OpenBSD Journal
Contributed by dwc on from the hypocritical-liar dept.
Jeremy has added Liar and Hypocrite to his Quote list on KernelTrap, in which Theo de Raadt says to Richard Stallman, “Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar. And since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I am going to call you a hypocrite.”
Meanwhile, FSF continues to approve of two operating systems that do not meet Richard's rules: ReactOS and GNU Darwin.
(Comments are closed)
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.]
By Anonymous Coward (71.173.89.99) on
Comments
By Mark Peloquin (incripshin) on
That's good. That interview was infuriating to listen to. It made me do a complete 180 in my attitude towards him.
By Wim Vandeputte (88.82.33.37) wim@kd85.com on https://https.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/order.eu
Misstatement? Did I miss something in the interview where he clearly frowns upon the BSD for allowing the facilitation of installation of commercial software? Wasn't his idea 'be 100% commercial free or you are bad'?
Does he feel misquoted or does he admit he made a mistake that day?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (169.244.143.114) on
> Does he feel misquoted or does he admit he made a mistake that day?
He used the word "includes" when talking about software in the ports system, but he realizes that is incorrect. He called it a "misleading choice of words". But at the same time, he still doesn't like that the ports system facilitates the installation of software that he doesn't approve of.
Comments
By Winston Smith (69.61.192.94) on
> > Does he feel misquoted or does he admit he made a mistake that day?
>
> He used the word "includes" when talking about software in the ports system, but he realizes that is incorrect. He called it a "misleading choice of words". But at the same time, he still doesn't like that the ports system facilitates the installation of software that he doesn't approve of.
>
>
Well, if that's the criteria for inclusion on the FSF Free Software list, then how exactly can the inclusion of Darwin and React OS on that list be justified? Seems highly inconsistent to me.
Comments
By Donald O'Bloggin (69.212.56.209) on http://www.donaldwilson.info
>
Isn't that what Theo said?
Comments
By Winston Smith (24.210.198.144) on
> >
>
> Isn't that what Theo said?
Yes, and I probably should have prefaced my comment with something to that effect. IMO, it is one of the better points being made and it seemed worth repeating based upon the previous post.
By Anonymous Coward (71.35.111.235) on
Yep. The GPL specifically permits commercial usage of software covered under it.y
By Roland Berroya (rgb) on
-Nobody's shutting down CVS servers retroactively because someone else decided not to distribute source with their product.
-"!@#$ But wait n00b , companies out there are closin-," Stop right there. Calm down. Don't panic. The code is still here and it's still free, alright? Raise the issue is _with who's closing it_ then. Please be sure to apply that same enthusiasm to those companies when you're asking them for source.
-I'll say it again: the code's still here, free. Try not to talk about ethics or morals if the only thing keeping code "free" is one incredibly long document. If you want to talk about ideals, then isn't the sort of trust that goes with with the concept of free should be implicit?
-??
-Quiet down already, sheesh.
Comments
By garethc (196.31.33.104) garethc@bsdhosting.co.za on
> -Nobody's shutting down CVS servers retroactively because someone else decided not to distribute source with their product.
> -"!@#$ But wait n00b , companies out there are closin-," Stop right there. Calm down. Don't panic. The code is still here and it's still free, alright? Raise the issue is _with who's closing it_ then. Please be sure to apply that same enthusiasm to those companies when you're asking them for source.
> -I'll say it again: the code's still here, free. Try not to talk about ethics or morals if the only thing keeping code "free" is one incredibly long document. If you want to talk about ideals, then isn't the sort of trust that goes with with the concept of free should be implicit?
> -??
> -Quiet down already, sheesh.
huh?
By Terrell Prude' Jr. (151.188.247.104) tprude@cmosnetworks.com (this is a spamtrap address) on http://www.cmosnetworks.com/
Back when Richard was working on the first of the GNU tools, he wrote replacements for UNIX applications, and yep, he did the development on proprietary UNIX. He thought about that, and his justification (which I agree with) was that if you're using a proprietary system to develop a free replacement for that same proprietary system, then yep, that's ethical. Of course, when the free replacement is ready to use, then you should switch to it on the double. And he did.
I did the end-user (non-developer) equivalent of that with MS Windows. At first, I used the Mozilla browser, then OpenOffice.org, then Thunderbird...all on MS Windows. Then, when I went to seriously use GNU/Linux (and later OpenBSD as well) as a desktop OS, all those apps were there, too. The conversion to a Free Software OS was pretty seamless. So, I'm *glad* that there were Windows binaries of Free Software apps. I am mere days away from doing the same conversion for my Dad (he's on OO.o, Firefox, and Thunderbird, on Windows just as I once was).
But what about OpenBSD pointing to non-free apps?
I see no reason whatsoever to stop using OpenBSD simply because the ports system can point toward certain non-free programs. I simply don't use those non-free programs, that's all. :-) That's *my* responsibility. Likewise, I don't have a problem with the way Debian does it. I simply don't include the non-free repositories in my /etc/apt/sources.list file. Simple. Cocaine, heroin, and airplane glue are available everywhere, too, but I simply say "hell, no!" Again, my responsibility.
--TP
By dingo (88.80.6.223) on http://1984.ws
On misc@, a lot of posters have been clouding the topic with hypothetical blah, and metaphorical blah blah, and what if blah blah blahs, and rms chooses to reply only to these statements -- as if we care!
The only time I've seen rms reply directly to the important topics, are to say "I mis-recalled" when he said something inaccurate or untrue, or to say "Yes, thats what I said, but I intended to mean..." to change history.
F*ck rms. gnu never looked so bad.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (71.35.111.235) on
No, it is the continuous stream of insults slung in his direction that makes OpenBSD look bad. I personally think that RMS avoids directly answering, say, Theo's questions and criticisms because Theo apparently thinks it necessary to insult RMS in *every* post on the subject.
I think that, more in general, if one partner in a conversation resorts to insults then an actual debate is no longer possible. I can attribute this long lasting thread only to RMS's incredible patience. As one of my teachers used to say: a personal attack is an indication that the moving party has run out of arguments.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (218.214.194.113) on
>
> No, it is the continuous stream of insults slung in his direction that makes OpenBSD look bad. I personally think that RMS avoids directly answering, say, Theo's questions and criticisms because Theo apparently thinks it necessary to insult RMS in *every* post on the subject.
>
> I think that, more in general, if one partner in a conversation resorts to insults then an actual debate is no longer possible. I can attribute this long lasting thread only to RMS's incredible patience. As one of my teachers used to say: a personal attack is an indication that the moving party has run out of arguments.
So, when you catch a shape-shifter lying, it is a personal attack to call him a liar is it?
RMS has "incredible patience" only in using his deliberately high-latency email system and unbelievably arcane web page viewing method to give himself time to do a new piece of disembling or construct a Uri Geller-like new version of his previous story.
What is constant on his side is his repeated mis-remembering and claims of poor choices of words.
For somebody who admits to leeching on the goodwill of folk who feed him and accommodate him, and pay him to hear his speeches, he seems to be very careless with his words.
Or perhaps his words are only "corrected' when he is caught out? The acolytes would never dare to correct him, even for his own good. That would be evidence of their disloyalty, no doubt.
Unquestioning blindness to the imperfections of your prophet will punish your naivety.
Comments
By Terrell Prude' Jr. (151.188.247.104) tprude@cmosnetworks.com (this is a spamtrap address) on http://www.cmosnetworks.com/
>
> So, when you catch a shape-shifter lying, it is a personal attack to call him a liar is it?
>
I think that's an example of the "name calling" right there. Have you indeed run out of arguments?
> RMS has "incredible patience" only in using his deliberately high-latency email system and unbelievably arcane web page viewing method to give himself time to do a new piece of disembling or construct a Uri Geller-like new version of his previous story.
>
> What is constant on his side is his repeated mis-remembering and claims of poor choices of words.
>
His choice of email-reading-method notwithstanding (and irrelevant), at least he'll admit it when makes poor choices of words. By contrast, Theo won't even do that after one of his famously vitriolic attacks on someone. Debating is one thing, but Theo actually gets vicious.
> For somebody who admits to leeching on the goodwill of folk who feed him and accommodate him, and pay him to hear his speeches, he seems to be very careless with his words.
>
That's an ad-hominem attack.
> Or perhaps his words are only "corrected' when he is caught out? The acolytes would never dare to correct him, even for his own good. That would be evidence of their disloyalty, no doubt.
>
> Unquestioning blindness to the imperfections of your prophet will punish your naivety.
>
More name-calling, and at more than just RMS now. Whether you're pro-RMS or anti-RMS or somewhere in between, that's not called for.
--TP
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (216.224.124.124) on
Well, Theo is always right ;-)
By squiggleslash (66.32.29.5) squiggleslash@yahoo.com on
RMS doesn't want people encouraged to use proprietary software (note to headline writer: commercial does not have the same definition as proprietary, and confusing the two both misrepresents what both RMS and Theo are saying, and it helps promote the myth that free software is incompatible with making money.) He wants to encourage people who use proprietary software to switch over to free software. Hence, Free Software is available for non-free operating systems, and RMS promotes its use.
This is different from offering people non-free software, which is what he's criticizing the BSD ports system for. The FSF does not sell Windows, or offer people who want to run free software tools to help them install Windows, and wouldn't even if Microsoft decided to ship it gratis. From RMS's point of view, that would be encouraging people to use Windows, rather than encouraging Windows users to use Free Software.
Theo sees things differently to RMS, and sees offering people the ability to run free software on a proprietary operating system as encouraging people to run that operating system.
Unfortunately, the argument has devolved into name calling. This is a shame because there are some good strategic points being made by both sides that are obscured by yet another pointless poisonous argument.
By Anonymous Coward (24.78.180.182) on
By Shane Castle (72.166.150.37) on
Enough already.