Real men don't attack straw men

[Siegbert Marschall]

Is it April 2008 already, or what is happening on this mailing list ?

I am about two weeks behind reading but out of curiosity I read a few
emails in this thread and well, almost can't believe it.

I better stop reading this list for a while and come back after doing
something usefull, like installing my alphas and checking wether this
damned AlphaBug is really gone gone... ;)

Those are my computers and they will eat what I feed them, wether it's
free, unfree, payed, unpayed, typed in, downloaded, zigzagged or whatever.
I'm free they are not <harharhar>. That simple.

n8, sm.

[j4nKy]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 01:49:19PM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:

> mcb, inc. wrote:
> >Watching the latest flame war, I can't help thinking that as
> >founders of their respective projects Theo and RMS are trapped
> >in a jail of rigid consistency and absolutism demanded by
> >children and utopians.
> Well, yes and no.
>
> Theo's absolutism has kept OpenBSD pretty much the last
> blob-free OS in the Free Software world.
>
> RMS's absolutism has kept alive an ideal that launched
> the mainstream open source movement.

his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a
"social failure".

> So it's not non-functional. It's emotionally hard on the
> individuals concerned, and often emotionally hard on
> us who bask in the reflected glow of these geniuses :-).
> But it  all seems to work out in practice. Has for a cuple
> of decades now, give or take a few years.

recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.

and all stallman says about it is basically, "I am not familiar
with the situation, leave me alone."

I would like to see more cooperation between the free software
developers.

but IMO, stallman is the one being far more unfriendly and
uncooperative.  of course stallman is not directly responsible
for the actions of the GPL community.  but his opinions do wield
power.  didn't this whole thread start because of his opinions
and recommendations?

now stallman won't talk to theo, because theo is unabashed in
stating his opinions?  just look at the thread.  between theo
and stallman, who posted the most words, and who gave less
misinformation/slant?

in much fewer words:  the gutless politician attempted to use his
influence to snub and smear his opponent.  when fallacies in his
campaign were brought to light, he accused his opponent of being
unfriendly.

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

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra-2]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 04:49:34PM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote:

> On Tuesday 11 December 2007 14:00:43 Richard Stallman wrote:
> >     Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
> >
> > Because he tends to be unfriendly.
>
> Now *that* I find humorous.
>
> I find it Kafka-esque, your inability to reccomend OpenBSD because
> of some "unfree" items in the ports tree.  Effectively you are taking
> away the right of people to choose the software they wish to use.

It is me, who finds it humurous that you consider a recommendation as
taking away the right of people choosing the software they wish to use.

If I recommend you not to jump into a well, am I taking your liberty to
jump into it? It would be quite funny to see how bits & bytes, my only
interaction with you, could ever prevent you from a refreshing bath :)

> Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the
> freedom of choice in the name of freedom.

That is bizarre...

Rui

--
All Hail Discordia!
Today is Setting Orange, the 53rd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
+ 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...?

[Richard Stallman]

    > I think it would be wrong for me to recommend it to others.  Therefore,
    > if a collection of software contains (or suggests installation of)
    > some non-free program, I do not recommend it.  The systems I recommend
    > are therefore those that do not contain (or suggest installation of)
    > non-free software.

    Therefore, you don't recommend linux. Oh wait ...

I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux.  The versions of Linux
in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.

    > However, its ports
    > system does suggest non-free programs,

    No it doesn't "suggest" non-free programs in any way;
    it just makes it possible and easy to install them.

Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using
that program.  It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that
is what I am opposed to.

You may have a different interpretation of these facts.
That's my interpretation of them.

[StrongBad]

Jacob Meuser wrote:
> his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a
> "social failure".
>  
In everything, there is light and dark, interwoven :-)
> recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
> GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
> BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.
>  
Well, sue 'em, if it's so. But no point in sulking. Like the ENTIRE
PROGRAMMING COMMUNITY, we're a bunch of cantankerous,
contentious, contumacious perfectionists.

Stallman and Theo especially. And you, too. And me.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@...
303-443-7000 ext. 527

[ropers]

> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:00:14PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > >     OpenBSD is by far the most free OS in the landscape.  Everything that
> > >     ships with it is free or else it won't be distributed with it.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's what I was told.  I was also told that OpenBSD's ports
> > > system includes non-free programs.  Is that accurate too?

