In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote: > > If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute > binary-only firmware, which isn't free. This would be a second reason > why I should not endorse OpenBSD. The systems I endorse try to > exclude such firmware.
Try or Do? So, if we try, and I think the OpenBSD record speaks for itself on that front, we are ethical? When we try to get the docs, and fail, and fall back to a binary blob that happens to be licensed in such a way that we can redistribute it, and that happens to come with documentation on how to interface to it, we are ethical? As long as we try? But if the binary blob is licensed appropriately (able to redistribute/etc), and we don't try to get the source code to the blob, we're not ethical anymore? By following the law, we're not ethical? If I get this right, binary == not free? Even if a license allows you to redistribute and/or do anything you want with it? What exactly does "free" mean to you? I'm so lost. -Toby. -- [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax
