OpenBSD Journal

OpenBSD 4.3 release song

Contributed by johan on from the wine-song-and-openbsd dept.

The lyrics and song for the upcoming 4.3 release of OpenBSD have been committed.

This time the theme has to do with the controversy that spawned from Richard Stallmans inaccurate comments about OpenBSD in an interview over at Bsdtalk and in a discussion on misc@ following that. From the commentary on lyrics.html...

We release our software in ways that are maximally free. We remove all restrictions on use and distribution, but leave a requirement to be known as the authors. We follow a pattern of free source code distribution that started in the mid-1980's in Berkeley, from before Richard Stallman had any powerful influence which he could use so falsely.

We have a development sub-tree called "ports". Our "ports" tree builds software that is 'found on the net' into packages that OpenBSD users can use more easily. A scaffold of Makefiles and scripts automatically fetch these pieces of software, apply patches as required by OpenBSD, and then build them into nice neat little tarballs. This is provided as a convenience for users. The ports tree is maintained by OpenBSD entirely separately from our main source tree. Some of the software which is fetched and compiled is not as free as we would like, but what can we do. All the other operating system projects make exactly the same decision, and provide these same conveniences to their users.

Richard felt that this "ports tree" of ours made OpenBSD non-free. He came to our mailing lists and lectured to us specifically, yet he said nothing to the many other vendors who do the same; many of them donate to the FSF and perhaps that has something to do with it. Meanwhile, Richard has personally made sure that all the official GNU software -- including Emacs -- compiles and runs on Windows.

That man is a false leader. He is a hypocrite. There may be some people who listen to him. But we don't listen to people who do not follow their own stupid rules.

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Venture37 (venture37) venture37<A>hotmail.com on www.geeklan.co.uk

    LOL!
    that was one long thread on misc@

  2. By Jaz (67.161.99.74) on

    Puffy the Blowfish meets Stallman the Blowhard.

    Thanks to the OpenBSD team for their continued hard (and excellent) work and principled commitment to their goals.

  3. By Norbert P. Copones (norbert) norbert@tricom.com.ph on

    links for the song should be...

    ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/songs/song43.ogg
    ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/songs/song43.mp3

  4. By Bayu Krisnawan (krisna) krisna@infobsd.org on http://www.infobsd.org

    Foo Bar...
    Ha ha ha ha nice comentary.

  5. By Anonymous Coward (216.68.194.96) on

    While somewhat nutty this sounds, RMS positions/actions might make more sense if you assume that RMS is like a puppet being influenced somehow or has lost its strings. Perhaps he is just strung out.

    Life is a shell game with legal risk, GRR. OpenBSD plays one game, FreeBSD another, and Linux something else. This only works if the shells work together.

    I like that FreeBSD/Debian has a Acrobat reader for pdf. Pdf support is currently a PITA, but IT needs are present. Non-free support is critical to PAYING clients, seems simple to me. I support OpenBSD being very cautious with legal risks, especially when FSF/RMS could be playing like a M$ legal game for competitive reasons. 100% actions and deeds, GRR write me a strawtrojan.

    BSD allows for better business options for good business. Ports making non-free integration is GREAT for everyone. As to GPL and Debian: DRM enforcing free only software, is making freedom into slavery. Good RMS, real good, some lawyers sure want this game and white_glove inquistion.

    The FSF reminds me of those Jehovah Witnesses that come to your door on a sunday and leave those crappy flyers with pictures of a false reality with a happy lion acting like a guard for a young family harvesting from an apple tree: scary willfull ignorance and denial! Copyright assignment to the FSF might be like having all your assets in a cult collective, wind changes, you got nothing, they know that, why you think they are so driven for whatever? Good projects attract good talent and others support the project, a good observation about quality in IT. Depending upon the law, GPL only free, to keep the community is a bit cult like, weak and misguided, and preyed upon by some insiders. That is a FACT of cults. Life and code changes, it is good to be able to change and *profit,* without lawyers having to sign off on everything. GPL tainting could be a nice legal trap someday. RMS might be missing the real game. That is my take on why OpenBSD has raised these matters. Thankfully!