> William Boshuck wrote:
> > Strictly speaking, no.  If you unpack ports.tar.gz
> > you will find a bunch of makefiles, packing lists,
> > & c., all of which are free.  OpenBSD's ports system
> > depends on programs in the base system which are free.
> > On a modern UNIX-like operating system it possible,
> > even easy, to use free tools like awk, make, perl,
> > sh, and so on, directly or indirectly, to facilitate
> > the installation and maintenance of (free and non-free)
> > software.

On 11/12/2007, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:

> William is right.
>
> The OpenBSD ports tree is just a scaffold, and that scaffold is 100%
> free.  It contains no non-free parts.
>
> It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
> knows how to build that non-free software.   But the entire ports
> tree has no non-free software in it at all.
>
> Does that make it non-free?

I would like to ask Richard a question. It may seem off-topic, but it isn't:

Do you believe that The Pirate Bay is guilty of copyright infringement?

In case you're not familiar, The Pirate Bay ( http://thepiratebay.org/
, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay ) is a Swedish website
that offers users the opportunity to upload metadata files that
contain information about where and how data files can be downloaded.
It also allows users to download the metadata files that users have
uploaded. Some users (possibly even a large number) use this service
to upload metadata files that contain info that can be used to obtain
copyrighted material, possibly without the copyright holder's
permission.

This is IMHO very similar to the way the OpenBSD ports system is
related to unfree software:
- The unfree software is not hosted by OpenBSD. The ports tree
effectively only contains metadata.
- The individual ports in the ports system are maintained by
(advanced) OpenBSD users. The inclusion of a port that users chose to
submit and maintain does not imply an endorsement of the (possibly
unfree) software that can be installed using the port metadata.
- The use of the ports system is officially *discouraged* for average
users. Average  Joes are encouraged to *not* use ports but use OpenBSD
_packages_ instead, which are precompiled binaries which are hosted by
OpenBSD. ( See "IMPORTANT NOTE" here:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports ) There are no unfree
packages. See for yourself: (caution: very long page and long load)
http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
- Unlike the Pirate Bay, the OpenBSD ports system does itself
distinguish between free and unfree content. See this comment by Nick
Guenther:
> It may be relevant to point out:
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119731456628749&w=2
> > Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports
> > tree would be useful.
>
> PERMIT_*=(not Yes)

In addition, it is *considerably harder* to install unfree software on
OpenBSD than on gNewSense. This eg. is what installing Skype entails:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.bsd.india/352
On gNewSense, it is *much* easier to install Skype. Just add an unfree
repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to
install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not
warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so
why expect more from OpenBSD?

Richard, I you wrote:
> If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.

I suspect that your skepticism of OpenBSD stems from yourself being
unfamiliar with the OpenBSD packages and ports system and not aware
that the OpenBSD project does not in fact host unfree packages (and
that ports for unfree programs such as users have submitted only
contain metadata).

In summary, I strongly feel that OpenBSD in fact does *not* suggest
non-free programs. Despite the heated and sometimes personal nature of
this thread, I think the honorable thing to do would be to be the
bigger man and acknowledge the misunderstandings and make good on your
offer to recommend OpenBSD.

Thanks and regards,
--ropers

[fuzzyping]

On Dec 11, 2007, at 6:56 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using
> that program.  It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that
> is what I am opposed to.


Where is your line in the sand?  When does an operating system become  
free by your interpretation?  When non-free ports frameworks are  
hosted outside the official OpenBSD cvs repository?  On a server not  
owned by the OpenBSD project?  What if I want to host it on my own  
server, but I also happen to be an OpenBSD developer?  When does the  
disassociation satisfy your unpublished requirements?

Your interpretation is vague and self-serving.

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

[j4nKy]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:11:25PM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:

> Jacob Meuser wrote:
> >his absolutism also causes people to see BSD as a "problem", a
> >"social failure".
> >  
> In everything, there is light and dark, interwoven :-)
> >recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
> >GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
> >BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.
> >  
> Well, sue 'em, if it's so. But no point in sulking. Like the ENTIRE
> PROGRAMMING COMMUNITY, we're a bunch of cantankerous,
> contentious, contumacious perfectionists.

hmmm,

I do/have done a fair amount of work adding/maintaining GPL software
in the ports collection.  I was working on a port for libcdio, an
GNU project.  there'a a file in NetBSD's pkgsrc that adds support
for NetBSD/OpenBSD cd(4).  that file is BSD licensed.  the
README.libcdio file in the libcdio sources mentions this file and
says it can't be included because it's not GPL.  I contacted the
libcdio maintainer about this file, and he again said he could not
include it because the BSD license is incompatible.  whatever.
so I contacted the author of said file, asking if he could change the
license so it could be included upstream. he eventually agreed.

