David:
Do you even use OpenBSD ? I've been using it for many many years. What
stake do you have in this discussion ?
--- Marina Brown
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
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.
