OpenBSD Journal

Thumbs up for OpenBSD from RMS!

Contributed by mk/reverse on from the of-course-we-are-right dept.

Han Boetes (han <> mijncomputer period nl) writes:

In an interview with RMS on LinuxDevCenter I saw the following question:

FB: What is your opinion on the fact that Linux (the kernel!) supports binary drivers without too many problems? I'll make an example: the OpenBSD project didn't support Atheros wireless chips because they require a binary HAL provided with an incompatible license for their goals and policy. They act consistently. Do you think that Linux (the kernel!) should try a similar rigorous approach?

RMS: Yes! And so should the developers of GNU/Linux distributions. This is very important.

A big thumbs up for OpenBSD from RMS! :-)

This is good news. For once we can only hope people will listen to RMS.

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Hugo Villeneuve (24.202.244.230) hugo@EINTR.net on http://EINTR.net

    By reading the article, it seems the interviewer was suffering from a common misconception about BSD shared by some of the new activist.

    BSDs may have over 25 years of history but they don't have that many years of free software history.

    BSD didn't start as free software in '77. The source was available only to AT&T source code licencee.

    BSD didn't become free software until Net1 in '89. There was a valid need for the FSF to exist in '84 as there was no similar project then.

    It took BSD Net2 in '91 for most of it to become free (there was a major rewrite project by the community) and to produce the free offspring 386BSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD (and later OpenBSD).

    Comments

    1. By mr_ugly (80.232.204.35) on

      yeah sure, and gpl ir *REALY FREE*.

    2. By F.B (151.38.56.76) on

      I wasn't "suffering from a common misconception about BSD", simply I wanted Mr.Stallman to talk about those arguments.

  2. By Sean Brown (204.209.209.129) on

    By refusing to include support for drivers that are released binary only, you reduce the usefullness of the system. Not everyone uses a system on religious reasons, I just use what works for me. If RMS had his way, Linux would not support the nVidia binary driver and there is no open alternative that is as good, so all of a sudden, Linux becomes useless to me as a desktop system. If OpenBSD begins to refuse to include support for anything that is not 100% open, its usefullness begins to deminish. At the moment, I would never use OpenBSD on a system that uses a wireless device because I do not want to have to jump through hoops to find one that would work.

    Support the devices, maybe not ship the driver, but support the ability to add the driver and leave the decisions as to if it will be installed to the end users. Unless of course your completely uninterested in creating something that will be used.

    Comments

    1. By j0rd (204.244.192.17) j0rd.spam@gmail on none anymore (DAMN YOU TELUS!)

      Not supporting binary drivers is the only way you will force vendors to provide free and open ones. You need to affect the companies bottom line for them to do what you want. Say nVidia gets dropped from linux and distros start refusing to use their binary drivers. Now say someone like Matrox has free drivers and great opensource drivers, *nix users will start to buy matrox. When nVidia feels they want their *nix market share back, they'll release free and open drivers with the support of the community.

      *nix is at a crossroad now. It's becomming more popular all the time and it's time to decide which hardware vendors are going to back the open source community and which are not. If you like *nix, please buy hardware which supports *nix.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (68.167.146.78) on

        I have to agree. The only way to get companies to do things that you want is to (legally, of course) affect their bottom line. This is why I shop for my hardware very carefully. I do not purchase the newer ATI video boards (9200, 9600, 9800, X800, etc.) for exactly this reason; my Radeon 7000 and 8500 work very well for me, thanks. I will not buy nVidia cards for this reason, either. As for "wired" NICs, I'm careful to stick with Realtek, Linksys, 3Com, and *some* Intel units, because I know that these actually work with my platforms of choice (GNU/Linux and OpenBSD).

        I ran into this same thing back in my Windows NT days (3.5 and 3.51). I had to be careful which hardware I bought because, although Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were supported by everything, Windows NT was not. I voted with my dollars back then, too.

        As for wireless, I don't know about OpenBSD, but Slackware GNU/Linux, which uses the unpatched "official" Linus kernel, supports Orinoco-based cards just fine (e. g. Cisco's 802.11b card). Therefore, they might also work on the BSDs. However, I will not purchase, for example, a "Centrino" system, because Intel will not release the full programming specs without NDAs attached.

        The same applies to RAID cards; I do not purchase those that aren't supported by Free platforms like OpenBSD and GNU/Linux. Pure and simple.