I'm only posting this because I understand how easy it could be to
look at my remarks and conclude I'm just another theo fan-boy BSD
zealot.

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

[ropers]

I'd like to add two things I forgot earlier on, for Richards consideration:

On 12/12/2007, ropers <ropers@...> wrote:

> This is IMHO very similar to the way the OpenBSD ports system is
> related to unfree software:
> - The unfree software is not hosted by OpenBSD. The ports tree
> effectively only contains metadata.
> - The individual ports in the ports system are maintained by
> (advanced) OpenBSD users. The inclusion of a port that users chose to
> submit and maintain does not imply an endorsement of the (possibly
> unfree) software that can be installed using the port metadata.
> - The use of the ports system is officially *discouraged* for average
> users. Average  Joes are encouraged to *not* use ports but use OpenBSD
> _packages_ instead, which are precompiled binaries which are hosted by
> OpenBSD. ( See "IMPORTANT NOTE" here:
> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports ) There are no unfree
> packages. See for yourself: (caution: very long page and long load)
> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
> - Unlike the Pirate Bay, the OpenBSD ports system does itself
> distinguish between free and unfree content. See this comment by Nick
> Guenther:
> > It may be relevant to point out:
> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119731456628749&w=2
> > > Having a way to sift out the non-free stuff during a search of the ports
> > > tree would be useful.
> >
> > PERMIT_*=(not Yes)

- Here I'd like to add that the ports tree is *not* part of the
OpenBSD operating system install. The ports tree is something the user
has to actively look for and check out to their local system if they
want it. This means that the OpenBSD OS and install CD are *completely
free* of even the metadata repository that contains user-contributed
metadata files, only a minority of which refer to unfree software.

As far as I understand, the OpenBSD position appears to be that trying
to police users by forbidding them to maintain and retrieve port
metadata about unfree software via this adjunct service (that is not
included in the OS) would be a restriction of the users' freedom.

The Pirate Bay does not police torrents, or suppress certain torrents,
and OpenBSD does likewise not police ports. If a user wants to be an
ass and do something stupid and unethical, they can. They have the
freedom to do that. But don't blame OpenBSD for that. It only has an
adjunct facility that allows what is effectively the exchange of
advanced semi-automated usage information, nothing more. And yes, it
even allows users to exchange stupid usage information, such as how to
install unfree-app-xyz. The choice whether to do something stupid is
left up to the user, but the user is advised not to use ports in the
first place, and hints that allow users to more easily distinguish
halal from haram software are in place.

> In addition, it is *considerably harder* to install unfree software on
> OpenBSD than on gNewSense. This eg. is what installing Skype entails:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.bsd.india/352
> On gNewSense, it is *much* easier to install Skype. Just add an unfree
> repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to
> install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not
> warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so
> why expect more from OpenBSD?

Also, the installation of unfree software is *extremely* frowned upon
by the OpenBSD user community. To stay with the Skype example:
http://www.nabble.com/Skype-on-the-OpenBSD-td14113398.html
http://www.nabble.com/Skype-on-the-OpenBSD-td14113398i20.html

> Richard, I you wrote:
> > If OpenBSD did not suggest non-free programs, I would
> > recommend it along with the free GNU/Linux distros.
>
> I suspect that your skepticism of OpenBSD stems from yourself being
> unfamiliar with the OpenBSD packages and ports system and not aware
> that the OpenBSD project does not in fact host unfree packages (and
> that ports for unfree programs such as users have submitted only
> contain metadata).
>
> In summary, I strongly feel that OpenBSD in fact does *not* suggest
> non-free programs. Despite the heated and sometimes personal nature of
> this thread, I think the honorable thing to do would be to be the
> bigger man and acknowledge the misunderstandings and make good on your
> offer to recommend OpenBSD.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> --ropers

[Bryan Irvine]

On Dec 11, 2007 3:48 PM, Siegbert Marschall <siggi@...> wrote:
> Is it April 2008 already, or what is happening on this mailing list ?

