Real men don't attack straw men

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 16, 2007, at 9:29 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bengt Frost wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb
>>>>
>>>> Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
>>>> be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages  
>>>> through
>>>> portssystem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>     If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
>>> Would that be acceptable within ports ?
>>>
>>
>> and who exactly would you bribe to get this "mailbomb" committed to
>> the ports tree?
>>
>     That is the point!
>     Why is it that I can not expect ports to accept this ?
>     Because accepting it would be the same as tacitly endorsing it.
>     Accepting non-free software is is equivalent to tacitly  
> endorsing it.

No. Because it's useless and nobody with commit access would want to  
put the time and effort into doing so. Please move on.

[Lars Nooden]

chefren wrote:
> If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it
> away or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms.

Despite the rhetoric from Redmond-followers, making money from software
is something that both the GPL and BSD licenses allow.  There have been
many, and the number is increasing, companies that make good money using
either license.  Early on, FSF was apparently even partially funded by
sales of Emacs tapes.  However, the start of the thread is not directly
about the licenses.

When the BSDTalk interview was posted, it was brought up that the ports,
which are not part of the base system, include non-free (by everyone's
measure) packages.  You can find usability studies and findings of fact
in court, among other things, which point that bundling implies
endorsement.

The packages have been carefully selected and include only open source
material:
        http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgFind
The start of this whole thread is about the ports tree.

It *is* possible to filter out the non-free (by everyone's measure)
packages from the ports tree.  It is just not obvious until one becomes
familiar with OpenBSD.  What would go a long way in improving an already
useful system would be to separate out the non-free (by anyone's
measure) packages from the ports tree so that those wanting a quick
start with open-source-only packages can do so.

It would make sense to play on OpenBSD's strengths, one of which is
strict licensing, and have these reflected in the ports tree.  Changing
what is and isn't allowed in the ports tree would not be a simple task,
either technically or politically.  However, labeling or partitioning
the ports tree would probably be feasible technically.

Regards,
-Lars

[Lars Nooden]

David wins that round.

>>> David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
>>> If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
>>> Would that be acceptable within ports ?
>>>    
>> Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
>> and who exactly would you bribe to get this "mailbomb" committed to
>> the ports tree?
>>  
> David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
>     That is the point!
>     Why is it that I can not expect ports to accept this ?
>     Because accepting it would be the same as tacitly endorsing it.
>     Accepting non-free software is is equivalent to tacitly endorsing it.

Ports is basically a distributed repository, part of the package's
material on the official site, some off on other sites.

-Lars

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2007/12/17 13:42, Lars Noodin wrote:
>
> When the BSDTalk interview was posted, it was brought up that the ports,
> which are not part of the base system, include non-free (by everyone's
> measure) packages.

*everyone*? Not me personally, but people in some countries
find Opera to be more free than Firefox.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 01:42:53PM +0200, Lars Nood??n wrote:

> chefren wrote:
> > If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it
> > away or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms.
>
> Despite the rhetoric from Redmond-followers, making money from software
> is something that both the GPL and BSD licenses allow.  There have been
> many, and the number is increasing, companies that make good money using
> either license.  Early on, FSF was apparently even partially funded by
> sales of Emacs tapes.  However, the start of the thread is not directly
> about the licenses.
>
> When the BSDTalk interview was posted, it was brought up that the ports,
> which are not part of the base system, include non-free (by everyone's
> measure) packages.  You can find usability studies and findings of fact
> in court, among other things, which point that bundling implies
> endorsement.

They are free by your account.  You see you don't have to pay for them
therefore free.  I can play this game too.

[Gilles Chehade-5]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:22:16PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     I feel personally attacked by your uneducated comments.  I feel
>     personally insulted by your by your condescending tone.
>
> I am sorry that you feel attacked and insulted, but I have not done
> so.
>

Please go away, you don't belong here, you are a waste of time for many
of us who have to read your messages and correct the lies you spread to
make sure people aren't misinformed.

I'm sure many people are interested by your blabla elsewhere, see you !