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on

      The FSF reminds me of those Jehovah Witnesses that come to your door on a sunday and leave those crappy flyers with pictures of a false reality with a happy lion acting like a guard for a young family harvesting from an apple tree: scary willfull ignorance and denial!

      Perhaps in the future, after you learn to write properly in English, you can keep your religious, judgmental, ignorant and uneducated comments to yourself. At least keep them off of undeadly.org as this is not a religious site and religious insults simply do no belong here. You have no reason to insult others here who believe in their religious beliefs.

      The same applies to me, if I have a preference in my choice of religion or none, I'm not going to directly insult another person's religious beliefs just because I think mine is better or something stupid like that. Try to respect others and others may have respect for you. You're no better than anyone else no matter how much you think you are.

      Comments

      1. By jkm (194.237.142.6) on

        You have a point but I must also say that overly strong beliefs in fairy tales (religous or not) do make me questions that persons judgement and sanity.

        One should also respect people even though they are not fluent in the english language.

      2. By Anonymous Coward (216.68.194.96) on

        I'd expect the FSF would be insulted with my remark. Fair enough there, I can handle that. Especially because they approached me in public, like a solicitor once. Still rubs me wrong for some reason, motivated me to write the comment as I felt.
        I'd allow for RMS to be insulted as well. Fair case, even though I gave possible supporting reasons as to his behaviour, rather than just making a parody of him. I think I have even seen him around people before, and can vouch for overall what a fair guy he is, although different and opinionated. Hope that clarifies.
        I'd expect some with the project to be concerned with professionalism here, and all their hard work. Some conduct isn't professional, perhaps my religious factual reporting of the flyer and my opinion isn't very professional. I do give undeadly's culture the respect that it enforces -'s for comments that stray from professionalism.

        I'll admit I never have understood how religion and some beliefs can be so sensitive, if one really believes in them. Not many get excited over comments on what color the sky is.

        I would hope that the BSD people understand my cynical approach to the corporate world and the treacherous legal battlefield that IT has always been caught in. Perhaps I just wanted to make that clear in other ways about reality and belief, that hits people emotionally to get my message across.

        To the AC, thank you for your opinion, and I'll take it as a professional conduct reminder.

        Yes, I do not write well with lynx in ncurses here, and my english is a bit choppy sometimes. Presentation changes meaning. Maybe my thought, language and respect towards others will improve with effort here. Noted.

        Peace all.

      3. By Anonymous Coward (72.185.137.14) on

        > Perhaps in the future, after you learn to write properly in English, you can keep your religious, judgmental, ignorant and uneducated comments to yourself.

        > At least keep them off of undeadly.org as this is not a religious site and religious insults simply do no belong here. You have no reason to insult others here who believe in their religious beliefs.

        What you interpreted as an insult, I took as simply an example. The whole thing about the pamphlets is true, and it's not limited to JW, not by far! Anyway, many religions (and probably all cults) do their damnest to spread by using a carrot/stick approach and playing on a human's emotions (his greatest weakness). This guarantees they will survive until the end of time, because I'm sure the Sun will burn out long before the human species as a whole manage to overcome this weakness.

      4. By Anonymous Coward (59.167.252.29) on

        > Perhaps in the future, after you learn to write properly in English, you can keep your religious, judgmental, ignorant and uneducated comments to yourself. At least keep them off of undeadly.org as this is not a religious site and religious insults simply do no belong here. You have no reason to insult others here who believe in their religious beliefs.

        Sorry, but I for one do not and cannot respect faith without proof. Beleiving in something which has a cyclical argument and at no point is spawned off from reasonable evidence, is weakness at best and idiocy at worst.

        Religion does not have to be spiritual and although the original poster did specify the spiritual side, I respect neither the spiritual religious, the GNU religious or any others who put reason aside to take a blind stand.

