* ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [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