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

[Marco Peereboom]

> > I don't hate RMS or GNU or GPL etc.  I find them silly at best but that
> > is besides the point.  Point is that someone comes and pisses in my
> > sandbox.  I piss and poop back.  Especially if that someone shows up
> > playing moral high ground while being a complete and total hypocrite.
> >  
> Is there some scatalogical affliction here? Is it possible to discuss
> anything on the OpenBSD
> list without piss, poop, and insults?

Too late for that.

>
> I have been on the OpenBSD list for some time. Every time the
> Linux Kernel crowd pisses on OpenBSD, OpenBSD hunts RMS down and demands
> that he compell the LKML'ers to follow OpenBSD edicts.
>
> OpenBSD invited RMS into its tent.
> Further, he did not piss in your sandbox, OpenBSD took insult where
> there was none,
> and then got more upset when he bothered to say so.

Every time RMS has been asked to come into the tent is when there has
been a license violation.  His standard reply is "no comment".  This
only reaffirms his lack of respect for other projects and underscores
his hypocrisy.  He has been invited as a courtesy yet he never took the
reaching hand because it didn't fit his agenda.

>
> If you think you have the moral high ground then argue that.
> There are several very easy ways for OpenBSD to "take the moral high ground"
> It is easy "our values and principles do not permit us to meet the
> criteria RMS uses
> for his recommendation". The problems with that are:
> you have to accept that your commitment to your particular definition of
> freedom is
> a higher value than your opposition to non-free software.
> It also means RMS's remarks are true.

Again you are trying to switch the conversation but I'll bite.

I do NOT claim to have the moral high ground; RMS does.  OpenBSD does
not need to claim moral high ground by paying lip service; we write code
that is made available to all to do whatever they please.  No morality,
no ethics, no double speak.  Pure and simple.  It is when we get accused
of $lie by someone who does claim morality and ethics that we speak out.

RMS freedom == slavery.  Why would I want to have any part of that?

You are a fan of his drivel?  Good for you!  Stop shoving it down my
throat.

[Gilles Chehade-5]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:22:11PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     > Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others
>     > Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified versions
>     >   to others.
>
>     Fixed that for you.
>
> The GNU GPL does not require you to distribute copies to anyone,
> neither exact copies nor modified versions.
>

Good for you, will you go away now ?

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

[Martin Schröder]

2007/12/16, bofh <goodb0fh@...>:
> The language is not ready for it.  Other languages do not have such a problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun

Best
   Martin

[Lars Nooden]

bofh wrote:
> The reasons I've are:
>
> Need to support commercial packages
> Linux is more mainstream
> Debian has a maintenance program in place (ie, security patches are
> back ported to supported platforms)
> Longetivity of a particular level of release
...

I've used Debian a bit since 1997.  OpenBSD only more recently.  I've
used Debian on workstations for my employers, but mainly on their
servers.  It's the longevity of the releases that are highly attractive,
and in that I include the backporting of patches.  Oh, and APT rocks.

It will be interesting to see what comes back to the main Debian project
from Ian Murdock's work at Sun, and from projects like Nexenta.

The proactive security bit, strict open source and simplicity are
apparent in both.  Not being heavily technical, I can only guess at the
first and last bits but there OpenBSD appears to lead other distros.

However, since OpenBSD is a small project and to stay focused needs to
drop legacy releases, I can accept the need to migrate every 18 months
or so.  If OpenBSD got a little bigger, it might be possible to consider
borrowing the Long Term Support (LTS) idea from Debian's Ubuntu subset.

Regards,
-Lars

[Richard Stallman]

    2) If supporting non-free software is bad,

What I object to is referring people to non-free software as something
to install.  "Supporting" is a broader term, and includes various
different practices.  I don't object to all of them.

    I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for the second time
    and this is what I think:
    Richard explains in the interview that all BSD distributions (not
    OpenBSD specifically) INCLUDE non-free software in their ports system.
    Using the "normal" definition of include, this statement is incorrect.

I've offered to ask them to post a note to clarify what I meant.  I
have not seen a response to that offer, but I have decided to ask them
anyway.  I do not want to misinform anyone.