        This is my opinion and I enjoy the freedom to state it.

        The GNU hippies are surrounded by hipocricy and yet a so faithful that they either don't see it or don't want to accept it.

      5. By Anonymous Coward (59.167.252.29) on

        > Perhaps in the future, after you learn to write properly in English, you can keep your religious, judgmental, ignorant and uneducated comments to yourself.

        With the number of people who have died as a result of spiritual religion, I am offended by anyone who still support it.

    2. By Chris Cappuccio (204.80.187.9) chris@nmedia.net on

      > While somewhat nutty this sounds, RMS positions/actions might make more sense if you assume that RMS is like a puppet being influenced somehow or has lost its strings. Perhaps he is just strung out.
      >
      > Life is a shell game with legal risk, GRR. OpenBSD plays one game, FreeBSD another, and Linux something else. This only works if the shells work together.
      >

      What the fuck is all this incoherent babble? What the fuck are you trying to say?

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (216.68.194.96) on

        I am the poster of:

        "Life is a shell game with legal risk, GRR. OpenBSD plays one game, FreeBSD another, and Linux something else. This only works if the shells work together."

        What was I trying to say late at night?

        Dealing with RMS and making available of free and non-free code. I repect that OpenBSD might not go as far as FreeBSD with legal risks, and linux even more that FreeBSD sometimes. Code often has to mingle with non-free uses in business. I think this is like a shell game. So, "Life is a shell game with Legal risk, GRR.," This is what some of the context RMS deals with that undeadly linked to. GRR, frusterating, how lawyers make our lives a into a gambling game.

        The obscure comment of: "This only works if the shells work together.," I wish I said how GPL could be thought of as a trap for BSD code with derivative changes and making available; regarding what I think are legal grey areas in the legal happy corporate USA.

        Having the projects openly work out legal questions, interpretations and meaning with code would hopefully help, like a community, or a shell game to some lawyers who might want to game the system.

        Shell game, take three shells {like sea shells or containers}, hide a ball under one of them while contestant is watching, move the shells around rapidly with hand tricks, stop, ask contestant to pick a shell.

        I think FSF, GPL, BSD, are playing a shell game with legal risk and lawyers are the contestants. I just hope the community of coders can keep winning over the sharp lawyers.

        Hope that clear things up. I was getting late and I crunched things up.

        Hope this helps and isn't too roundabout.

  6. By Thilo Pfennig (86.103.201.77) tp@pfennigsolutions.de on http://vinci.wordpress.com/

    I was astonished how little RMS new about OpenBSDs backgrounds. Given that there is a lot of documentation and he claims to be an expert for free licenses. I still think GPL is the "better" license - but I agree upon RMS was arguing stupidly. Everybody should know that OpenBSD is free as Linux is. The open question is what is the better way. A license to preserve the freedom of the code or a license who rather focuses on the freedom of the user of the code. I believe freedom of code is more important, because history has shown that many big companies take and dont give back. And thats the point where many users start thinking why they should work unpayed. Also this can result in code nt being published and therefore hindering progress. If the freedom of the code is preserved people are more likely to publish any changes. Maybe in an ideal world a BSD style license would indeed be better, but if we think of an ideal world we would not need licenses at all and everything would be public domain?

    Comments

    1. By Tim Barber (dekernel) on

      > The open question is what is the better way. A license to preserve the
      > freedom of the code or a license who rather focuses on the freedom of
      > the user of the code.

      Though I don't agree with which license is 'better', I do commend you on your description. That is more than likely the best description that shows the philosophical difference between the GPL and BSD license.

  7. By pbug (62.75.160.180) on

    so does this mean that gcc will likely get replaced in order to cleanse the hypocrits from the source tree?

    Comments

    1. By Marc Espie (213.41.185.88) espie@openbsd.org on

      > so does this mean that gcc will likely get replaced in order to cleanse the hypocrits from the source tree?

      Assuming we finally get a working compiler under a better licence, yes.

