On Dec 16, 2007 8:35 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Although I'm sure it's convenient for most of the world to think that > free software and open source originated solely in the Linux and GNU > projects... > > They won't get that idea from me. I tell people regularly in my > speeches that I found a free software operating system in use at MIT > when I started working there in 1971. It is stated in print too. > > How about making an effort to find out the facts of what I do and say > before you criticize? > > I agree, let's stick to the facts and relevant details.
I feel there are two issues here: 1) Does OpenBSD INCLUDE non-free software in it's distribution? 2) If supporting non-free software is bad, why do gcc and emacs (for example) include code to support non-free software? I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for the second time and this is what I think: Richard explains in the interview that all BSD distributions (not OpenBSD specifically) INCLUDE non-free software in their ports system. Using the "normal" definition of include, this statement is incorrect. Richard explains here what he means by "include" and although his statement is technically correct using his definition, someone listening to the interview will interpret it in the wrong way because he assumes all words are used with their "normal" meaning. This leads to a misunderstanding about all the BSD's. Once you get over the fact that some words Richard uses are not what they seem, you get to a second issue. This second issue is why Richard is called a hypocrite by Theo. If the BSD's are so bad when they include references to non-free software in their non-recommended ports system, why does code written by Richard himself include code to actively support non-free software? Let's stick to the facts, or even better: Shut up and code! Floor Terra
