On 12/12/07, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/12/2007, ropers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/12/2007, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
