> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>>> You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and
>>> you have the choice to retain the source code.
>>>
>>> You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
>>> provided you deliver the source code with it.
>>>
>> Agreed, but would you except either in ports ?
>> The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to
>> endorse.
>>
>> The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including
>> something within
>> ports has meaning.
>
>
> Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given tool
> just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking arrogant.
>
> But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
> (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
> including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby
> mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
> Theo cvs@... mailing list, May 29, 2001

That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
OpenBSD web site.
If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than
the watered down language on the website.
The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of
security.

It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
free to all.
I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the
FSF/GNU/RMS.
Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the
things you provide URL's for in ports,
then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important
to you.
If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports.
Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely
redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.

One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,
including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think
you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would
deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 16, 2007, at 2:24 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Ray Percival wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>>>> You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular  
>>>> weapon and
>>>> you have the choice to retain the source code.
>>>>
>>>> You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
>>>> provided you deliver the source code with it.
>>>>
>>> Agreed, but would you except either in ports ?
>>> The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to
>>> endorse.
>>>
>>> The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including
>>> something within
>>> ports has meaning.
>>
>>
>> Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given tool
>> just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking arrogant.
>>
>> But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
>> (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
>> including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby
>> mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
>> Theo cvs@... mailing list, May 29, 2001
> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is  
> exactly
> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent  
> from the
> OpenBSD web site.
> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than
> the watered down language on the website.
> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and  
> one of
> security.

Yeah, those are the things that matter. Why do you need so many  
guidelines and rules? If logic and commonsense isn't enough for you  
then there are other projects for you to bother. Cause it's more than  
enough for us. And since we've already established that your use of  
the word "distribute" is wacky to say the very least you have not  
point AT FUCKING ALL.

>
> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
> free to all.
> I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom  
> than the
> FSF/GNU/RMS.
> Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the
> things you provide URL's for in ports,
> then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important
> to you.
> If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in  
> ports.
> Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is  
> freely
> redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.
>
> One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
> mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,

Speaking for myself. Damn straight it is. Put down the crack pipe for  
a minute and think about if your argument there makes any sense at  
all. Hint: No reasonable person would think it does.

> including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I  
> think
> you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would
> deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.

No. My principles are to to live and let die. In other words I could  
give a shit what anybody else does with a given system or if there  
happen to be a URL or two pointing them at some app in ports that  
might have a license I don't like. What business is it of mine? Since  
I think everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want with  
their stuff and that Big Mommy (as represented by Stallman and  
everybody else who think that reasonable adults will be corrupted in  
someway by being able to easily install software that might have a  
less permissive license than others) should fuck off and die this is  
PERFECTLY in line with what I think. And if you really can't see the  
difference between a blob loaded into kernelspace and a pointer to a  
userland app with a less permissive license well then you really are  
a religious and political shill and I can see why you want somebody  
enforcing various rules about thoughtcrime.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:58:10PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and
> > you have the choice to retain the source code.
> >
> > You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
> > provided you deliver the source code with it.
> >  
> Agreed, but would you except either in ports ?

Yes.  Why would I care?

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.  I am entitled to tell you if I
think it is stupid.  That, my friend, is free speech.

> The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to endorse.

I don't do ports so I don't give a crap what's in it.  I endorse nothing
there.  I use packages that I find convenient and yay ports guys for
giving them to me.  I am not that cocky to tell others what they should
do with their computers.

>
> The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including
> something within
> ports has meaning.

It doesn't.  Your example is foolish.

[Ted Unangst-2]

On 12/16/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
> free to all.

not at all.  openbsd is free.  other software, that is not free, does
not make openbsd less free.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
> OpenBSD web site.
> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than
> the watered down language on the website.
> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of
> security.

Ports are 3rd party apps.  Of course we don't make a value judgement on
the OpenBSD website for it.  WTF?

>
> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
> free to all.
> I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the
> FSF/GNU/RMS.
> Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the
> things you provide URL's for in ports,
> then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important
> to you.
> If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports.
> Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely
> redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.

One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want.
That is not part of a civil conversation.  First we have to agree on the
meaning then we can have a debate.  As a politician he changes the
meaning of words around to fit his purposes.  I'll call BS on that every
time I'll see it.

>
> One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
> mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,
> including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think
> you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would
> deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.

You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list
looks like.  What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists
and start pissing in my sandbox.  I don't care what his opinion is; he
can say whatever he wants.  What he can't do is lying about my OS in
front of me and expect me not to react.  He is full of it and we have
told him so.  If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding.