        As the use of Free platforms begins to grow--and it is slowly growing--we as consumers should indeed vote with our wallets. If we want to see Free platforms supported, then this is our duty. Not doing so is tacit approval for the status quo--limited support for our Free platforms. I agree with Stallman on this one.

        Merry Christmas, folks.

    2. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

      Where are these binary drivers for OpenBSD you speak of?

    3. By SH (82.182.103.172) on

      As usual, I'm fairly surprised why trolls even bother to visit an OpenBSD site. The era of informed and possibly intelligent trolls has passed, and what is left are the rejects and the degenerates. /SH

    4. By Anonymous Coward (205.240.34.204) on

      Simply put, if you don't like the philisophical basis of your operating system, then don't use it. Nothing says you can't write in support for you favorite binary driver yourself either.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (24.34.57.27) on

        So you can't use an operating system without being forced into being a religious zealot for it? Do you know how ridiculous that is?

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (69.197.92.181) on

          Learn to read. You don't have to be anything, either use the system, make the system work the way you want it to, or stfu and go away. Nobody is forcing you to do or be anything.

        2. By Anonymous Coward (205.240.34.204) on

          Sorry, but I don't find being supportive of the developer's reasoning to be zealotry. What is ridiculous is the expectation that the developers will compromise thier position to meet the wants of a users unconcerned with the issue. If you don't like the developer's stance because it inconviences you, then that's your problem and not thier's. Sign the NDA and write the driver support yourself, or use another operating system that will compromise.

    5. By Anonymous Coward (83.103.129.176) on

      Theo has asked some companies to release code or firmware so the OpenBSD team could write opensource drivers. As far as I am concerned with I will *never* buy hardware like nVidia and Intel Centrino, which won't work with OpenBSD (and FreeBSD or NetBSD for that matter). I am also not using binary drivers with Linux. Sorry folks, the companies just can't keep up with the Linux kernel. You are restricted to some ancient kernel if you use hardware that requires binary drivers.

    6. By Paul-Andre Panon (24.87.10.77) ppanon@shaw.ca on

      By refusing to include support for drivers that are released binary only, you reduce the usefullness of the system. Not everyone uses a system on religious reasons, I just use what works for me.

      While you are correct that many people want to just use a computer to perform their work, those people are not using OpenBSD. The stated goals behind the development of OpenBSD are to provide as secure a BSD-based O/S as possible. That's why they've done code inspections and security audits of all the code in the core system before tackling things like SMP. Isn't it obvious that running binary-only device drivers - which can't be inspected for coding flaws and effectively run at the highest level of security access - is completely contrary to those goals?

      If you want to just get your work done with the least amount of hassle (aside from dealing with viruses and system crashes), pay the Microsoft tax. If you want the most secure operating system, then do a little bit of work up front and buy a machine with components that will run with OpenBSD. If you want something in between pick a Linux distribution or another flavour of BSD.

      But if you're wanting a very secure O/S, you're going to need behaviour bordering on the religious. Absolutely.

  3. By Anthony (68.145.111.152) on

    Since when is it important what GPL zealots (and he's pretty much the GPL zealot) think about OpenBSD licensing? If we don't care when they think BSDL is a bad idea (which is 99% of the time), why should we care when they agree?

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (68.148.237.181) on

      I'd like to think OpenBSD and BSDs can change the hardware industry to open their hardware etc. It's just a pipe dream without a large market share. Linus doesn't seem to care about this matter. However, OpenBSD and Stallman have this one common goal, so why not agree with him on this?

      Maybe if Stallman should take his own initiative on this matter instead of being asked about it, I'd think he's serious about this. It's been 2 months or so since OpenBSD raised the issue and I haven't heard anything from him on this. I don't know, for I don't pay much attention to him.

      Happy Holidays Everyone!!

    2. By Chas (12.214.171.14) on

      RMS does not "hate" the BSD license. To the contrary, it is listed as compatible in a license discussion at the FSF. The only objection they raise is the advertising clause.

      RMS does not prefer the BSD license for a simple reason... like many of us, he worked on proprietary software environments in his youth, and the vendors of those environments either discontinued them or implemented changes that he found otherwise objectionable. A good, modern parallel might be if you had invested much of your career in Digital OSF1/Digital UNIX/Compaq Tru64, only to see the vendor slit the product's throat. The GPL is designed to end vendor control of RMS' software. This a BSD license cannot do.

