On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:21:44PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 2) If supporting non-free software is bad,
>
> What I object to is referring people to non-free software as something
> to install. "Supporting" is a broader term, and includes various
> different practices. I don't
On Dec 17, 2007 3:11 AM, Sam Fourman Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful
> > missle targeting them.
>
> Richard *did* send an email to misc@openbsd.org, notice that this
> whole thing is in reply to Richard's original post to misc@
As your views on open-source have become more and more extreme over
time, you have become less and less relevant to a overall practical
open-source community
I've never agreed with open source at all; my community is the free
software community. In 1998 part of the community started
On 12/16/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
> >> Would that be acceptable within ports ?
> >>
> >
> > and who exactly wo
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:22:16PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I feel personally attacked by your uneducated comments. I feel
> personally insulted by your by your condescending tone.
>
> I am sorry that you feel attacked and insulted, but I have not done
> so.
>
Please go away, yo
> Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others
> Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified
versions
> to others.
Fixed that for you.
The GNU GPL does not require you to distribute copies to anyone,
neither exact copies nor modif
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:22:11PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others
> > Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified
> versions
> > to others.
>
> Fixed that for you.
>
> The GNU GPL d
2) If supporting non-free software is bad,
What I object to is referring people to non-free software as something
to install. "Supporting" is a broader term, and includes various
different practices. I don't object to all of them.
I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for
I feel personally attacked by your uneducated comments. I feel
personally insulted by your by your condescending tone.
I am sorry that you feel attacked and insulted, but I have not done
so.
> > I don't hate RMS or GNU or GPL etc. I find them silly at best but that
> > is besides the point. Point is that someone comes and pisses in my
> > sandbox. I piss and poop back. Especially if that someone shows up
> > playing moral high ground while being a complete and total hypocrite.
> >
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 01:42:53PM +0200, Lars Nood??n wrote:
> chefren wrote:
> > If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it
> > away or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms.
>
> Despite the rhetoric from Redmond-followers, making money from sof
On 2007/12/17 13:42, Lars Noodin wrote:
>
> When the BSDTalk interview was posted, it was brought up that the ports,
> which are not part of the base system, include non-free (by everyone's
> measure) packages.
*everyone*? Not me personally, but people in some countries
find Opera to be more fre
David wins that round.
>>> David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
>>> Would that be acceptable within ports ?
>>>
>> Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
>> and who exactly would you bribe to get this "mailbomb" committed to
>> the ports tree
chefren wrote:
> If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it
> away or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms.
Despite the rhetoric from Redmond-followers, making money from software
is something that both the GPL and BSD licenses allow. There have
On Dec 16, 2007, at 9:29 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Bengt Frost wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb
Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
be u
On 12/17/07 8:25 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
OpenBSD took insult where there was none
This discussion is about basic principles and Richard Stallman denies facts
contrary to what he states.
+++chefren
On 12/17/07 4:42 AM, Ray Percival wrote:
Who wants to deny Stallman the freedom to do anything he wants? He has
the freedom to say and do anything he would like. And I have the freedom
to mock him for it. Everybody gets what they want.
If he is selfish, for example because he want to lessen f
On 12/16/07 9:20 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view
of freedom. Not *real* freedom.
The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential
freedoms:
Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
Freedom 1: t
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:32:37 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>Rod Whitworth wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:29:43 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The NVIDIA binary blob is popular.
>>>
>> There you go again.
>>
>> You don't know the difference between a blob and an applicatio
Rod Whitworth wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:29:43 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> The NVIDIA binary blob is popular.
>>
> There you go again.
>
> You don't know the difference between a blob and an application.
The difference has no meaning in the context of values and princi
> The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful
> missle targeting them.
Richard *did* send an email to misc@openbsd.org, notice that this
whole thing is in reply to Richard's original post to misc@
if Richard could go "Back to the Future" I believe he would send the
post to
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:15:25 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful
>missle targeting them.
>Maybe that is because OpenBSD is the closet to meeting Richard's
>standards,
>Maybe it is because, my reading of most of this thread is
Marco Peereboom wrote:
>>
>> I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking
>> your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently
>> to your system, until it produces a contradiction.
>> If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent
>> no contrad
To copy someone else's treatment of one of my mails... :)
On Dec 17, 2007 1:15 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No one has told you what must or must not do.
