Real men don't attack straw men

[j4nKy]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:15:58PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

thanks for reminding me to donate!

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

[Mayuresh Kathe]

You're on SDF?
How's SDF doing now-a-days?

On Dec 21, 2007 9:24 AM, Jacob Meuser <jakemsr@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:15:58PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>
> thanks for reminding me to donate!
>
> --
> jakemsr@...
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[j4nKy]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 03:54:16AM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:15:58PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>
> thanks for reminding me to donate!

heh, that was so much fun, I went back and bought a shirt!

thanks for spreading the holiday cheer, David!

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

[Marco Peereboom]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 08:42:08AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Per that interview you are endorsing an OS that basically won't run
>     without proprietary drivers.
>
> I did not know that.  Can you send me a URL for the precise details?
> Once I know the details, I will ask them to post a correction in the
> interview.

I sure can.

Code you wont ever get:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/

The binary license restrictions are described at:
http://opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/binary_licensing_faq/
Let me try to recap it for you though.  You can't take a blob from
solaris and use it on linux for example.  Not very free.

More pieces of the os that are licensed "odd" at best:
http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/

Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.
http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/devpro/


>
>     The CDDL clashes with the GPL; or can you explain why suddenly CDDL is
>     GPL compatible?
>
> The CDDL is not GPL-compatible, but it is a free software license.
> The source code of OpenSolaris is indeed free software, just as the
> source code for OpenBSD is free software.  If your information is
> correct, OpenSolaris has a serious problem, and should not be endorsed,
> Those are two different questions.

The CDDL has a patent provision that is not GPL compatible.  Sun
reserves the right to call something you do a patent infringement and
revoke your license.  It is quite an interesting read.

They also retain all patent rights so if you write code that makes their
patented code better they get to claim all IP rights.

The license is a mess; kind of like the GPL.  It is full of legal
pitfalls that are you know, not so free.

Have a read:
http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt

[Richard Stallman]

Thanks.  Since you didn't answer soon, and since I did get other info
about non-free software needed for OpenSolaris, I already asked for a
correction in the interview.  I made it general so that I won't have
to go into these specifics.  But I would like to know more about the
need for Devpro:

    Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.

Someone else showed me some text which seems to say that you can
also compile it with GCC.  From http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/:

    You will then need to download the compilers specific to your
    platform . Choose either:

        * The Sun Studio Compilers (Recommended). NOTE: Sun
    Studio 11 is required for building Build 45 and higher....

        -or-

        * The GCC Compiler found in Solaris Express, Community
    Edition build 22 or later. (Please see the gcc tools page for
    more information if choosing this option.)

However, I don't know precisely what question that is the answer to.
Maybe it doesn't apply to ALL the OpenSolaris software.

Is there text that says that certain components can compile only
with Devpro?

[Theo de Raadt]

> Thanks.  Since you didn't answer soon, and since I did get other info
> about non-free software needed for OpenSolaris, I already asked for a
> correction in the interview.  I made it general so that I won't have
> to go into these specifics.  But I would like to know more about the
> need for Devpro:

You asked for a correction to an statement interview -- you should not
even have made that statment to begin.  You did not do research into
the OpenSolaris situation, and you spread lies instead of spreading
the truth.

>     Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.
>
> Someone else showed me some text which seems to say that you can
> also compile it with GCC.  From http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/:
>
>     You will then need to download the compilers specific to your
>     platform . Choose either:
>
> * The Sun Studio Compilers (Recommended). NOTE: Sun
>     Studio 11 is required for building Build 45 and higher....
>
> -or-
>
> * The GCC Compiler found in Solaris Express, Community
>     Edition build 22 or later. (Please see the gcc tools page for
>     more information if choosing this option.)
>
> However, I don't know precisely what question that is the answer to.
> Maybe it doesn't apply to ALL the OpenSolaris software.
>
> Is there text that says that certain components can compile only
> with Devpro?

Richard, since you are a hypocrite who won't read web pages, let
me show you just a few of the Sun non-source bits, pasted below,
straight from Sun's page.

- OpenSolaris 'recommends' that people use the following binary
  drivers from Sun.
- OpenSolaris is missing the source code for hundreds of manual pages
- Not all of the installer is free.  You have to use non-free bits to
  even install the software.
- Sun's X server and libraries are not available in source
- Sun's graphic cards are undocumented and without source

Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open
your big fat lying mouth.

If you can't or won't do the research, why open your mouth?  Why?
Why?