      You should care what RMS thinks for a simple reason - if you use the compilers in the base distribution, then you are agreeing to the terms of the GPL. OpenBSD developers have agreed to work with the GPL license by distributing ProPolice, and you are agreeing to GPL and LGPL every time you compile a program.

      I've been burned by several software vendors, and I do admit some measure of delight in seeing them struggle with the GPL (and slash their own systems because of it, a la HP). However, for quality, stability, and security, nothing in the GPL sphere beats OpenBSD.

      Comments

      1. By Anthony (68.145.111.152) on

        "RMS does not prefer the BSD license for a simple reason... like many of us, he worked on proprietary software environments in his youth, and the vendors of those environments either discontinued them or implemented changes that he found otherwise objectionable. A good, modern parallel might be if you had invested much of your career in Digital OSF1/Digital UNIX/Compaq Tru64, only to see the vendor slit the product's throat. The GPL is designed to end vendor control of RMS' software. This a BSD license cannot do."

        Nothing released under the BSD license can be discontinued like commercial software. Companies can keep modifications private, but they cannot withdraw code already released.

        "You should care what RMS thinks for a simple reason - if you use the compilers in the base distribution, then you are agreeing to the terms of the GPL. OpenBSD developers have agreed to work with the GPL license by distributing ProPolice, and you are agreeing to GPL and LGPL every time you compile a program."

        That's just the compiler, not the whole system. I agree to the license, that doesn't mean I have to buy into the propaganda.

        Look, I don't have a problem with the GPL. The GPL allows companies to let their software out without handing it to the competition. They can't do that with a BSD license because it's the next thing down from public domain. What I have a problem with is GPL zealots that think nothing but the GPL is free. The BSD license has a place too.

      2. By RC (4.8.17.8) on

        > you are agreeing to GPL and LGPL every time you compile a program.

        I'll call BS on that. What makes you think so? Just because GCC is GPLd doesn't mean the programs you compile fall under the GPL.

        Using a GPL'd program doesn't not imply accepting the GPL license either, you can use it as if it has no explicit license at all, if you wish.

        Comments

        1. By Chas (147.154.235.53) on

          I'll call BS on that. What makes you think so? Just because GCC is GPLd doesn't mean the programs you compile fall under the GPL.

          Using a GPL'd program doesn't not imply accepting the GPL license either, you can use it as if it has no explicit license at all, if you wish.

          If you don't distribute a program under the GPL, then there are no restrictions on its use? Riiiiiight... dream on. Modifying the source without redistributing is also covered, as is use in countries where the software is patent-encumbered.

          What if there is a gcc bug (or a bug in any other GPL development tool) and you need to apply an OpenBSD-supplied patch? You are then working within the license.

          GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991

          ...You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it... provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

          a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

          ...c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice...

          ...4. You may not... modify... the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to... modify... the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

          5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

          8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (68.148.237.181) on

            Good one! You just demonstrated the need for a law degree to understand the GPL. Since I don't have one, I may be wrong, but here's my interpretation of what you quoted. The "Program" means gcc in this context, not your program or the GPL-free code you write. The GPL-independent code belongs to you and GNU doesn't have any right to claim that, even if you use their compiler. Furthermore, there are no restrictions to running GPL programs.

            0. 2nd paragraph:
            "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."

            If OpenBSD supplied a patch to gcc, it'd be a GPL patch (10 is the exception.) This doesn't mean OpenSSH, CARP, pf, and everything from OpenBSD is under the GPL. If you still don't understand, an example might help. Let's say you wrote your resume in KOffice, and zipped it with GPL's gzip. The GPL doesn't apply to your resume when you use KOffice and GPL's gzip, and you retain full copyright of your resume.

            I am anticipating the day BSDs will have a BSD C compiler.

            Comments

            1. By Anonymous Coward (151.188.16.16) on

              No, he's demonstrated the need to be able to read the English language.

              But even this is irrelevant to the issue raised here. The actual issue is the need for hardware manufacturers to release, without NDA, the full programming specs for their hardware and not require any proprietary (non-Free) software to run it. On that, I wholeheartedly agree with RMS.

  4. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

    GNU/GPL is more free than BSDL; what a crock of shit.

    RMS is a hippy that has not done as much as he takes credit for. I especially like the part where he says that specs & POSIX are "more guidelines". Ever wondered why GNU crap never works? This might be a hint...

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (65.49.54.179) on

      RMS and his crew have done alot more than, oh, pretty much everyone out there. You really should show a little more respect for them, regardless of what you think of their politics or their frontman.

