Real men don't attack straw men

[Marcus Andree]

On 12/12/07, ropers <ropers@...> wrote:

> 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.
>

Agreed.
It is now clear that Richard Stallman is not recommending the OpenBSD
"distribution" (ports + kernel + base), not only the kernel itself.

I can understand the reason for "bashing" OpenBSD but I can't share the same
view, since

 - ports lives in user space
 - users aren't required to use/install ports
 - ports itself is free, despite poiting to some non-free software

If an entire distribution can be "tainted" by non-free third-party
software being
ported,
what to say about other issues, such as LGPL'ed code that, in fact, "promotes"
non-free software just by being linked to it?

[ropers]

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

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

Ok, it looks like I made a mistake and I have to correct myself. My apologies.
Apparently the ports tree metadata is available on the OpenBSD CD.
I did not know that because I have in fact never used the ports tree,
because OpenBSD recommends not to use ports (and use packages
instead). I just found out here:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsFetch
that there is a ports.tar.gz file on the CD.

HOWEVER, that file is not installed by default, and the OpenBSD
install program *does not even give the user the option* to install
ports.tar.gz, be it from CD or otherwise. See here:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Filesets

So yes, the ports.tar.gz file is on the CD, but it's not part of the
OpenBSD installation, it's use is not recommended, it can only be
installed manually outsite of the OpenBSD install program, and it only
contains metadata, and only a minority of the ports metadata
references unfree software.

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

Even with the above correction, I still believe it would be most
consistent for you to recommend OpenBSD. The mere presence of info
that users *could* use to do something stupid on the install CD (but
*NOT* within the OS installation) does not IMHO come anywhere near to
inclusion in OpenBSD or a recommendation by OpenBSD.

> Thanks and regards,
> --ropers

[Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo-2]

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

[...]

> that there is a ports.tar.gz file on the CD.
>
> HOWEVER, that file is not installed by default, and the OpenBSD
> install program *does not even give the user the option* to install
> ports.tar.gz, be it from CD or otherwise. See here:
> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html#Filesets

On OpenBSD:  for install (a few) non-free (for someone) software (non
developed by OpenBSD), you need to manually cp, tar, search, cd, make
etc... and it is _unrecomended_

On gnewsense: wget the .deb and then dpkg -i package.deb, or add a
repository (manually or from a gtk interface) and using latter another
interfaces (apt/aptitude/sinaptyc/etc) for install A_LOT of shit.
A_LOT is a relation about 10000:1 compared whit openbsd ports (may be
short).

On OpenBSD, you have a tool to install (a few) non-free licensed
programs, the Ports (Makefiles), but this tool is not designed or
intended for promote non-free software.

On gnewsense, you have A LOOT of tools to install non-free licensed,
Makefiles, .debs, dpkg, apt, aptitude, sinaptyc, kpackage. Also whit
apt-url, you can install non-free software only "clicking" on a url
(yes, like IE5,6,7)

This is on userland. But if you go to the heart of the system, take a
look on the .h files of the fat .tgz of the linux kernel... you will
find a lot of "intersting" comments about licenses.

I would like to know, from all the users of gnewsense or ututo, how
many of them have some of: non-free blobs, firmwares, drivers,
aplications, codecs, java, flash, or other shits... and how many
OpenBSD have any... compared in percent. B?is recomendable one, the
other or bot?

Greetings

[Rodrigo V. Raimundo]

On Wednesday 12 December 2007 06:37, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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.
>

Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical because it allows
compilation of non-free software.

[Jacob Yocom-Piatt-2]

Mattieu Baptiste wrote:

> 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 ?
>
>
>  

SNAP!

[michael hamerski-2]

Mine is more free than yours is usually a pointless discussion, even
more so when the participants cannot even agree on the definition of
free. Stallman conveniently omits the fact that his definition of free
was, is and will be at odds with that of a significant portion of the
free software community. It logically follows that so too will his
definition of non-free.

If a few millenia of written debate have failed to come up with an
unambiguous definition accepted by all, I sincerely doubt this thread
will. But hey, whatever, the "Theo is unfriendly" quote is pretty
priceless in itself.

[Marc Espie-2]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 03:37:31AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

> 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.

