On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:05:37PM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote: > > Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty > > obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on. > > > > The world will fall because OpenBSD "recommends" that people > > install a game... a game that is free to copy and use for non- > > commercial use (I looked it up), and you had to go through almost > > the ENTIRE package collection all the way to the Zs before you > > could find such a pitiful example. > > Because they are such pitiful cases, they could be easily removed and > remove Stallman's objections to list OpenBSD at the recommended Free > Software operating systems, right? More promotion of OpenBSD would be > good, right?
Richard Stallman referred to certain URLs in certain Makefiles in the ports tree---not the collection of packages, after (in the interview which indirectly prompted this thread) confusing OpenBSD's ports tree with its installation system. He did not refer to the packages collection in the statement in question. > > This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly > > stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software > > in it's ports tree. > > He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free > Software. He said that it "include[s] in [its] installation system ... non-free software".