> This whole thread started as a knee jerk reaction to Richard's
> to a very short remark by Richard on BSDTa
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. Probabl
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Bengt Frost wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb
>>>
>>> Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
>>> be up to me to choose what i
Firas Kraiem wrote:
>
> However, and that's the difference with people like you (and RMS), they
> just consider that it doesn't give them the right to impose their view
> of freedom on others, and they let the user do whatever the hell he/she
> wishes to do, according to his/her personal view an
Richard,
I have followed this thread for the first couple hundred mails. But,
as the noise is getting to much for me, someone that is just a lurker,
so I feel I must make a couple comments and a request.
As your views on open-source have become more and more extreme over
time, you have becom
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 09:20:19PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> >
> >> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
> >> what I was looking for - something that is c
On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bengt Frost wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb
>
> > 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
> > p
On 12/17/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yet you are seeking to deny the same freedom to Richard and everyone
> else that disagrees.
No-one is trying to deny RMS the freedom to say and think whatever the
hell he wants, no matter how wacky.
---
Lars Hansson
David:
Do you even use OpenBSD ? I've been using it for many many years. What
stake do you have in this discussion ?
--- Marina Brown
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
That's fine, it
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 09:20:19PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that
> is acceptable.
Sure, why not? If you could get the linux kernel (e.g. with the nVidia
blob) to compile on OpenBSD and run an OpenBSD userland, why not
On Dec 16, 2007, at 5:52 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Ray Percival wrote:
You believe in absolute freedom - freedom to do whatever you damn well
please.
I really fail to see the problem with that but whatever.
Yet you are seeking to deny the same freedom to Richard and everyone
else that disa
On Monday 17 December 2007 03:44:39 Rod Whitworth wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:20:19 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> >So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports
> > that is acceptable.
> >You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently,
> >You are obv
On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:27 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
William Boshuck wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Ray Percival wrote:
[quoting and excerpt from Theo's log message in (e.g.):
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules]
Ray Percival wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
>>> (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
>>> including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby
>>> mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped
On Sunday 16 December 2007 23:24:48 David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Ray Percival wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> >> Marco Peereboom wrote:
> >>> You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular
> >>> weapon and you have the choice to retain the source cod
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:20:19 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that
>is acceptable.
>You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently,
>You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me.
What th
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:27:21 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>Regardless, apply it to ports and remove non-free URL's.
Yeah, right.
Right when you get commit privs.
Don't ^W hold your breath.
Rod/
/earth: write failed, file system is full
cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:20 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is
exactly
what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent
from th
William Boshuck wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>
>> Ray Percival wrote:
>>
> [quoting and excerpt from Theo's log message in (e.g.):
>http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules]
> ...
>
>>> But software which Ope
Marco Peereboom wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>
>> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
>> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
>> OpenBSD web site.
>> If it is what OpenBSD bel
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Ray Percival wrote:
[quoting and excerpt from Theo's log message in (e.g.):
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules]
...
> > But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
>
I feel personally attacked by your uneducated comments. I feel
personally insulted by your by your condescending tone. My intelligence
has been insulted repeatedly by your linguistic tricks. I am outraged
on how you alter meaning of words to fit your agenda. You are not my
mom and you don't get
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
> OpenBSD web site.
> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so,
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:58:10PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and
> > you have the choice to retain the source code.
> >
> > You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
> > p
On 12/16/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
> free to all.
not at all. openbsd is free. other software, that is not free, does
not make openbsd less free.
On Dec 16, 2007, at 2:24 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Ray Percival wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular
weapon and
you have the choice to retain the source code.
You can use the
Ray Percival wrote:
>
> On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>
>> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>>> You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and
>>> you have the choice to retain the source code.
>>>
>>> You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a d
Richard Stallman wrote:
The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these two essential
freedoms and two essential requirements:
Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it
so it does what you wish.
Requirement 2: th
On Dec 16, 2007 8:35 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I'm sure it's convenient for most of the world to think that
> free software and open source originated solely in the Linux and GNU
> projects...
>
> They won't get that idea from me. I tell people regularl
On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon
and
you have the choice to retain the source code.
You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
provided you deliver the sou
The chinese have this phrase "the flames cover the eyes".
I think uninterested 3rd parties who're shown a copy of what was
originally said, and a copy of this thread would probably not conclude
that rms is trying to disparage OpenBSD. Seriously.
Remember, his "I cannot recommend $X" includes mos
Darrin Chandler wrote:
>
> I judge people less by how much they agree with my own views than by how
> they adhere to their own. If I don't agree with someone but they stand
> by their principles then at least I know where they stand and that they
> have honor.