Until then I'll call him what he is, a lying sack of manure with double
standards.

[Marco Peereboom]

I feel personally attacked by your uneducated comments.  I feel
personally insulted by your by your condescending tone.  My intelligence
has been insulted repeatedly by your linguistic tricks.  I am outraged
on how you alter meaning of words to fit your agenda.  You are not my
mom and you don't get to tell me what and how to do things.

You also don't get to vote if I feel attacked by your comments.

Yes you have attacked OpenBSD for reasons that are beyond me.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:34:26PM -0500, Richard Stallman 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.
>
> I have carefully avoided personal attacks in this discussion.  I have
> not attacked OpenBSD either.

[Marco Peereboom]

So what it still is a stupid and hypocritical explanation.  RMS is full
of it.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:14:36PM -0800, davelab6 wrote:

> Rico Secada wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Earlier -
> http://www.nabble.com/Real-men-don%27t-attack-straw-men-tp14256924r0p14344642.html
> - Richard appears to have explained how when free software programs support
> already-known non-free operating systems, that will not lead to people not
> already using those OS to start using them - but by including references to
> non-free programs in the ports system, OpenBSD can lead people not already
> using non-free programs to using them.
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Real-men-don%27t-attack-straw-men-tp14256924p14367075.html
> Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[L-9]

Deanna Phillips wrote:
>> Yee will find it interesting if yee is a uman.
>
> Har, har.
>
> Just use "they".
>

The problem with they is..

They are coming over.
   : Oh, are they?
No. It's just one person!
   : But you said they?
Yes.. I said they are coming over.
   : You mean they is coming over?
No, they are coming over.
   : A group of people?
No. Only one person is coming over.
   : What? You said they ARE coming over.
No.
   : Pardon?

> It used to be considered poor English to use "they" when
> speaking of a single person, but the language has evolved.
>
> I did not find the thread title objectionable; in fact I found
> it humorous that anyone thought manhood was at stake in a
> discussion about software.

You mean umanhood.

Regards,
L505

Software = female
Hardware = male

[L-9]

Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> Yee will find it interesting if yee is a uman.
>
> No need to invent yet another kind of wheel, in my eyes.

S/he will find it interesting if s/he is a wo/man.

This contains the obnoxious GNU/Linux slash.
Yee and uman is superior.

(GNU/Linux should really be called: BSD/GNU/Linux.
Gnu has bsd code inside of it, openssh, and other BSD patches)

>
> See for example
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun
> Seems Middle English even already had a completely neutral singular 3rd
> person pronoun but that got lost again. From the neologistic
> neutral/epicene singular 3rd person pronouns, the ones I see most are
> singular use "they", sie/hir, zie/zir, ze/hir (somewhat close to
> sie/hir), or the slashed variant (s/he, etc.).

Obnoxious gnu/linux slashes

More complications:
   S/He or S/he at the beginning of a sentence?

The GNU/Linux Gnu/Linux GNU/linux problem plagues us..

> For the neutral noun,
> nothing wrong with "human"

Real humans don't attack straw humans.
It can work..

The only argument I can come up with..
The word human kind of implies we are distinguishing a species.. i.e.
humans vs cats vs dogs.

>  or "person", no need
> to invent another word for that.
>

Real persons don't attack straw persons.
It can work. It is 'ess' sounding.. Not as dramatic as 'men'.


> But then, I've been bugged with non-linguistic sexist assumptions even
> more than by the linguistic ones. Yes, here. Like "you can't really be
> a woman if you're a that good {programmer,OS person,choosewhatyoulike}".
> If that's not sexist, what is?
>
> Kind regards,

Real men don't send kind regards to anyone.

>
> Hannah.
>

How do I know Hannah is not a man's name?

You throw around your name like that at the bottom of your email as if
it means something!

Regards,
L505

-----------
Disclaimer:
No one should ever hold a door open for a girl.
That is a form of sexism.

The main purpose of my articles are to gain brownie points with females,
as by writing my umen/yee article I now can be considered someone who is
equal and non sexist. Anyone who writes such pieces is obviously just
trying to cover up their true self through overcompensation.

[L-9]

>> Earlier -
>> http://www.nabble.com/Real-men-don%27t-attack-straw-men-tp14256924r0p14344642.html
>> - Richard appears to have explained how when free software programs support
>> already-known non-free operating systems, that will not lead to people not
>> already using those OS to start using them - but by including references to
>> non-free programs in the ports system, OpenBSD can lead people not already
>> using non-free programs to using them.
>>

The fact that tons of people use GCC on windows and tons of closed
source developers choose GCC for embedded/windows development still
encourages using GNU for non-free software.