No, but it is about the time for the monthly "what is happening to
misc" comments ;)

-B

[Travers Buda-2]

* ropers <ropers@...> [2007-12-12 01:17:32]:

*snip*

>
> In addition, it is *considerably harder* to install unfree software on
> OpenBSD than on gNewSense. This eg. is what installing Skype entails:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.bsd.india/352
> On gNewSense, it is *much* easier to install Skype. Just add an unfree
> repository to /etc/apt/sources.list and type a one-line command to
> install. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gNewSense will not
> warn a user who does that that they are installing unfree software, so
> why expect more from OpenBSD?
>

I agree,

In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
software is to basically only distribute binaries for say, atleast
the kernel, and only allow cryptographically hashed binaries to
run, or something of that sort.  That would not stand up long, you
could say, offline replace the kernel, or hell, just fork the
distribution, or any other myriad of ways.

The point is that is very difficult to force people to behave in
certain ways, such as only using GPL software.  However, if they
_want_ to only use GPL software, then that's what they will do.
You _can_ run OpenBSD without non GPL, non BSD licensed software.
That's how it ships, (save for firmware which we have the rigths
to distribute.) Just as you can also run it with something not open
and not free.  Attempts to force users to do otherwise would be
futile.  This is the exact same case with the 100% FSF-approved
linux distributions Stallman suggested.  People do not run non free
software on these distributions.  It's not because they can't, it's
because they don't want to.

An aside: The GPL does its job, but only if people put that license
on their software.  So remember--people's wills, not the license.

--
Travers Buda

[StrongBad]

Jacob Meuser wrote:
>  the
> README.libcdio file in the libcdio sources mentions this file and
> says it can't be included because it's not GPL.  I contacted the
> libcdio maintainer about this file, and he again said he could not
> include it because the BSD license is incompatible.
Yes, our community of people who generally believe in free software and
open source find many ways to roll bowling balls at each other's ankles.
We're
very silly sometimes. Idealists do tend towards intolerance, especially of
other idealists.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@...
303-443-7000 ext. 527

[L-9]

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>     Why don't you ask Theo, whom you once praised, about OpenBSD?
>> Because he tends to be unfriendly.
>


Assuming and/or judging that someone is unfriendly, is an unfriendly act
itself.  Publicly stating on a mailing list that someone 'tends' to be
unfriendly is a very unfriendly act. Especially since the word 'tends'
sounds very much like FUD spreading (fear of Theo, ohhh, is he friendly,
or is he mad? what will we do? use words like 'tends' and live in fear,
uncertainty, or doubt).

Stating that someone 'tends' to be unfriendly would be encouraging more
unfriendliness from that unfriendly person, if they were even unfriendly
in the first place.

Even if they were unfriendly, stating publicly that they 'tend' to be
unfriendly would not be healing an unfriendly person, nor a friendly
person that was incorrectly judged as unfriendly.

Not calling someone unfriendly and just focusing on the
conversation/technical details at hand, would be much more friendly..
even considering friendship wasn't the subject of discussion in the
first place.

Bringing up friendliness versus unfriendliness in a conversation which
had nothing to do with unfriendliness, is very unfriendly and provoking.

I declare the comment a flamebait, in which I was baited successfully.

Therefore, one who makes a premature unfriendly judgment, may in fact be
*the* actual unfriendly, judgmental, and assumptive person in reality.

Laugh and smile,
L505

[Richard Stallman]

    So, an operating system can born "free" (free as in speech, in the GNU sense)
    and then, become "non-free" just because some users decided to create a way
    to ease installations of software that "just can't be shipped with the system"?

You've formulated a very broad description, which applies to the act
of putting a non-free program in the ports system, and equally to many
other acts whose nature is different.  For instance, the program might
or might not be free; the easier way might or might not be included in
OpenBSD.  I might say the act was bad, or I might say it was good,
depending on the details not specified.

If "some users" write a way to "ease installation" of some non-free
program, and distribution D doesn't include this way in its
distribution or publicize it, then those users have done something bad
but distribution D is not responsible for what they did.

However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
the ethical responsibility for it.

I say "distribution D" because this is the same for any distribution,
whether it's a distribution of the BSD system, or a distribution the
GNU/Linux system, or whatever.