>
There is plenty of information o
Marco Peereboom wrote:
> You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and
> you have the choice to retain the source code.
>
> You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
> provided you deliver the source code with it.
>
Agreed, but would you except e
No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view
of freedom. Not *real* freedom.
The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential
freedoms:
Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change i
Although I'm sure it's convenient for most of the world to think that
free software and open source originated solely in the Linux and GNU
projects...
They won't get that idea from me. I tell people regularly in my
speeches that I found a free software operating system in use at MIT
w
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there looking
sheepish, all covered with poop.
I have carefully avoided personal attacks in this discussion. I have
not attacked OpenB
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 08:01:53AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:11:16AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> > ...
> > All of that is called free speech. The right of OpenBSD to be
> > "mean", The right to spray views you do not like or people you think are
> > idiot
Can you share some of them drugs you are on?
This is some good shit.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:13:24AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >>
> >>> Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
> >>> rail against Richard
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Each of us should judge Richard according to his own standards,
> words and acts.
Seems like that is precisely what most everybody posting to this
thread had been doing.
Emphasis on the word judge.
Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>
>>> Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
>>> rail against Richard being a prick.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
>> sooner or later it ends, and then
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 p
You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and
you have the choice to retain the source code.
You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
provided you deliver the source code with it.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:56:43PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:11:16AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> L wrote:
> >
> > For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that
> > doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't
> > fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my ins
On 12/15/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
> Would that be acceptable within ports ?
Well now, this brings up an interesting point of jurisprudence. To
wit: does Godwin's Law apply here? One might argue that it only
kic
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 m
L wrote:
>
> For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that
> doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't
> fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my instinct
> that openbsd is not about some idealistic freedom of speech.
Ope
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:08:16 -0700, "L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> >>> Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each
> >>> other,
> >>> sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
> >>> there looking
> >>> sheepish, all cove
On Dec 15, 2007 3:08 PM, L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> >>> Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each
> >>> other,
> >>> sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
> >>> there looking
> >>> sheepish, all covered with poop.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:32:19AM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> > I do, too. I like them both. I want them to stop fighting in public. I don't
> > care which one started it. I suppose it was Richard. It doesn't matter. Our
> > repu
Jack J. Woehr wrote:
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each
other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there looking
sheepish, all covered with poop.
How is this my fault?
It's not your fault. You're still standing there
* Jack J. Woehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-15 09:57:01]:
> Now now. Order.
>
> Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone
> here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He
> inspired a whole generation of free software writers. Look at the Gnu
>
On Dec 15, 2007 10:36 AM, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone
> > here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He
> > inspired a whole generation of free software writers.
>
> I was not inspired b
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:32:19AM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> I do, too. I like them both. I want them to stop fighting in public. I don't
> care which one started it. I suppose it was Richard. It doesn't matter. Our
> reputations as human beings will long outlive our reputations as coders.
Fig
Jack J. Woehr wrote:
Theo de Raadt wrote:
How is this my fault?
Theo has made it clear to me in private email that what he was asking here,
is "Why, Jack, are you telling me to shut up and not Richard?" Excuse me
for the inclarity.
Richard, knock off baiting the OpenBSD community, you nud
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:49:12AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
> > > rail against Richard being a prick.
> > >
> > Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
> > s
IC1igo Tejedor Arrondo wrote:
El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 09:57 -0700, Jack J. Woehr escribiC3:
I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f. Richard
has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty
absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive
an
El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 09:57 -0700, Jack J. Woehr escribiC3:
> I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f. Richard
> has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty
> absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive
> and Theo is aggressive-aggress
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there looking
sheepish, all covered with poop.
How is this my fault?
It's not your fault. You're still standing there
Theo de Raadt wrote:
I was not inspired by him, but by Chris Torek, Keith Bostic, and Mike
Karels,
Heroes of my g-g-generation, bless them all and the code and documentation
they wrote.
who chose to not play politics.
Here in Colorado, I've paraded Richard to lobby before elected
official
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
> > rail against Richard being a prick.
> >
> Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
> sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
> the
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
rail against Richard being a prick.
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there looking
sheep
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > EVERYTHING code related that people thinks comes from the FSF today,
> > comes to us without Richard Stallman actually working on it. Richard
> > is just another random long haired hypocritical mouthpiece, who will
> > be known after his death as the original author of t
85 matches
Mail list logo