You'll go out of the way to build arbitrary Richard-rules to attack
various projects like OpenBSD and Subversion, but then you make
yourself look like a FOOL by not researching Sun's situation.  You
really make yourself look really really stupid.

Who will you attack with lies next week?

------

ctsmc driver (B) System Management controller driver
smbus_ara driver (B) Daktari platform support
SunFire V240 platmod driver (B) SunFire platform support
SunFire V250 platmod driver (B) SunFire platform support
SunFire V440 platmod driver (B) SunFire platform support
UltraEnterprise platmod driver (B) UltraEnterprise platform support
amsrc1 driver (B) Audio Mixer Sample Rater Conversion Routine #1
bmc driver Baseboard management controller
SunFire V240 ntwdt driver (B) Netra-based application watchdog timer driver
adpu320 driver (B) Adaptec Ultra320 SCSI HBA driver
audioens driver Ensonig 1371/1373 and Creative Labs 5880 driver support
audiovia823x driver (B) Drives VY823x chipsets for VIA Corporation
bnx driver (B) Broadcom NetXtreme II Gigabit Ethernet driver
daplt driver (B) Tavor uDAPL service driver
elxl driver (B) 3COM Ethernet device driver
forthdebug driver (B) OBP-level debugging macros
glm driver (B) SCSI HBA driver for Symbios 53c8xx SCSI Processor HBA
grppm driver Platform Power Management driver for Sun-Blade-100
ifp driver ISP 2100 Family Fibre Channel HBA driver
iprb driver (B) Intel Pro1000/B Fast Ethernet driver
isp driver ISP SCSI HBA driver
ixgb driver (B) 10G Ethernet driver
llc2 driver (B) NCR Logical Link Control device driver
lsimega driver (B) LSI Logic MegaRAID SCSI 320-2x driver
marvell88sx driver (B) Marvell 88SX SATA controller driver
m1535ppm driver (B) Acer ALI1535D and 1535D+ PCI PMU device driver
mi2cv driver (B) Nexus driver for Mentor Graphics MI2CV I2C controller
mpt driver (B) SCSI HBA driver that supports the LSI 53C1030 SCSI chip
n2cp driver (B) Niagara crypto driver
ncp driver (B) Niagara crypto driver
ncrs driver (B) SCSI HBA driver
nge driver (B) Nvidia ck8-04 NIC driver
pcelx driver (B) 3COM Etherlink III PCMCIA Ethernet Adapter
pcn driver AMD PCnet Ethernet controller device driver
pcser driver (B) PCMCIA serial card device driver
phx driver Kernel driver interfaces
rtls driver (B) Realtek Fast Ethernet device driver
sbpro driver Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audio device driver
scfd driver (B) OPL platform driver
scmi2c driver (B) Smart Transporter chip device driver
scsi_vhci driver (B) SCSI virtual host controller interconnect driver
sdpib driver (B) Infiniband Sockets Direct Protocol
se driver (B) Siemens 82532 ESCC serial communications driver
spwr driver SMC EtherPower II (EPIC) 10/100 (9432) Ethernet device driver
tavor driver (B) Device driver for the Infiniband Host Channel Adapter (HCA)
todm5823 driver (B) TOD driver module for ALI M5823 and compatible devices
uata driver (B) IDE HBA driver
usbser_edge driver (B) Digi Edgeport USB to serial converter driver
kcfd (B) Crypto code withheld due to US export controls on open cryptographic interfaces included in the Solaris binary product.
fwflash (B) Firmware flash tool for Infiniband Host Channel Adapter (HCA)
iconv/kbdcomp/od/pax/patch/printf/sed/tr (B) Kernel lock manager support (B)
labeld command (B) Enabling method for Trusted Extensions
libc_i18n (B)
libike (B) Internet Key Encryption Code
localedef command and library (B) Locale environment definition support.
Smartcard support
SNMPD (B) Simple Network Management Protocol daemon
XPG4 versions of more/od/sed/tail/tr (B)
udapl_tavor library (B) uDAPL access to tavor driver
emlxs driver Emulex fibre channel HBA driver
afb driver (B) Elite3D Graphics Accelerator
fbconfig driver (B) Frame buffer configuration utility
ffb driver (B) Creator and Creator3D Graphics Accelerator
gfb driver (B) Sun XVR-1000 Graphics Accelerator
ifb driver (B) Sun Expert3D, Sun Expert3D-Lite and Sun XVR-500 Graphics Accelerators
jfb driver (B) Sun XVR-1200 and Sun XVR-600 Graphics Accelerators
kfb driver (B) Sun XVR-2500 Graphics Accelerators
M64 driver (B) Sun PGX64 Graphics Accelerator
nfb driver (B) Sun XVR-300 Graphics Accelerator
pfb driver (B) Sun XVR-100 Graphics Accelerator
vid driver (B) Video Timing Information
zulu driver (B) Sun XVR-4000 Graphics Accelerator
gfxp driver (B) PGX32 Graphics Accelerator
mko driver (B) Sun XVR-200 Graphics Accelerator
Xsun server
libserverdps.so.5 Adobe Display PostScript (DPS)
libbitstream.so TrueType font engine for Xorg server

