Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the cc's of your messages.
If you are going to flame rms, it is best to keep him cc'd. > > From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:48 PM > > To: Openbsd Misc (E-mail) > > Subject: Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men > > > > > > 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? > > > > CASE... not cases, you have come up with one CASE. One example, IF > I chose to believe in your modification of the original statement > that sparked this thread (which I don't) and believe that Mr. Stallman > was speaking of non-free software in packages your side of the argument > gets smaller and smaller. See what happens when you have to prove your > argument? It all boils down to you having an issue with ONE package. > A game at that. Not production software, or a web browser, or an email > package, a game. A single game that, from the tone of your argument > must be destroying all that free software stands for. Guess what... > I read the license text for that game and it sounds exactly like what > your precious GPL would say if it was boiled down to it's most basic > components. You can have the source code... You can modify the source > code... You just can't use the source code for your commercial > application. Sound familiar? That is almost exactly what I was told > by a GPL Zealot that the GPL lic was all about when I was first > introduced to Linux so many years ago. > > So your example of why OpenBSD isn't free is a farce. It wouldn't > bother me if the OpenBSD devs decided to axe that package. If I > wanted to use it I could install it from ports just fine, I usually > do anyway, but the argument that they should do so to fit yours or > Mr Stallman's ideals of what free software is about are wrong on so > many levels. > > It comes down to trying to force others to live by your ideals. It's > just like the christian croud thinking that it's ok to discriminate > against the pagans because it would take such a small thing for them > (us) to convert to christianity. Never mind that many of us pagans > view christianity as a violent death cult, so why would we ever want > to. You say that it would be such a small thing for the OpenBSD > project to do to live up to your ideals when it comes to free software > but quite frankly, I think that many of the OpenBSD crowd think that > your ideals are wrong. Freedom is all about freedom of choice, > If that means people choose non-free software on OpenBSD at least they > are using OpenBSD which is in itself free software. OpenBSD with ALL > the non-free software from ports (yes, really ports) would still be a > much more free system than any Windows system using as much free apps > as a person could find for it. > > > > Stopping this childish-tantrum regarding the FSF would also > > be very much > > more productive. > > > > childish-tantrum? You know, when you resort to attacking the character > of the other persons argument rather than argue the facts of your case > it means you have pretty much lost the debate and have nothing more to > say. > > > > 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. > > > > Looking at > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2 > > > >... seems to me pretty a pretty clear case. > > > > Ok... I get it... You are saying that zangband is such an important piece > of software that it alone is the cause of the downfall of free software. > Because OpenBSD distributes zangband nobody has any reason to install a > free OS or switch from MS Office to free office production software. > > No... wait... I don't get it. zangband is a GAME. It could fall off the > face of the earth and nobody would blink. The few people who play it would > move on to the next game. > > I can't believe that this thread has gone on this long and this one GAME > is what it is all about. Oh wait.... it really isn't, but when we boil > the argument down, it does become the final stand for a free software > zealot who didn't realize that he didn't have a real position in the > first case > > s
