Jacob Meuser wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:56:43PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > >> Bengt Frost wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote: >>> >>> >>> Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must >>> be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through >>> portssystem. >>> >>> >> If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. >> Would that be acceptable within ports ? >> > > "mailbombing" is possible with tools already available. such a port > would likely be ignored for it's lack of technical value. > The point is it is possible to concoct something that is acceptable in every other way but is highly charge politically.
> further, religious zealots generally can't concentrate on facts > long enough to write good code, so it would also likely be rejected > for being poor quality code. > This is not about religious zealotry. Construct the hypothetical whatever way you please, the POINT, is that the existance of something or a link to something within ports has meaning. you can not pretend that technology allows you to escape values, and meanings. > also, for a port to be included into the ports tree, a developer > would need to import it. many submitted ports that have no political > intent go ignored because no port devloper decided it was worth their > time/fit their interests, and I find it likely such a politically > charged port would not make it onto any developers to-do list, since > one of OpenBSD's goals is to remain as politics free as possible. > EXACTLY, the presence of mailbomb programs, baby mulchers, ... all have meaning. And so does the presence of non-free programs. > >> >> Either answer makes it clear that inclusion within ports >> expresses values. >> > > yes, it expresses that OpenBSD values usefulness. > The 4.2 banner on the OpenBSD website does not shout out "OpenBSD is really, really, useful" It says "free, functional, and secure" maybe you can equate functional and useful, they are atleast similar, but it starts with free and ends with secure. Is it supposed to mean free OR functional OR secure ? >> Including non-free software in ports makes a statement. >> Excluding it makes a different one. >> > > it says we accept that people want to and will install non-free > software. So accept non-functional and insecure programs too. > sometimes, the non-free software is the only choice, > sometimes it is the best choice to fill the user's needs. The absence of non-free software in ports does not deprive it of existence. Its presence does not create a choice that did not exist before. Inclusion within ports adds a small amount of convenience that is all. And if "free" really is one of your values, it does so at a small cost to your values.