[Marco Peereboom]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 05:30:47PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Thanks.  Since you didn't answer soon, and since I did get other info
> about non-free software needed for OpenSolaris, I already asked for a
> correction in the interview.  I made it general so that I won't have
> to go into these specifics.  But I would like to know more about the
> need for Devpro:

Remember when you told someone to be patient for an answer?  Same thing.

>
>     Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.
>
> Someone else showed me some text which seems to say that you can
> also compile it with GCC.  From http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/:

You can compile parts with gcc.  I'd have to see the kernel being build
with gcc before I'd believe it.

>
>     You will then need to download the compilers specific to your
>     platform . Choose either:
>
> * The Sun Studio Compilers (Recommended). NOTE: Sun
>     Studio 11 is required for building Build 45 and higher....
>
> -or-
>
> * The GCC Compiler found in Solaris Express, Community
>     Edition build 22 or later. (Please see the gcc tools page for
>     more information if choosing this option.)
>
> However, I don't know precisely what question that is the answer to.
> Maybe it doesn't apply to ALL the OpenSolaris software.

It does apply to all Solaris software but more so the kernel bits.

Currently there is no such thing as OpenSolaris compiled with gcc or I
have missed it.  In fact you can't even install it without several
closed source pieces.

>
> Is there text that says that certain components can compile only
> with Devpro?

Sun has lots of documents out about this.  Don't forget that they sell
devpro so draw your own conclusion.


Here is the real issue, Richard.  You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
without knowing the facts.  You get confronted with them and you change
history.  Sound familiar?

If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.  Hearsay
is starting to become pretty embarrassing to your quest don't you think?

You are 0 - 2 on truth and honesty regarding projects and actual freedom
on this list.  I am wondering if you are basically trying to secure more
funds from the likes of Sun or you have some sort of agenda that is not
obvious to people in the community.  What are you trying to accomplish
with your so called endorsements?

[Siju George]

On Jan 1, 2008 4:28 AM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:
>
> Richard, since you are a hypocrite who won't read web pages,
>

Richard please switch from you demoniac way of reading web pages
fetching them with wget and so on as you said and act normal. There
are a whole lot of people who are at the same caliber or even more
smart ( and some times even more paranoid ) than you are who read web
pages in a very common way.

I have been following this discussion with interest for a long time
and can't just believe you still attract a lot of people even though
you spew out plain lies a and plain philosophical stupidity. But your
followers are diminishing in number after you tried to intimidate
people by sending your first mail to misc.

Even here people who considered you as God are speaking how stupid and
insane you are to  twist facts and send it publicly to mailing lists
where ther e is a permanent record of it.

If you are not deliberately a hippocrite then please do these checkups
and it will help you

1) Check if you have Bipolar Disorder
2) also Check for Thyroid hormone problems

I mean it and am in no way insulting you.
Also if you take anti-depressant drugs or similar please make sure
that it isnot self medication but prescribed by a good psychiatrist.

You are showing symptoms of insanity to speak the truth or you are a
real hypocrite. Spreading lies then twisting facts and re-explaining
what you meant in the first place to hold on to your lying position.

Sorry you have really degraded yourself public ally

Siju

[Richard Stallman]

    Here is the real issue, Richard.  You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
    without knowing the facts.  You get confronted with them and you change
    history.  Sound familiar?

What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place on a minor confusion.
But you have added a new false accusation of "changing history".

I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such,
so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was
the clarification.

Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that
you seek to apply to mine.

    If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
    reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.

I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information
that the ports system can install non-free software.  Then I stated
that accurate information using words that were subject to
misunderstanding.

You witnessed the words I said in the interview.  However, you
make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended
which are based on pure speculation.  No wonder yourclaims are mistaken.

Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?