Nope.

Users have responsability for what they do. We do not take responsability
for them. We give them enough information to make their informed decision.

In my opinion, that's the ethical way to do things.

But then, that's the main difference between BSD and GNU.

In BSD land, we trust the human nature. We're not condescending to our
users, we treat them as adults and we let them make *their* own ethical
choice and take their own decision. We are *neutral* with respect to
commercial programs. Maybe they're evil, maybe they're not. But we show
enough respect to people to let them choose what they want.

In the brave GNU land, you've taken upon yourself to take ethical decisions
and protect the user from making those decisions...

I think it's pretty clear where I stand. Of course, my voice doesn't carry
the weight yours does.

`with great power, comes great responsability.'

maybe you're misusing your power, Richard.

'nugh said.

[Andrés Delfino]

To: list

Richard's words are the essence of the Free Software Foundation and
the GNU General Public License: people _must_ use free software,
people _can_ decide whether to use free software or not, but people
_must not_ be free to exercise that desire. I will explain that last
statement, since it may seem extreme. Easing the exercise of that
desire (with a port system, for instance) is "bad". An operative
system which does allow installation of free software, and tries to
disallow the installation of non-free software in a disguised way
(hiding it), is gifted with a promotion of its work. So, let's write a
quick condition here:

// Check whether this is good shit
if (allows(project, free_software) && ! allows(project, non_free_software))
        add_to_list(project);

To: Richard Matthew Stallman

Since The Free Software foundation mission is to "preserve, protect
and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute
computer software" (free software), please, Richard, remove Linux from
the Free Software Directory (since "Torvalds' version of Linux is not
free software", and that is the version listed in the directory);
because you, as the director of the Free Software Foundation with
responsabilities for all work of said foundation, are promoting
software which is not free. Removing all quotes which promotes Linux
would help users not to get attracted to Linus version, too. There is
a copylefted implementation of grep, so finding them would be quite
easy.

Greetings.

[Marcus Andree]

On 12/12/07, Rodrigo V. Raimundo <spyro@...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 December 2007 06:37, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> Using the same argument I can say that gcc isn't ethical because it allows
> compilation of non-free software.
>

I don't see this as a valid point. Stallman talks about "endorsement".
By what I've understood of his vision, when OpenBSD team decided to
"aggregate" a functionality called ports, they "endorsed" everything living
in ports tree, even if it's non-free software.
Such "endorsement" had the ability to "taint" the entire distribution, so it
was labeled as "non recommended". At this point, we start to disagree.

Ports is a userland feature, not a kernel one. So, to abid to his pinciples,
he decided  to broad the "tainting" thing to the entire distribution
(kernel, base,
ports,  etc).

I just don't see this as a fair thing.

A possible solution would be to "segregate" ports from the distribution
itself. Maybe creating an openbsd.com website, hosting the ports system,
and making clear that openbsd.com is not affiliated anyway to openbsd.org
(which would host the kernel space apps and code). This could move the
"tainted" code to outside the "distribution". Stallman would have to point
his arguments to the individuals themselves.

Also, since we're talking about BSD licensing here, this entire
"solution" should
be considered an absurd and a waste of resources.

I'll let this thread rest now. Nothing new to gain here.

[William Boshuck]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:47:00PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:00:14PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > ... I was also told that OpenBSD's ports system includes
> > > non-free programs.  Is that accurate too?
> >
> > [William Boshuck replied:]
> >
> > Strictly speaking, no.  
>
> [Theo de Raadt confirmed:]
>
> William is right.
>
> The OpenBSD ports tree is just a scaffold, and that scaffold is 100%
> free.  It contains no non-free parts.
>
> ...
>
> Richard -- you spoke out of line.  You are wrong.

This thread has gone off-track. (I don't mean Theo.)

It is extremely important for a very large number of
reasons, some of which I understand well and some of
which I understand hardly or not at all, that what
software is included in, and distributed by, OpenBSD,
is free software.  This is well-known.  It is a
serious consideration for many of OpenBSD's current
and potential users.