  5. By Anonymous Coward (24.154.28.58) on

    OpenBSD ain't LINUX TOTO! RMS is trying to appear as a wise guy, but don't get fooled, SCO is coming. I took a binary class back in college, whatever a driver is composed of '1' and '0' shouldn't matter to the operating system, whichever operating system it is, BSD, Linux, GNU, OPENBSD etc.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (207.229.38.13) on

      You a funny person! 'Xcuse me whilst I laugh silly. HA-Ha-ha. Good one.

  6. By Nate (24.112.240.105) on

    I have to join in with the masses on this one, I cannot really see anything good about being spoken of in the same breath as Stallman.

    He is, if not insane, delusional. The man believes it is a fundamental right to see the code of anything he is running, I mean, come on. What kind of egotistical jackass really calls anything that doesn't do things his way unfree?

    Of all the people in the world I would least like to be locked in a room with, he comes up on top.

    Comments

    1. By almeida (66.31.180.15) on

      His comparison between the availability of source code and the ingredients listing on food products is bizarre. Nothing prevents me from buying food products, mixing them together, and selling them to other people without giving the recipe too. Why should software be any different?

      Also, his comments about innovation not being that important were weird too. I'd rather use a proprietary product that does the job than an open product that doesn't.

      By ensuring that the code is always free, he's protecting the rights of the community, but not the individual. That's a strange way of looking at it, in my opinion.

      I always sort of brushed it off when people said he was crazy, but maybe they had the right idea.

      Comments

      1. By Nate (24.112.240.105) on

        In truth what he seems to be fighting for is programming communism, which I suppose makes no sense to us crazy capitalists.

        I like to think of my self as a bit of an outthere crackjob, but he can really leave anyone in his dust.

        OpenBSD's ideals are more socialistic, which I suppose is why I feel more for them.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (128.36.236.30) on

          In my opinion OpenBSD's ideals are much more libertarian than socialist.

          Comments

          1. By Nate (24.112.240.105) on

            But that is not a sociopolitical structure, that's a political party.

            Comments

            1. By almeida (66.31.180.15) on

              "Libertarian" is more than just a political party. Just like "Conservative" and "conservative" mean different things politically, "Libertarian" and "libertarian" mean different things. In general, libertarianism is about maximizing individual rights and diminishing the role of the state. The BSD license is libertarian because it gives users the right to do whatever they want with the code. The GPL is more communist because the user has to give whatever they produce from the code to other users.

        2. By Anonymous Coward (212.202.38.11) on

          you really ought to learn what ``communist'' and ``socialist'' mean.

          Comments

          1. By Nate (24.112.240.105) on

            Communism is where everyone is equal and there is no upper class or closed doors within the society. Everyone gets the same amount of the same food, the same education and the gouvernement is in every aspect of life.

            Socialism is where people make sacrifices for the good of the society. When people need help they can get it, but it is not a free ride, everyone must work for what they get and the gouvernement is in most aspects of life.

            In other words, one is where everyone is completely equal and noone can rise above the rest and the other is one where the people can gain a better life for themselves if they wish but a part of what they earn goes towards the rest of the people.

            I picked my words very specifically my friend, I know what I was saying.

            Comments

            1. By Anonymous Coward (212.202.38.11) on

              and now explain where there is socialism in openbsd, or better where is the communism "we" fight for in programming. i'd really like to now, my friend

              Comments

              1. By Nate (24.112.240.105) on

                I am suprised here, firstly that Richard Stallman is a multiperson being and that they refer to themselves as "we", secondly that I am being asked to explain my analogy which I thought simple, interesting indeed.

                To answer your question regarding OpenBSD, I would say that they are more socialistic, but that they are not truly socialist in behaviour. If they were truly socialist they would have the support of the companies that use their code. I don't really recall any of the Linux companies giving big bucks to OpenBSD for OpenSSH. Really OpenBSD is only closer to socialism than the other sociopolitical structures out there is all. Socialism is where people make sacrifices for the greater good of society, much of what is done is for the good of all.

                The communism thing I thought would be really obvious though; to anyone. So I am sitting here shocked as to how best to explain this to someone that did not get my previous post.

                Perhaps it is best to say that the goal of the general public license is to ensure that code put under it stays under it and that noone can really remove it from the license without the consent of all people that have touched said code. This ensures that there is no closure, that everyone has an equal right to the code in question and that there is no way to take the code and make your own private thing with it. This is a communistic goal as the goal of communism is that noone can rise above the rest, that everyone has the same rights and priviledges and that everything ever done is done for everyone else.