As does Wine, promoting non free software too.

No matter how you look at it.. BSD will always be a safer argument in a
purism flamewar because there is no purism laws. There is free software
in free software.. but there is no free redefined free.

The GNU website should be changed to 'stallmanism'.

The words free should be removed.

If they are not removed by 7:04 Mountain Time, I will spank the people
with a paddle.

L505

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Ray Percival wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>> But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
>>> (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
>>> including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby
>>> mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
>>> Theo cvs@... mailing list, May 29, 2001
>> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
>> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
>> OpenBSD web site.
>> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than
>> the watered down language on the website.
>> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of
>> security.
>
> Yeah, those are the things that matter. Why do you need so many
> guidelines and rules?

I have been after values and principles, not guidelines and rules..
The number of values and principles, is up to OpenBSD - what really matters
> If logic and commonsense isn't enough for you then there are other
> projects for you to bother.
Logic and common sense are the tools you use to go from values and
principles to rule and guidelines.


>>
>>
>> One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
>> mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,
>
> Speaking for myself. Damn straight it is.
> Put down the crack pipe for a minute
I am trying really really hard to ignore the practically knee jerk need
of virtually everyone on OpenBSD to
Malign first, last and always.

But if that is acceptable here, then what is your problem with RMS. You
claim he has maligned you,
yet maligning people weems to be an OpenBSD core value.
You believe in absolute freedom - freedom to do whatever you damn well
please.
Yet you are seeking to deny the same freedom to Richard and everyone
else that disagrees.

[William Boshuck]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Ray Percival wrote:
  [quoting and excerpt from  Theo's log message in (e.g.):
   http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules]
    ...
> > But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
> > (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
> > including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby
> > mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
> > Theo cvs@... mailing list, May 29, 2001
>
> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
> OpenBSD web site.

Apart from the rhetorical flourish at the end,
that's in the second item in the list near the
top of http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html.  (The
"ANY PURPOSE" part goes way back, to the summer
of '97.)

Not to mention policy.html.

[L-9]

>>> Earlier -
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Real-men-don%27t-attack-straw-men-tp14256924r0p14344642.html 
>>>
>>> - Richard appears to have explained how when free software programs
>>> support
>>> already-known non-free operating systems, that will not lead to
>>> people not
>>> already using those OS to start using them - but by including
>>> references to
>>> non-free programs in the ports system, OpenBSD can lead people not
>>> already
>>> using non-free programs to using them.
>>>

By having links in the port tree to non free software, developers are
encouraged to use free operating system: openbsd.. and it will not
encourage people to migrate away from openbsd over to non-free software.
Rather, it will encourage MORE people to use free software.. since the
majority of openbsd is free software.

By offering GCC on windows, it will encourage less people to use free
software in many cases.. since one can combine the power of Slickedit
and EditPlus and Dev C++ and never ever need to use Linux/BSD.

I personally have use GCC with EditPlus at times.. and in many cases it
saves me from having to boot up a linux box.. i.e. encouraging me NOT to
use free software.

Blah blah blah.

On and on and on and on and on and on and on.

In fact, CoLinux and VirtualBox.. Both GPL AFAIK... allow anyone to run
90 percent of their software apps as non free (microsoft word, windows)
while utilizing GPL kernels at the same time. Since the ratio is 90
percent microsoft, it means it is not encouraging free software.

With open bsd port system, maybe 90 percent of my OS is running OpenBSD
free software.. whereas 10 percent is ports that is non free, or even 1
percent is non free, or similar.

Blah blah blah

On and on and on and on..

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Marco Peereboom wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>  
>> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
>> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
>> OpenBSD web site.
>> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than
>> the watered down language on the website.
>> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of
>> security.
>>    
>
> Ports are 3rd party apps.  Of course we don't make a value judgement on
> the OpenBSD website for it.  WTF?
>  

So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that
is acceptable.
You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently,
You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me.

>  
>> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
>> free to all.
>> I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the
>> FSF/GNU/RMS.
>> Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the
>> things you provide URL's for in ports,
>> then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important
>> to you.
>> If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports.
>> Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely
>> redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.
>>    
>
> One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want.
> That is not part of a civil conversation.  First we have to agree on the
> meaning then we can have a debate.  As a politician he changes the
> meaning of words around to fit his purposes.  I'll call BS on that every
> time I'll see it.
>  

I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking
your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently
to your system, until it produces a contradiction.
If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent
no contradiction would occur.