[Richard Stallman]

    Well, it seems that we have the following pattern:

     - gNewSense, if someone finds a non-free program in it, that's no disaster
     - anything else, if someone finds a non free program in it, that's
    surely a disaster

    Please, sir, clarify....

The words I posted before ought to clarify this:

    Everyone makes mistakes, and well-intentioned people fix their
    mistakes.  So if someone finds a non-free program in gNewSense, or in
    OpenBSD, in violation of the distro's policies, that's no disaster.  I
    trust the developers will remove it once they find out.

What I said applies just the same to gNewSense and OpenBSD.
I think you misinterpreted it.

[Richard Stallman]

    As a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like"
    software install package project for it?

If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would
promote non-free software.

If it were included in or recommended by gNewSense, then gNewSense
would promote non-free software.  I trust they wouldn't do that,
because their policies are not to do that.

[Mattieu Baptiste-2]

On Dec 12, 2007 9:37 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>
> If "some users" write a way to "ease installation" of some non-free
> program, and distribution D doesn't include this way in its
> distribution or publicize it, then those users have done something bad
> but distribution D is not responsible for what they did.
>
> However, if distribution D includes this "easier way to install" in
> its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on
> the ethical responsibility for it.


Hi Richard,

gNewSense uses the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel facilitates utilization of
non-free blobs. By using the Linux kernel, every idiotic people can install
Nvidia binary drivers on Linux-based distributions, like gNewSense... So if
I follow your meanings, gNewSense can not be recommended, right ?


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

[ropers]

On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>     As a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like"
>     software install package project for it?
>
> If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would
> promote non-free software.
>
> If it were included in or recommended by gNewSense, then gNewSense
> would promote non-free software.  I trust they wouldn't do that,
> because their policies are not to do that.

And I repeat again:
The OpenBSD ports tree is *neither included in nor recommended* by OpenBSD.
OpenBSD *Does. Not. Do. That.* because OpenBSD's policies are not to do that.

The OpenBSD packages system cannot be used install non-free software,
because there are none. However, it is trivially easy to use the
gNewSense apt system to install unfree software. This requires three
steps at most. From
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Skype#head-5c18cc60f56f7f5f651ee9abeca60f0ab62545f7
(Yes, this is an Ubuntu site, but AFAIK the exact same instructions
can be used on gNewSense.):
   1. Add the Skype repository to /etc/apt/sources.list:
  deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free
   2. Reload or update the package information
   3. Install the skype package.

Richard, I am just asking you to be consistent and avoid the
impression of biased decisionmaking based on a conflict of interest.

Thanks and regards,
--ropers

PS:
Ok, and I *know* I should not be trolling, but I have to get this over with:
gNewSense -- nuisance ;o)
There. I feel better now. I had to get that off my chest. Sorry, Could
Not Resist. ;-)

[Kyle George]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Including a program by name in the ports system does suggest using
> that program.  It grants the program a sort of legitimacy, and that
> is what I am opposed to.

If a library has a book on [insert-controversial-topic-here], does that
imply endorsement of said topic by the library or by someone who reads the
book?  Should the library burn copies of books on such topics to protect
the citizenry?  Absolutely not.

Along these same lines, it doesn't make sense to try to hide what software
is out there.  I think people can figure out which software they want to
use from ports after installing the base system, free or non-free.

Either way, a makefile to download and install a non-free piece of
software doesn't make the system any less free.

--
Kyle George

[ropers]

On 12/12/2007, ropers <ropers@...> wrote:

> On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> >     As a last question. Will gNewSense become "non-free" if I start a "ports-like"
> >     software install package project for it?
> >
> > If your install package has ports for non-free software, then it would
> > promote non-free software.
> >
> > If it were included in or recommended by gNewSense, then gNewSense
> > would promote non-free software.  I trust they wouldn't do that,
> > because their policies are not to do that.
>
> And I repeat again:
> The OpenBSD ports tree is *neither included in nor recommended* by OpenBSD.
> OpenBSD *Does. Not. Do. That.* because OpenBSD's policies are not to do that.
>

And if people chose to use the ports tree anyway, despite what was
recommended, and chose to use it to install unfree software, despite
the fact that hints are there that note unfree software as such, then
that is their own fault. People should take responsibility for their
own choices. OpenBSD is an operating system, not a nanny.