                Is that clearer now?

                Comments

                1. By Anonymous Coward (212.202.38.11) on

                  i thought you mean openbsd's ideals were communist. i just reread and have to apologize, i misread that point. though, openbsd's goals are far from being socialist even. ie, the stated drive behind the development is the developers own entertainment (which is very fine) and not to make "sacrifices for the greater good of society".

      2. By Anonymous Coward (217.215.10.111) on

        "Nothing prevents me from buying food products, mixing them together, and selling them to other people without giving the recipe too."

        recipe no, but you still have to list those ingredients and nutritional facts. (unless, maybe, if you're selling mom's apple pie at the school bazaar.) the analogy, however far fetched, holds for me.

        Comments

        1. By chad (192.77.198.11) on

          Stallman's analog doens't hold. Anyone here think that the ingredients list is enough to replicate what you see on store shelves? I hate the break the news to you, its not nearly enough information. The ingredients list is closer to a tech manual and even that's stretching it.

          Comments

          1. By jma (213.36.174.187) openbsd@libkvm.org on

            well, i believe that as openbsd community we serve more
            the opensource community by telling hardware companies we want
            to buy their products, but we want them open, not as plain
            black boxes.

            what i can foresee as a society problem _: access to knowledge.
            as more and more people in the hardware will make closed boxes,
            as more and more people in medical research use intellectual
            property to slow down because of money, we tend to leave more
            and more a state of democracy.

      3. By Anonymous Coward (207.229.38.13) on 

        Nothing prevents me from buying food products, mixing them together, and selling them to other people without giving the recipe too.
        Perhaps, but you won't be selling food for long if it doesn't reach certain standards set forth by your friendly neighbourhood government.

  7. By Evil Ryu (62.175.42.214) on

    You all know we all hate RMS, let's kill him right now!

  8. By MosDave (66.93.0.101) on

    RMS is lost in his own mind. Sure OpenBSD can get away with not supporting this or that, because its mainly a nich server OS, with very very little on the desktop side. It's just two differnt worlds, what Linux is trying to do, is be that Desktop OS, you cant do that if you cant have drivers for things that people expect a desktop OS to have, like that shiney new video card you just bought. Personly Im shocked that anyone takes RMS seriously anymore. If he had his way, Linux would still be in the darkages. I know everyone takes up arms when it comes to the OS relgions, but come on let it go once in awhile. Bianry only drivers might not be the best, but it's all we got. Linux is luckey that compaines like Nvida make drivers for it at all, in a MS Windows domanited world they really didnt even have to give a second look to Linux. But because they did Linux is most likely making in roads in places that it once didnt even stand a chance. So while RMS and the OpenBSD crew dont think binary drivers are a good thing, other people sure do. ps FUCK RMS :-P

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (68.148.237.181) on

      If you're willing to compromise freedom, what else are you willing to compromise?

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (24.34.57.27) on

        If you're willing to put religious fanaticism above common sense and good judgement, what aren't you capable of doing?

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (68.148.237.181) on

          "religious fanaticism"? Can you explain to me why you choose Freesoftware? You probably think it's cost-free and never bothered to think about the freedom, if you're using it.

          Common sense is learned and good judgment is subjective. Compromising freedom to allow your GNU/Linux market to grow is a temporary gain. If the hardware vendors won't open their specs now, then why would they open later when everyone shells out the money regardless?

          My common sense tells me sacrificing long term gains for short term gains isn't worth it. My good judgment says I shouldn't give money to companies who don't care about opening their specs to OpenBSD/BSDsoftware.

          I guess you could say I am incapable of advocating GNU/Linux's freedom, while they (devs and users alike) are compromising their own freedom.

  9. By 808blogger (66.91.22.5) on

    The openbsd project is maintaining license integrity. this will continue to maintain its current legal standard. A distro with a clean product. I think integrity is key to the openbsd project.

  10. By Kyle Amon (24.129.190.30) amonk@gnutec.com on http://www.gnutec.com/~amonk/

    Idiots abound. RMS will be respected countless generations beyond the deaths of those spewing such purile invective about him. And Theo is doing what's best for humanity here... whether you're too dense to understand it or not.

  11. By Anonymous Coward (24.129.190.30) on

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]