One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a
system that is self
contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can
prove anything.
that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that
I have used it as a tool.

If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will
not work.

>  
>> One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
>> mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,
>> including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think
>> you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would
>> deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.
>>    
>
> You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list
> looks like.  What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists
> and start pissing in my sandbox.  I don't care what his opinion is; he
> can say whatever he wants.  What he can't do is lying about my OS in
> front of me and expect me not to react.  He is full of it and we have
> told him so.  If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding.
>  

That is not the perception I have of OpenBSD.
Whenever, there is some spat with Linux Kernel developers,
OpenBSD rushes to demand that RMS straighten it out for them.
Providing him with a predefined eexplanation of exactly how his own values
requires him to do so, along with, the presumption that he will not and
maligning him because he did not - all before even hitting send.

In the end you are what you hate. But you are not the real RMS,
you are the one your have created.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

William Boshuck wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>  
>> Ray Percival wrote:
>>    
>   [quoting and excerpt from  Theo's log message in (e.g.):
>    http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules]
>     ...
>  
>>> But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
>>> (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
>>> including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby
>>> mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
>>> Theo cvs@... mailing list, May 29, 2001
>>>      
>> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
>> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
>> OpenBSD web site.
>>    
>
> Apart from the rhetorical flourish at the end,
> that's in the second item in the list near the
> top of http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html.  (The
> "ANY PURPOSE" part goes way back, to the summer
> of '97.)
>
> Not to mention policy.html.
>  

the statements are different. Unless I am to interpret we want to make
available source code,
as equivalent to Software which openbsd uses and distrubutes must be
free to all.

Must is significantly different from want
we want to make available source code is not the same as software which
openbsd uses and distributes.
Regardless, apply it to ports and remove non-free URL's.

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:20 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is  
>>> exactly
>>> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent  
>>> from the
>>> OpenBSD web site.
>>> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather  
>>> than
>>> the watered down language on the website.
>>> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and  
>>> one of
>>> security.
>>>
>>
>> Ports are 3rd party apps.  Of course we don't make a value  
>> judgement on
>> the OpenBSD website for it.  WTF?
>>
> So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that
> is acceptable.

Yeah, sure. Have all sorts of fun. Why would anybody care?
> You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently,
> You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me.

No, the principle is that you or anybody should be able to do  
anything they want with their system and that we don't care and won't  
put artificial limits on it. Easy enough to understand.

>
>>
>>> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
>>> free to all.
>>> I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom  
>>> than the
>>> FSF/GNU/RMS.
>>> Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to  
>>> the
>>> things you provide URL's for in ports,
>>> then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that  
>>> important
>>> to you.
>>> If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in  
>>> ports.
>>> Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is  
>>> freely
>>> redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.
>>>
>>
>> One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want.
>> That is not part of a civil conversation.  First we have to agree  
>> on the
>> meaning then we can have a debate.  As a politician he changes the
>> meaning of words around to fit his purposes.  I'll call BS on that  
>> every
>> time I'll see it.
>>
> I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking
> your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently
> to your system, until it produces a contradiction.
> If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent
> no contradiction would occur.
>
> One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a
> system that is self
> contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then  
> you can
> prove anything.
> that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except  
> that
> I have used it as a tool.
>
> If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will
> not work.
>>
>>> One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
>>> mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,
>>> including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further  
>>> I think
>>> you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would
>>> deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little  
>> OS list
>> looks like.  What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing  
>> lists
>> and start pissing in my sandbox.  I don't care what his opinion  
>> is; he
>> can say whatever he wants.  What he can't do is lying about my OS in
>> front of me and expect me not to react.  He is full of it and we have
>> told him so.  If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding.
>>
> That is not the perception I have of OpenBSD.

You're wrong. But then again in the last few days of emails it's  
become clear that you're a drooling fucking moron so no big surprise  
there.

[Rod Whitworth-3]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:20:19 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

>So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that
>is acceptable.
>You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently,
>You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me.

<snip loads of more fantasia bullshit>

What the fuck are you on? The Koolaid from FSF?

You have postulated totally impossible crap here for days now but this
takes the cake!

You wrote about a port of a program designed to mailbomb Jewish sites.
A total wanker dream not a thing that would ever be submitted. Probably
an impossible dream.