[Theo de Raadt]

>     Here is the real issue, Richard.  You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
>     without knowing the facts.  You get confronted with them and you change
>     history.  Sound familiar?
>
> What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place on a minor confusion.

We are not spinning any facts.

Richard, three times now you have have failed to do research -- thus
damaged the reputation of projects that write free software, and three
times you have had your messages annotated.

Because you were wrong.

Are you really so retardedly careless?

> But you have added a new false accusation of "changing history".

No.  We've accused you of being a either tremendously careless and
reckless with other people's reputations.  But there is an alternative
that you are purposefuly spreading these things -- ie. lying.

Meanwhile the FSF is doing exactly the same things in distributing
Emacs and GCC with commercial support in their distributions.  That
is hypcrotical.  You have been called on this issue, but you have told
people that it would be too much work to delete that stuff from gcc
and emacs.  Yeah, right.  That means you a hypocrite.

> I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such,
> so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was
> the clarification.

You should not have made the same type of mistake three times.

If you can't make statements without errors you should say nothing.

> Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that
> you seek to apply to mine.

I have said nothing which is hypocritical.  OpenBSD does nothing
wrong, unless emacs and gcc are doing something wrong.

At the same time, OpenBSD developers are not going into the media and
pointing out the falicy of your statements.  Or, we are not doing so
yet.  Do you want a war in the press?

>     If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
>     reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.
>
> I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information
> that the ports system can install non-free software.

emacs and gcc can be installed on non-free software, because of tens of
thousands of lines of specific code written to suppor those commercial
systems.  Hypocrite.

> Then I stated
> that accurate information using words that were subject to
> misunderstanding.

That's bullshit, Richard.  In your interview you said that OpenBSD
*CONTAINED* non-free software.  Your words were lies.  Later on the
mailing lists you have attempted to change history by saying that your
words were being misunderstood.  That's not true.  You said OpenBSD
*CONTAINS* non-free software.  There is no way to misunderstand that.

> You witnessed the words I said in the interview.  However, you
> make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended
> which are based on pure speculation.  No wonder yourclaims are mistaken.

I do make claims about what you knew:  You knew nothing because you did
not research before you spoke, and you ended up telling a lie.

Same as when you branded OpenSolaris free: You knew nothing because
you did not research before you spoke, and you ended up telling a lie.

Same as when you attacked the Subversion developers: You knew nothing
because you did not research before you spoke, and you ended up
telling a lie.

> Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?

It's hilarious to see you try to accuse me of your greatest weakness.
You are the one who three times now has said the wrong thing about
freedom, because you don't investitate.

I predict that your next posting will complain about how you don't
use the web.  Poo hoo, poor Richard always has an answer that will
get him out of trouble.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 04:24:06PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Here is the real issue, Richard.  You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
>     without knowing the facts.  You get confronted with them and you change
>     history.  Sound familiar?
>
> What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place on a minor confusion.
> But you have added a new false accusation of "changing history".

Minor confusion?  This is the second time you make completely false
claims because you didn't bother to research what you are talking about.
You decided to be a public figure and the natural result is that people
will look at your statements with a magnifying glass.  I don't pay
attention to your normal activities as they have no bearing on me
whatsoever.  What shocks me is that the 2nd time in a week that I see you
talk is that you basically make stuff up.  I simply don't believe that
you had another "minor confusion".  You are smarter than that.

>
> I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such,
> so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was
> the clarification.

You rectified your answer because the original one was false.  You could
have prevented that by reading up on it.  Unless you have a different
agenda that you are not sharing.

>
> Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that
> you seek to apply to mine.

I don't claim the high ground with provocative claims and word altering
tactics.  You do.  I am holding you to your own standards; why is that
bad?

>
>     If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
>     reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.
>
> I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information
> that the ports system can install non-free software.  Then I stated
> that accurate information using words that were subject to
> misunderstanding.

Those words were not up for misunderstanding.

>
> You witnessed the words I said in the interview.  However, you
> make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended
> which are based on pure speculation.  No wonder yourclaims are mistaken.

When a public figure speaks he/she is supposed to know what they are
talking about.  You for some reason don't seem to think that what you
say needs rooting in truth or reality.  As the figure head for the FSF
you really should behave as you preach.  I've met many of your minions
and they are at least consistent and principled.  I even have seen guys
get fired for refusing to use non GPL software.

You are making stuff up and now blaming me for pointing it out.

>
> Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?

I read your words; I researched the CDDL and OpenSolaris and came to the
conclusion that you were again making stuff up.  Who is making any
claims here?

