Richard Stallman wrote:
ISTR LAME is free software, but I will double-check.
The source code of LAME is licensed under the LGPL; however, the mp3
format itself is patented and restricted. Further reading:
http://www.mp3-tech.org/patents.html
http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/developers.html
In short, the patents don't affect what you can do with the source code,
they affect what you can do with the program after you compile it. So,
you can modify, compile and distribute the program all you want, but if
you actually execute the program you need a patent license. I suppose
that could be considered Free Software, with a very narrow definition of
Free.
What is the license of Unrar? I will try to access that page, but I
cannot access an https page except by asking someone to get it for me.
I will see if it works with plain http:.
Unfortuately, several of the sites linked from the FSF page require
viewing using their self-signed SSL cert for some reason.
From license.txt in the unrar source archive:
-----
The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives
without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the
RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
-----
That seems to run completely counter to the ideals of the GPL, but I
suppose you're the expert.
On the other hand, if a distro's policies say something is allowed,
then it isn't a mistake, and I can't expect it to be fixed. That's
what gives me stronger concern. The presence of non-free programs
in the OpenBSD ports system is not a mistake, it's intentional.
I'm not sure I see how this is an issue. With gNewSense, I can point to
the Debian/Ubuntu repositories and install unfree software binaries.
With OpenBSD, to run unfree software I need to check out the Ports tree,
find the package I want to run, compile it, and install it. (Note the
distinction between Ports, which contains all the third-party software,
and Packages, which contains only Free software.)
So, it would seem that (barring human error) the primary philosophical
difference between the packaging systems of OpenBSD and gNewSense is
that gNewSense tries to prevent you from seeing any packages they
consider non-Free, while OpenBSD directly provides only Free software
(Packages) but gives the user a choice of installing any software
(Ports). So, from my point of view, OpenBSD provides the user with more
freedom by not imposing artificial restrictions. After all, this
removes "the overhead of considering who owns the system software and
what one is or is not entitled to do with it"[1]. Do you disagree?
[1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html, "Why All Computer Users Will
Benefit"