About twenty-two minutes and ten seconds into the
bsdtalk interview, Richard Stallman says of the BSD's:

"... all of them include, in their installation
systems---in some cases I believe it's called a
ports system, I don't know if they all use that
term---they all include some non-free programs,
and as a result I can't recommend any of them."

It has been pointed out to Richard Stallman, more than
once, that this is not a correct statement about OpenBSD.
(See Theo's confirmation, above.)  Whatever the practical
convenience of not telling the truth, it is not ethical to
aver that OpenBSD includes non-free software when it does
not.  (Ignorance is not at issue here.  Just as one can
say "I don't know" about the CDDL, one can say "I don't
know" about OpenBSD.)

Since Richard Stallman has chosen to pronounce on the
matter, and to include OpenBSD in his pronouncement,
the ethical thing for him to do now is to acknowledge
clearly and unambiguously that OpenBSD does not include
non-free software.  Full stop.

The question of inclusion and/or distribution is clear,
precise and unambiguous.  OpenBSD neither includes nor
distributes non-free software.  This is not about Richard
Stallman's recommendation.  This is about the truth.

Questions that concern mention, naming, suggestion,
lending legitimacy, and so forth, and attempts to
persuade Richard Stallman to recommend OpenBSD,
form the material of another discussion.

[Marti Martinez]

On Dec 12, 2007 10:25 AM, Marcus Andree <marcusandree@...> wrote:
> A possible solution would be to...

Summary of this thread: RMS doesn't support OpenBSD.

Where here is there a problem waiting for a solution?

Marti

--
Systems Programmer, Principal
Electrical & Computer Engineering
The University of Arizona
marti@...

[StrongBad]

On Dec 12, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Marti Martinez wrote:

> Summary of this thread: RMS doesn't support OpenBSD.
>
> Where here is there a problem waiting for a solution?
>

Marti for chair of the next discussion!!!
+1

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

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

Someone else attacked me on this list for not discussing this with
Theo.  I explained the reason in the gentlest way I could think of.
If you wish we were not discussing the subject, you had best take it
up with him.

[Richard Stallman]

    In the end, the only way to prevent users from running non GPL
    software

Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-GPL-covered software?  Not I.  I frequently run OpenSSH,
whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if
my memory serves).  It is free software, so why not use it?

Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
running non-free software?  Not I.  I think that software is
unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone.  But I
have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.

If no one is in favor, why argue against?

[Richard Stallman]

    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?

If they are published by someone else, and OpenBSD doesn't point
people at them, then OpenBSD is not responsible for them.

Helping people install non-free software is bad, just as developing
and distributing non-free software is bad.  But if OpenBSD doesn't
participate in spreading that information, it's not OpenBSD's fault.

                                   What if I want to host it on my own  
    server, but I also happen to be an OpenBSD developer?

I don't think it matters whether you're an OpenBSD developer.  What
matters is whether OpenBSD (in the distribution and its servers) says
anything to leads users to that information.  Mentioning your name in
other some context, such as to thank you for your contributions, would
not lead people to look at your site for non-free software, so it is
not an issue.

If OpenBSD eliminates the non-free programs from the ports system
that it recommends to users, then I will consider it good.

[Richard Stallman]

    few mentioned changes. Apples to apples comparisons I say. I adjust
    my repositories in a repository browser and poke away. I find java, I
    find tools to work with many non-free pieces of software as well.

Could you explain what "I adjust my repositories in a repository
browser" means, precisely?  I need to know the details in order to see
whether this is a problem that gNewSense is responsible for.

Non-free software is available on the net, and people can find and
install it.  I think that is unethical, but gNewSense is not
responsible for that (and neither is OpenBSD).  On the other hand, if
there is something in gNewSense recommending or leading you to that
non-free software, that would be the responsibility of gNewSense.

    So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column
    that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?

Putting the non-free software in a separate folder or labeling it is
not enough.  That is what Debian does, and that's why I don't
recommend Debian.  Likewise, that's what Ubuntu does nowadays, which
is why I don't recommend Ubuntu.  Gobuntu does the same thing -- the
non-free repositories are disabled by default, but a dialog box offers
the chance to enable them.  So I don't recommend Gobuntu either.

(Gobuntu also has the problem that its name is so close to Ubuntu that
people would get them confused.  Practically speaking it is not
feasible to recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu.)

