On Sunday 16 December 2007 23:24:48 David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > Ray Percival wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > >> Marco Peereboom wrote: > >>> You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular > >>> weapon and you have the choice to retain the source code. > >>> > >>> You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty > >>> bomb provided you deliver the source code with it. > >> > >> Agreed, but would you except either in ports ? > >> The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to > >> endorse. > >> > >> The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including > >> something within > >> ports has meaning. > > > > Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given > > tool just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking > > arrogant. > > > > But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to > > all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use > > it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration > > into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on > > Australia. Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001 > > 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. > > It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not > free to all.
How ? OpenBSD neither used nor redistributes the software that is in the ports. It just gives the URL to it so _you_ can install it if _you_ wish, which leads us to the second point... > 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. OpenBSD has made it clear what their definition of freedom is, and the fact that they stick to it 100% in the software they produce and distribute is enough to see how important it is for them. However, and that's the difference with people like you (and RMS), they just consider that it doesn't give them the right to impose their view of freedom on others, and they let the user do whatever the hell he/she wishes to do, according to his/her personal view and beliefs on the matter. That may or may not include installing non-free software, but that is none of your business, or mine, or RMS'. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments GnuPG public key: http://itsuki.fkraiem.org/gpgkey