You need to stick to the conversation instead of trying to divert it to
irrelevant drivel.  Also instead of answering the questions I asked, you
decided that it is better to put words in my mouth.

[Siju George]

On Jan 2, 2008 2:54 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>     Here is the real issue, Richard.  You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
>     without knowing the facts.  You get confronted with them and you change
>     history.  Sound familiar?
>
> What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place on a minor confusion.
> But you have added a new false accusation of "changing history".
>

MINOR CONFUSION?

With all the spin you are doing with your own words it is quite clear that

1) You don't know the facts

OR

2) You are a compulsive liar

OR

3) You have an agenda.

You are going through all these verbal gymnastics just because your
mail to misc@ was appropriately addressed by the people there.

While you still continue to confuse the masses who do not know the
details but just get excited when they hear FSF and GNU and RMS
the people at misc stated the facts with proof and now you have no
choice but to apologize.

Be a man Richard.
You are making a big fool of yourself in public by beating about the bush.
And the 'nasty spin' you make on your own statements while desperately
accuse other doing the same.

Anybody who followed this thread would have clearly seen what a
hypocrite you are and how you use different standards to judge and
attack and try to destroy the reputation of Open Source projects you
are envious of ( perhaps they don't give a damn to what you say or
think about them ) .

You are not just a hypocrite but a kind of terrorist too with a
deluded feeling that people will all automatically subscribe to your
views and may be get afraid when you attack them in public with your
lies.

In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite
organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your
friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they
even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american
lawyer but finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in
public.

Your organization is slowly turning to a mafia Richard. Do you see that?
You have already crossed the boundaries of decency and you are still
bent on going that way.

It is terrible to see this....

with no regards what so ever

--Siju

> I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such,
> so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was
> the clarification.
>
> Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that
> you seek to apply to mine.
>
>     If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes
>     reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.
>
> I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information
> that the ports system can install non-free software.  Then I stated
> that accurate information using words that were subject to
> misunderstanding.
>

and so you made the "nasty spin" you are accusing theo of now and went
into media and said "OpenBSD CONTAINED non-Free" software.

Great Spin Doctor!
Anybody would expect this mistake from a kinder garden student but
from a person like you?
NO! you either did not study much or else you were taking revenge on
OpenBSD project by trying to tarnish their image because your friends
were put to shame publically by their own unwise zealotry ( with the
stupid advice of a stupid american lawyer who again did not study the
facts like you, remember one of the great kernel programmers of linux
did mockingly ask Theo to go and learn the copyright law but after the
issue was setelled against your friends we hears nothing from him
too!!) while trying to steal Reyk's code and play bullies with
sub-standard lawyer on your side.

Shame, Shame!!!

> You witnessed the words I said in the interview.  However, you
> make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended
> which are based on pure speculation.  No wonder yourclaims are mistaken.
>
> Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?
>

Every body who followed this thread has the facts before them with proof.
If you say you investigated things properly the what you are called by
people here is VERY APPROPRIATE!!!

HIPPO HIPPOCRITE!!!!

no more regards

Siju

[Richard Stallman]

    Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open
    your big fat lying mouth.

I am sure the readers can judge for themselves whether I am stupid.
They will certainly see I am not perfect.  I had learned the facts
about OpenSolaris, but that was months before.  By the time I did
that interview my memory was incorrect.

In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it
looks like the question had in mind a whole system.  This
miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an
endorsement of a system.

Partly I had forgotten and partly I fell into a miscommunication.
I am sure the readers can judge for themselves how grave that is.

"Lying" is another matter.  That is a grave accusation which you and
others have made with absolutely no basis.  Shouldn't you make sure of
the facts before you accuse?

As regards the size of my mouth, I got a testimonial from a dentist
that it is rather small.  If you won't take my word for it, I will ask
my mother to send me a copy.

[Theo de Raadt]

>     Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open
>     your big fat lying mouth.
>
> I am sure the readers can judge for themselves whether I am stupid.
> They will certainly see I am not perfect.  I had learned the facts
> about OpenSolaris, but that was months before.  By the time I did
> that interview my memory was incorrect.

Twice you called free things non-free, and once you called a non-free
things free.

Your memory was incorrect?  I bet you make such a mistake again in a
few weeks.

If you can't be accurate, perhaps you should not do interviews.

> In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it
> looks like the question had in mind a whole system.  This
> miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an
> endorsement of a system.