[Richard Stallman]

    > Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others
    > Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified versions
    >   to others.

    Fixed that for you.

The GNU GPL does not require you to distribute copies to anyone,
neither exact copies nor modified versions.

[Richard Stallman]

    I feel personally attacked by your uneducated comments.  I feel
    personally insulted by your by your condescending tone.

I am sorry that you feel attacked and insulted, but I have not done
so.

[Richard Stallman]

      As your views on open-source have become more and more extreme over
    time, you have become less and less relevant to a overall practical
    open-source community

I've never agreed with open source at all; my community is the free
software community.  In 1998 part of the community started to speak of
"open source" instead of "free software"--the part that doesn't
consider freedom for users to be an ethical mandate.

The free software movement continues to grow and win support around
the world, focusing on areas other than the one you might call
"practical".

      You have also made, to be
    polite, inaccurate statements about OpenBSD which have been corrected
    in great detail.

I expressed myself in a way that could be misunderstood, that is true.
Why try to stretch it to something worse?  Do you start from a desire
to put me in the wrong?

      But, what I find most disturbing about your behaviour is that it you
    try to shove your views down other peoples throat with great vigour.

I've said repeatedly that I don't insist that anyone here follow my
views.  I'm only explaining what they are (since others have
misrepresented them).

    You have admitted as much on this list with regards to failed attempts
    with Ubuntu and Debain and you have now failed here.

Actually what I said is that I tried to persuade Ubunu and Debian.
You need to recognize the difference between what I said and what you
think.

You should also investigate the facts before making false statements.
When I spoke with them I was polite and always recognized that they
would make their own decisions.  They would never have listened to me
if I did not start by respecting them.

I failed to persuade them, but I didn't fail here, because I never
intended to try.  I know that OpenBSD would not change anything for
me.  I just want to correct the incorrect statements about my views.

      Please go away, take your cronies with you and live in your own
    little pocket universe so the rest of us can live in peace.

Please stop posting inaccurate statements of my actions and views, and
I will stop correcting them.

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 17, 2007 3:11 AM, Sam Fourman Jr. <sfourman@...> wrote:
> >     The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful
> > missle targeting them.
>
> Richard *did* send an email to misc@..., notice that this
> whole thing is in reply to Richard's original post to misc@

No, someone posted that Richard had mentioned that he cannot recommend
openbsd in an interview.  Another person probably emailed richard on
it, and so Richard emailed misc@ giving the reasons why he did so.

Unfortunately, rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt (since
he does say the same things about linux in general), people started
tearing him a new one.

--
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

[William Boshuck]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:21:44PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     2) If supporting non-free software is bad,
>
> What I object to is referring people to non-free software as something
> to install.  "Supporting" is a broader term, and includes various
> different practices.  I don't object to all of them.
>
>     I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for the second time
>     and this is what I think:
>     Richard explains in the interview that all BSD distributions (not
>     OpenBSD specifically) INCLUDE non-free software in their ports system.
>     Using the "normal" definition of include, this statement is incorrect.
>
> I've offered to ask them to post a note to clarify what I meant.  I
> have not seen a response to that offer, but I have decided to ask them
> anyway.  I do not want to misinform anyone.

If you wanted to say something short and correct,
you could say that (parts of) OpenBSD's ports
tree facilitates the installation of (some)
non-free software.

If you wanted to include a nod to the enormous
effort that the OpenBSD developers have put into
providing an entirely free operating system,
you could mention that OpenBSD itself is entirely
free, and that getting the ports tree on your
system requires a separate, deliberate, act from
that of installing OpenBSD.

I don't know whether your statements, or these
statements, apply to any of the other BSD's.
(Notice how that works.  Also, notice the lack
of vague reference to hearsay.)  But I can well
imagine how to find out, and how to determine
what would be correct statements about them.
It would be responsible to take those measures
before pronouncing on the other BSD's.  It is
not sufficient to just think (or say) 'Well,
nobody complained, so it must be true,' or some
such.

