Rod Whitworth wrote:
> You wrote about a port of a program designed to mailbomb Jewish sites.
>
That was an extreme hypothetical chosen to make a point..
Apparently Theo has used an even more extreme on in the past.
> A total wanker dream not a thing that would ever be submitted. Probably
> an impossible dream.
>
The point is that the presence or absence of something in ports has
meaning.
> But you are a self-confessed miracle coder so your bent mind could
> probably do it. Getting it accepted anywhere including at KKK
> headquarters might be problematic.
>
What part of deliberately extreme hypothetical is unclear.
The point is that accepting it - like accepting non-free software
has meaning.
> Now a non-free kernel that is insecure. I'll bet you could mash
> something together. Get it to install from ports, I don't think so.
> Get it accepted into ports? Thin to none
>
Whether it is accepted or not, the decision to do so has meaning.
The very act of deciding has meaning.
What I am arguing AGAINST is:
the claim that non-free software in ports has no meaning.
That enough layers of indirection innoculate OpenBSD from the
meaning of its acts.
That there are technolgical means to work arround issues of
principle or values.
> You see, the apps that are unfree which make it into ports are those in
> big demand because they are useful or fun to run on their home OS and
> some folk want to not run that OS.
>
The NVIDIA binary blob is popular.
Is the criteria for sacrificing your principles, the extent to which
something is popular ?
OpenBSD has taken Rigid, principled honourable stands on a wide
variety of issues.
It has taken an incredibly strong stand on non-free software, and
then whimped out
when it came to ports.
Which matter your principles, or your popularity ?