Huh?  OpenSolaris is just a kernel, and this helps you how?  The
kernel is not free -- it never was.  It has a couple of handful of
required drivers which are not included.  It is not free, in any
sense.  Yet you failed to do any research about this before you went
into the press.

> Partly I had forgotten and partly I fell into a miscommunication.
> I am sure the readers can judge for themselves how grave that is.

Someone like you is not allowed to spread mistruths like this in the
media.

> "Lying" is another matter.  That is a grave accusation which you and
> others have made with absolutely no basis.  Shouldn't you make sure of
> the facts before you accuse?

Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar.  And
since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I
am going to call you a hypocrite.

[Sunnz]

Hello Richard,

After reading this thread, I was interested to see what your list
recommendation really was, because I have never actually seen it!! So
I headed over fsf.org which leads me to this page when trying to find
out your list of recommended OS list:

http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html

Is that the list there?

My guess is that if you were to endorse OpenBSD you would have put a
link under "Other free operating systems"... under which, there were 2
interesting systems: GNU/Darwin, based off Apple's userland and
kernel, and ReactOS, designed specifically to run MS software.

So I have looked into them a bit more...

Your main complaint about among the BSD's are that they have a ports
system that can be used to install non-free software. In the case of
OpenBSD, ports system were not even included, OpenBSD merely includes
instruction to install the ports system and how to use it.

This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:

http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports

Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.

Considering that your main concern with ports system is that "it may
lead people to install non-free software", well, what about ReactOS,
whose _design goal_ is to _run_ non-free software?

Before you argue that ReactOS is merely a free implementation of Win32
API, let me clarify: if the purpose of ReactOS isn't to run some
Windows-only software S, then what is the purpose of ReactOS? if S was
free, it wouldn't be Windows-only as it would have ported to free
OS's. Remember that the Windows-only software that people are going to
be interested to run are going to be non-free one.

Cheers,
Sun.

[Richard Stallman]

    In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite
    organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your
    friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they
    even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american
    lawyer but finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in
    public.

I don't know who or what that refers to.  I do know that my favorite
organization is the Free Softwar Foundation, and I know it has not
been involved in anything that fits that description.

I suspect this is related to the harsh message Theo sent me a few
months ago, which rebuked what "you" (was that me? the FSF?) had done.
He mentioned the name "Reyk" (which I don't recognize) and said it had
something to do with a license.  But he did not go into details.
The FSF was not involved in the matter.

I could have investigated what he was talking about and determined
what conduct he had criticized.  Then, supposing I wanted to give them
some advice, I could have asked someone to find the developers'
addresses, and written to them.  Then they might or might not have
listened to me.

I could have done all that, but I saw no reason to go so far out of my
way for someone who was treating me rather badly.  So I simply told
him that the FSF was not involved in the matter.

I know that one part of your description events is wrong--the part
that says, that my "favorite organization" has "lost the battle
[publicly]".  My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved.  If
any of "my friends" were involved, they did not inform me.

Those errors make me skeptical of the rest of your claims.  Did
someone lose a battle?  Did anyone really "steal" anything?  I don't
know, but I won't take your word for it.  Did they "try to go legal"?
If so, was it "vainly"?  If they got legal advice, was their lawyer
"un-educated"?  Was the outcome embarrassing for someone?  I don't
know.

Whoever would like to know the answers to these questions would do
well to check on his own.

[Mayuresh Kathe]

Mr. Stallman, I respect you for what you've managed to achieve as an individual.

But, frankly, this thread has really gotten way out of control.

A few days back everything had kind-a settled down and we got the
impression that the thread had fortunately died, but that's not been
the case, you are struggling hard to lay out your viewpoints which
seem a tad bit twisted from where we look at it.

Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word "free",
which we don't give a farthing for.

No offense, but, please, please go away, we really don't want you
here, and on your way out, please take your minions along with you.

