Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > >> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly >> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the >> OpenBSD web site. >> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than >> the watered down language on the website. >> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of >> security. >> > > Ports are 3rd party apps. Of course we don't make a value judgement on > the OpenBSD website for it. WTF? > So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that is acceptable. You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently, You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me.
> >> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not >> free to all. >> I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the >> FSF/GNU/RMS. >> Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the >> things you provide URL's for in ports, >> then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important >> to you. >> If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports. >> Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely >> redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is. >> > > One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want. > That is not part of a civil conversation. First we have to agree on the > meaning then we can have a debate. As a politician he changes the > meaning of words around to fit his purposes. I'll call BS on that every > time I'll see it. > I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently to your system, until it produces a contradiction. If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent no contradiction would occur. One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a system that is self contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can prove anything. that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that I have used it as a tool. If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will not work. > >> One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you >> mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please, >> including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think >> you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would >> deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS. >> > > You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list > looks like. What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists > and start pissing in my sandbox. I don't care what his opinion is; he > can say whatever he wants. What he can't do is lying about my OS in > front of me and expect me not to react. He is full of it and we have > told him so. If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding. > That is not the perception I have of OpenBSD. Whenever, there is some spat with Linux Kernel developers, OpenBSD rushes to demand that RMS straighten it out for them. Providing him with a predefined eexplanation of exactly how his own values requires him to do so, along with, the presumption that he will not and maligning him because he did not - all before even hitting send. In the end you are what you hate. But you are not the real RMS, you are the one your have created.