The right thing to do is kick out the non-free softwre entirely.  I
tried for years to persuade Debian to do that, and eventually I gave
up on them.  I tried to talk with the Ubuntu developers about this,
too, and did not succeed.  All I can do is not recommend those
distros.

[Theo de Raadt]

>     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.
>
> Someone else attacked me on this list for not discussing this with
> Theo.  I explained the reason in the gentlest way I could think of.
> If you wish we were not discussing the subject, you had best take it
> up with him.

There is nothing to discuss with me.

Richard claimed that there is non-free software in OpenBSD.  That is
not true.

It is no more true than Linux being able to run commercial binaries.

The ports tree is just a scaffold.

Richard, you are wrong.  You said very clearly in your interview that
the ports tree contains non-free software.  It does not.  It is just a
scaffold of Makefiles containing URLs, and an occasional patch here or
there.

You are just plain wrong.  And you are not enough of a man to admit
that you are wrong.

I may be unfriendly at times, but you are a power-misusing
hypocritical liar who attacks projects that try harder than any
others to only make free software available.

Shame on you.

[Theo de Raadt]

> Is there anyone here who actually proposes to prevent users from
> running non-free software?  Not I.  I think that software is
> unethical, and I refuse to install it, or suggest it to anyone.  But I
> have not proposed that systems actually block its installation.

Yet you were in an interview where you argued against using OpenBSD,
because it permits users to run non-free software.

Your argument was that OpenBSD contains non-free parts in it's
ports tree.

This has been proven to be false.

Here, go have a look

      ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/poerts.tar.gz

It's just an entirely free scaffold of Makefiles and little patches.
Nothing more.  It is 100% source, and it is 100% free.

If you are going to go around making pronouncements from your pulpit,
you might want to go educate yourself.

But once again, you failed to educate yourself before you opened your
big fat mouth on a talk show and stated utterly uneducated and false
statements .  You have had ample opportunity to say "I was wrong", yet
you have not done so yet.

You keep argueing, and that is because you are a coward.

[Theo de Raadt]

>     few mentioned changes. Apples to apples comparisons I say. I adjust
>     my repositories in a repository browser and poke away. I find java, I
>     find tools to work with many non-free pieces of software as well.
>
> Could you explain what "I adjust my repositories in a repository
> browser" means, precisely?  I need to know the details in order to see
> whether this is a problem that gNewSense is responsible for.
>
> Non-free software is available on the net, and people can find and
> install it.  I think that is unethical, but gNewSense is not
> responsible for that (and neither is OpenBSD).  On the other hand, if
> there is something in gNewSense recommending or leading you to that
> non-free software, that would be the responsibility of gNewSense.
>
>     So OpenBSD becomes non-free because we don't have a database column
>     that labels stuff non-free, or a special folder for non-free packages?
>
> Putting the non-free software in a separate folder or labeling it is
> not enough.  That is what Debian does, and that's why I don't
> recommend Debian.  Likewise, that's what Ubuntu does nowadays, which
> is why I don't recommend Ubuntu.  Gobuntu does the same thing -- the
> non-free repositories are disabled by default, but a dialog box offers
> the chance to enable them.  So I don't recommend Gobuntu either.
>
> (Gobuntu also has the problem that its name is so close to Ubuntu that
> people would get them confused.  Practically speaking it is not
> feasible to recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu.)
>
> The right thing to do is kick out the non-free softwre entirely.  I
> tried for years to persuade Debian to do that, and eventually I gave
> up on them.  I tried to talk with the Ubuntu developers about this,
> too, and did not succeed.  All I can do is not recommend those
> distros.

Boo hoo, hoo, hoo.

We don't care about your failures, Richard.

Get of our mailing lists, or we WILL start cc'ing your groups'
mailing lists.

[Martin Schröder]

2007/12/12, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:
> running non-GPL-covered software?  Not I.  I frequently run OpenSSH,
> whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if
> my memory serves).

Richard,
please stop spreading lies (or looking like a fool) by not doing research.

The license of OpenSSH is here:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/LICENCE?rev=HEAD
According to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
this is GPL-compatible (modified BSD license or better).

Best
   Martin