~Mayuresh

On Jan 3, 2008 3:20 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite
>     organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your
>     friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they
>     even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american
>     lawyer but finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in
>     public.
>
> I don't know who or what that refers to.  I do know that my favorite
> organization is the Free Softwar Foundation, and I know it has not
> been involved in anything that fits that description.
>
> I suspect this is related to the harsh message Theo sent me a few
> months ago, which rebuked what "you" (was that me? the FSF?) had done.
> He mentioned the name "Reyk" (which I don't recognize) and said it had
> something to do with a license.  But he did not go into details.
> The FSF was not involved in the matter.
>
> I could have investigated what he was talking about and determined
> what conduct he had criticized.  Then, supposing I wanted to give them
> some advice, I could have asked someone to find the developers'
> addresses, and written to them.  Then they might or might not have
> listened to me.
>
> I could have done all that, but I saw no reason to go so far out of my
> way for someone who was treating me rather badly.  So I simply told
> him that the FSF was not involved in the matter.
>
> I know that one part of your description events is wrong--the part
> that says, that my "favorite organization" has "lost the battle
> [publicly]".  My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved.  If
> any of "my friends" were involved, they did not inform me.
>
> Those errors make me skeptical of the rest of your claims.  Did
> someone lose a battle?  Did anyone really "steal" anything?  I don't
> know, but I won't take your word for it.  Did they "try to go legal"?
> If so, was it "vainly"?  If they got legal advice, was their lawyer
> "un-educated"?  Was the outcome embarrassing for someone?  I don't
> know.
>
> Whoever would like to know the answers to these questions would do
> well to check on his own.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:38PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
> you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
> OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word "free",
> which we don't give a farthing for.

He only doesn't want to *recommend* OpenBSD because of the ports tree
distributing some (however few exceptions those are) proprietary software.

He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some
non-free are distributed in the ports site.

Now, you may disagree with his non-recommendation, but you're
misinterperting what's being said completely, and perhaps giving a worse
judgement of his words than what he "did" (depending on the point of view).

Rui

(ps: if someone wants to answer back with insults just shove it, ok? I'm
a fan of the Free Software operating system called OpenBSD and it's
policy on pro-active security)

--
Fnord.
Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Allie Daneman]

Mayuresh Kathe wrote:

> Mr. Stallman, I respect you for what you've managed to achieve as an individual.
>
> But, frankly, this thread has really gotten way out of control.
>
> A few days back everything had kind-a settled down and we got the
> impression that the thread had fortunately died, but that's not been
> the case, you are struggling hard to lay out your viewpoints which
> seem a tad bit twisted from where we look at it.
>
> Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
> you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
> OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word "free",
> which we don't give a farthing for.
>
> No offense, but, please, please go away, we really don't want you
> here, and on your way out, please take your minions along with you.
>
> ~Mayuresh

+1....just go away Richard, you're REALLY annoying.

>
> On Jan 3, 2008 3:20 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>>     In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite
>>     organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your
>>     friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they
>>     even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american
>>     lawyer but finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in
>>     public.
>>
>> I don't know who or what that refers to.  I do know that my favorite
>> organization is the Free Softwar Foundation, and I know it has not
>> been involved in anything that fits that description.
>>
>> I suspect this is related to the harsh message Theo sent me a few
>> months ago, which rebuked what "you" (was that me? the FSF?) had done.
>> He mentioned the name "Reyk" (which I don't recognize) and said it had
>> something to do with a license.  But he did not go into details.
>> The FSF was not involved in the matter.
>>
>> I could have investigated what he was talking about and determined
>> what conduct he had criticized.  Then, supposing I wanted to give them
>> some advice, I could have asked someone to find the developers'
>> addresses, and written to them.  Then they might or might not have
>> listened to me.
>>
>> I could have done all that, but I saw no reason to go so far out of my
>> way for someone who was treating me rather badly.  So I simply told
>> him that the FSF was not involved in the matter.
>>
>> I know that one part of your description events is wrong--the part
>> that says, that my "favorite organization" has "lost the battle
>> [publicly]".  My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved.  If
>> any of "my friends" were involved, they did not inform me.
>>
>> Those errors make me skeptical of the rest of your claims.  Did
>> someone lose a battle?  Did anyone really "steal" anything?  I don't
>> know, but I won't take your word for it.  Did they "try to go legal"?
>> If so, was it "vainly"?  If they got legal advice, was their lawyer
>> "un-educated"?  Was the outcome embarrassing for someone?  I don't
>> know.
>>
>> Whoever would like to know the answers to these questions would do
>> well to check on his own.

[Siju George]

On Jan 3, 2008 3:20 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite
>     organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your
>     friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they
>     even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american
>     lawyer but finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in
>     public.
>
> I don't know who or what that refers to.  I do know that my favorite
> organization is the Free Softwar Foundation, and I know it has not
> been involved in anything that fits that description.
>
> I suspect this is related to the harsh message Theo sent me a few
> months ago, which rebuked what "you" (was that me? the FSF?) had done.
> He mentioned the name "Reyk" (which I don't recognize)
>

Being Concerned about free software you should recognize him ( unless
you deliberately want to lie or pretend ignorance ) because his
contribution for the **really free software** is not that negligible.