But you are a self-confessed miracle coder so your bent mind could
probably do it. Getting it accepted anywhere including at KKK
headquarters might be problematic.

Now a non-free kernel that is insecure. I'll bet you could mash
something together. Get it to install from ports, I don't think so.
Get it accepted into ports? Thin to none.

You see, the apps that are unfree which make it into ports are those in
big demand because they are useful or fun to run on their home OS and
some folk want to not run that OS.

Nothing you write is going to get over that hurdle.

Wanker.


Rod/

Me...a skeptic?  I trust you have proof.

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:27 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> William Boshuck wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Ray Percival wrote:
>>>
>>   [quoting and excerpt from  Theo's log message in (e.g.):
>>    http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules]
>>     ...
>>
>>>> But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free  
>>>> to all
>>>> (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
>>>> including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into  
>>>> baby
>>>> mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
>>>> Theo cvs@... mailing list, May 29, 2001
>>>>
>>> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is  
>>> exactly
>>> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent  
>>> from the
>>> OpenBSD web site.
>>>
>>
>> Apart from the rhetorical flourish at the end,
>> that's in the second item in the list near the
>> top of http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html.  (The
>> "ANY PURPOSE" part goes way back, to the summer
>> of '97.)
>>
>> Not to mention policy.html.
>>
> the statements are different. Unless I am to interpret we want to make
> available source code,
> as equivalent to Software which openbsd uses and distrubutes must be
> free to all.
>
> Must is significantly different from want
> we want to make available source code is not the same as software  
> which
> openbsd uses and distributes.
> Regardless, apply it to ports and remove non-free URL's.

WTF is a non-free URL? They come with licenses now? You kids and your  
wacky new ideas.

Trying to parse through the above gibberish the question remains is  
putting up a sign for a pub the same as serving drinks to somebody?  
Sure ports might contain some scripts and URLs for software with less  
permissive licenses. Who cares? No reasonable person would think of  
that as distribution. If somebody has found it useful enough to stick  
in there and some other people find it useful why should anybody  
care? Their business and we should just butt the fuck out. Code that  
is being distributed by OpenBSD meets higher standards. This is as it  
should be. This is as the people who build it and use it want it.  
Yeah, OK, our immortal souls are going to hell and we make the baby  
Jesus cry. Guess what? We don't give a shit. We're all adults and can  
figure out where these lines are without it being handed down from on  
high in every minor detail. So GTFO and go find a system that's  
orthodox enough to meet your high standards. We would rather have  
stuff that makes sense and works well. Wake me when gnewsense or  
whatever gets to that point.

[Rod Whitworth-3]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:27:21 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

>Regardless, apply it to ports and remove non-free URL's.

Yeah, right.
Right when you get commit privs.
 Don't ^W hold your breath.
Rod/
/earth: write failed, file system is full
cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device

[Firas Kraiem-3]

On Sunday 16 December 2007 23:24:48 David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Ray Percival wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> >> Marco Peereboom wrote:
> >>> You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular
> >>> weapon and you have the choice to retain the source code.
> >>>
> >>> You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty
> >>> bomb provided you deliver the source code with it.
> >>
> >> Agreed, but would you except either in ports ?
> >> The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to
> >> endorse.
> >>
> >> The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including
> >> something within
> >> ports has meaning.
> >
> > Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given
> > tool just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking
> > arrogant.
> >
> > But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to
> > all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use
> > it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration
> > into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on
> > Australia. Theo cvs@... mailing list, May 29, 2001
>
> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is
> exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously
> absent from the OpenBSD web site.
> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather
> than the watered down language on the website.
> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one
> of security.
>
> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
> free to all.

How ? OpenBSD neither used nor redistributes the software that is in the
ports. It just gives the URL to it so _you_ can install it if _you_
wish, which leads us to the second point...

> I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than
> the FSF/GNU/RMS.
> Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the
> things you provide URL's for in ports,
> then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that
> important to you.
> If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in
> ports. Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that
> is freely redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.

OpenBSD has made it clear what their definition of freedom is, and the
fact that they stick to it 100% in the software they produce and
distribute is enough to see how important it is for them.

However, and that's the difference with people like you (and RMS), they
just consider that it doesn't give them the right to impose their view
of freedom on others, and they let the user do whatever the hell he/she
wishes to do, according to his/her personal view and beliefs on the
matter. That may or may not include installing non-free software, but
that is none of your business, or mine, or RMS'.

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

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