[Ted Unangst-2]

On 12/16/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:

> Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
> >>     If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
> >> Would that be acceptable within ports ?
> >>
> >
> > and who exactly would you bribe to get this "mailbomb" committed to
> > the ports tree?
> >
>    That is the point!
>    Why is it that I can not expect ports to accept this ?
>    Because accepting it would be the same as tacitly endorsing it.
>    Accepting non-free software is is equivalent to tacitly endorsing it.

can you please give me the URL to this program?  i'd like to commit it to ports.

[Ingo Schwarze]

Lars Noodin wrote on Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 07:14:41PM +0200:

> However, since OpenBSD is a small project and to stay focused needs to
> drop legacy releases, I can accept the need to migrate every 18 months
> or so.

Upgrading every 18 months is definitely too seldom.  For roughly the last
6 months, you will either need to backport security fixes yourself,
which will at times be highly non-trivial and in any case a lot of
completely useless work, or you will run unpatched.

In my experience, upgrading every 6 months is better than upgrading
every 12 months.  It is not more work to do: You need to do both upgrades
one after the other anyway, and you need to adapt the system configuration
after each step anyway.  Half of the time, you will have an overall better
system.  The danger to forget details about how to efficiently do the
upgrade is smaller if you do it twice a year.


[ order of arguments inverted because the following is off-topic ]

> Oh, and APT rocks.  [...]  The proactive security bit, strict open
> source and simplicity are apparent in both.

Huh?  You must be joking.
The part about "simplicity" is a nice laugh.  :-)
The part about "open source" is rather a matter for sadness, though.

[cronopios]

Richard Stallman wrote:

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

UnRAR seems to be a real problem.  I will discuss it with the BLAG
developers.

Please notice that there are two different unrar implementations:
 * The license.txt that Steve Shockley quoted comes from http://www.rarlabs.com/ .
 * Then there is https://gna.org/projects/unrar/ which is GPL'd. I guess (I didn't check) that this is the version included in BLAG.
 

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Jacob Meuser wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:56:43PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>  
>> Bengt Frost wrote:
>>    
>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
>>>  
>>>      
>>> Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
>>> be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through
>>> portssystem.
>>>  
>>>      
>>     If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
>> Would that be acceptable within ports ?
>>    
>
> "mailbombing" is possible with tools already available.  such a port
> would likely be ignored for it's lack of technical value.
>  

The point is it is possible to concoct something that is acceptable in
every other way but is highly charge politically.


> further, religious zealots generally can't concentrate on facts
> long enough to write good code, so it would also likely be rejected
> for being poor quality code.
>  
This is not about religious zealotry. Construct the hypothetical
whatever way you please, the POINT,
is that the existance of something or a link to something within ports
has meaning.
you can not pretend that technology allows you to escape values, and
meanings.

> also, for a port to be included into the ports tree, a developer
> would need to import it.  many submitted ports that have no political
> intent go ignored because no port devloper decided it was worth their
> time/fit their interests, and I find it likely such a politically
> charged port would not make it onto any developers to-do list, since
> one of OpenBSD's goals is to remain as politics free as possible.
>  
EXACTLY, the presence of mailbomb programs, baby mulchers, ... all have
meaning.
And so does the presence of non-free programs.

>  
>>    
>>     Either answer makes it clear that inclusion within ports
>> expresses values.
>>    
>
> yes, it expresses that OpenBSD values usefulness.
>  
The 4.2 banner on the OpenBSD website does not shout out "OpenBSD is
really, really, useful"
It says "free, functional, and secure" maybe you can equate functional
and useful, they are atleast similar,
but it starts with free and ends with secure.
Is it supposed to mean free OR functional OR secure ?


>>     Including non-free software in ports makes a statement.
>> Excluding it makes a different one.
>>    
>
> it says we accept that people want to and will install non-free
> software.
So accept non-functional and insecure programs too.

> sometimes, the non-free software is the only choice,
> sometimes it is the best choice to fill the user's needs.
The absence of non-free software in ports does not deprive it of existence.
Its presence does not create a choice that did not exist before.

Inclusion within ports adds a small amount of convenience that is all.
And if "free" really is one of your values, it does so at a small cost
to your values.