If you really don't please do ask your demon to wget
"http://team.vantronix.net/~reyk/"
and be better informed because you are participating in interviews and
making false statements which a person of your stature should NEVER
have done.

The injustice your friends were trying to do to him was not trivial
and your silence and pretending ignorance at that crucial hour was
"classic" especially when you claimed to be a Free Software Zealot.

Even there the injustice was evident when your folks destroyed the
reputation in public of another developer who made a mistake and did
not deliberately steal code and arbitrarily changed license like
**some** of the linux devs.


>and said it had
> something to do with a license.  But he did not go into details.
> The FSF was not involved in the matter.
>

That was your political position.
Do you think the rest of the world believes it?
I happened to go to a FOSS meeting 2yrs back and I heard people
speaking "you can see RMS coming to a mailing list just for politics."
I see that in reality in misc<@>openbsd now

> I could have investigated what he was talking about and determined
> what conduct he had criticized.  Then, supposing I wanted to give them
> some advice, I could have asked someone to find the developers'
> addresses, and written to them.  Then they might or might not have
> listened to me.
>

You could have!
You would have if you were not a Hippocrite!
But you DID NOT!!!
You claimed ignorance there too.
Do you think the rest of the world believes you any more though you
try to make politically correct statementsand pretend ignorance when
you have nothing more to say to justify your position?

> I could have done all that, but I saw no reason to go so far out of my
> way for someone who was treating me rather badly.  So I simply told
> him that the FSF was not involved in the matter.
>

When people tell the truth it is quite easy to think they are acting
badly to you especially when you have guilt in you.

So you say your Commitment to "Free Software" and respect for
"copyright laws" end the moment you feel somebody is not treating you
the way you expect them to?

> I know that one part of your description events is wrong--the part
> that says, that my "favorite organization" has "lost the battle
> [publicly]".  My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved.  If
> any of "my friends" were involved, they did not inform me.
>

Good friends you have then.
Be careful about them.
Of course Brutus is an honorable man.........

> Those errors make me skeptical of the rest of your claims.  Did
> someone lose a battle?
>

Yes! a bunch of linux developers with the backup of a lawyer who
either didn't know the copyright law, or thought he could twist it to
his interpretation and get away with it, lost the battle in public.
To tell you the fact they lost even before the game began,
understanding their folly they backed out from their mischief. So they
lost the battle even before it reached a court of law!!!

>Did anyone really "steal" anything?  I don't
> know, but I won't take your word for it.
>

Don't take my word for it.
Your Demon and wget can help you. Easier with firefox or even IE.

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223&w=2

From what I learn

http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/
http://directory.fsf.org/project/wxwindows/
http://wxwindows.org/about/credits.htm

see the acknowledgment from one of the softwares endorsed by FSF your
favourite organization.

==========================================================================================================
Thank you to Microsoft for donating a copy of Visual C++ 6.0 to help
wxWidgets compile on this version of the compiler (for a Virginia Tech
course).
==========================================================================================================

The developers of software you recommend use proprietary software and
you have no qualms about that!
But you are utterlly shocked that there are a few URLs in the OpenBSD
ports system that point to non-free softwares (and of course warns the
users that those softwares are non free ) and you interpret that
"OpenBSD is non-free and encourages use of non-free software". Reminds
me of the spin you accuse others of!

>Did they "try to go legal"?
>

They would have tried if they did not understand the utter stupidity
of their actions some time later.
Below is an example of a linux developer taunting a BSD Project leader
asking him to learn the copyright law because he thought he knew it
better than the BSD developer

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118867816914204&w=2

Do you want to know who made this statement?

===================================================
Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
attorneys watching their backs.
===================================================

ask your Demon wget friends to get

http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118869060826841&w=2

for you.

Your answer now may be that

"FSF's position is that attorneys could be put to use for diverse
exercises not limited to the legal system""

> If so, was it "vainly"?  If they got legal advice, was their lawyer
> "un-educated"?  Was the outcome embarrassing for someone?  I don't
> know.
>

Well I can answer these questions as well. but the links above answers
some of them in part.
But since I know you are pretending like a cat who closes its eyes and
drink milk thinking that nobody sees it I won't take the pains to do
that today

> Whoever would like to know the answers to these questions would do
> well to check on his own.
>

No need! if anybody like to know please mail me I will help you get
the truth from public mailinglists.

--Siju