      Having most software under the best possible licence in our tree is still a goal. Practically, some pieces are difficult to replace, so there are still some gnu licenced parts (and some other less obnoxious licences,
      the artistic licence of perl, for instance).

      Before you start a flamewar: there's nothing hypocritical about this, the project has always been very upfront about our goals.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (84.194.45.166) on

        > Assuming we finally get a working compiler under a better licence, yes.

        Wasn't some work being done towards this a while back? I seem to remember some discussion regarding PCC and its merits. Has any progress been made there?

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (81.83.46.216) on

          > > Assuming we finally get a working compiler under a better licence, yes.
          >
          > Wasn't some work being done towards this a while back? I seem to remember some discussion regarding PCC and its merits. Has any progress been made there?

          http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/pcc/

        2. By Anonymous Coward (219.90.212.7) on

          PCC commits are pretty regular: http://marc.info/?l=pcc-commit-list&r=1&w=2
          And if you look closely, you'll a sync to the master repo a couple days ago: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=120794689203029&w=2

  8. By Craig Metz (70.109.50.2) on

    Quick correction for the 4.3 song page.

    The flight Stallman was removed from was a UA flight from Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) to New Orleans.

    I was on said flight and didn't see/hear all of the exchanges, but saw the highlights. It's the only time I've ever seen someone physically removed from a plane before. But it's a great illustration of his judgment, thinking that he could pick a fight with an airline's flight crew while you're on their plane and have the story end well.

    Sad part was that USENIX got stuck figuring out how to get him down there.

  9. By Anonymous Suit (76.99.231.252) on

    Richard Stallman's comments were uninformed and unnecessary. However, members of the OpenBSD project aren't above doing pretty much the same thing. Theo made a comment about Linux in Forbes "I think our code quality is higher, just because that's really a big focus for us," De Raadt says. "Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run."

    All it does is lower my opinion of the person that said it and the project they represent. This is unfortunate, because the openbsd project and Richard Stallman have done good things for humanity.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (89.77.162.243) on

      "Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run."

      Not wishing to start a flamewar, but why exactly is this uninformed? I'm betting de Raadt has read through more Linux kernel code than you or I, even though he claims never to have ran any distribution. It's not very diplomatic, but then his single-mindedness is probably what makes OpenBSD possible in the first-place.

      To be fair, Linux is a kernel and not an operating system, so comparisons are a bit pointless from a general usage perspective, although I don't see many people trying to clear this point up. But surely most people agree that due to its design and development structure, "Linux" is much more feature-oriented, I mean it's one of its relative strengths, no? Which is quite alright, but if you strive for performance and features the most likely tradeoff is stability and ease of use, which one could also, in some aspects, equate to security.

      That said, I am posting this from a Debian based box. I do find it is quite more complex to run and maintain, and somewhat less stable. Quite possibly due to my latent stupidity and ignorance, but one of the things I like about OpenBSD's design is that it makes me look, and feel, smart. However, since I can't run OpenBSD on this box, I'm also quite happy to be able to run something else.

      Peace.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (74.13.60.58) on

        Theo's said he's not read the kernel.

      2. By Anonymous Coward (76.250.126.209) on

        As a person who fixes linux for a living I understand exactly what theo is saying. The linux kernel is extremely complex and not always well written. There are good parts but that does not excuse the rest. All that aside most of the kernel code is hard to read.

        Lets not even get started on userspace though where fucktards like dreper maintain giant piles of shit named glibc. That is pure readonly code. Don't believe me? read malloc.

      3. By Anonymous Suit (76.99.231.252) on

        "Not wishing to start a flamewar, but why exactly is this uninformed? I'm betting de Raadt has read through more Linux kernel code than you or I, even though he claims never to have ran any distribution. It's not very diplomatic, but then his single-mindedness is probably what makes OpenBSD possible in the first-place."

        I can see how what I said could be interpreted that way, but that isn't what I meant. The main point was making unproductive negative comments, informed or not, makes me think less of the person who said it and the project they represent. I hope I am not alone in that opinion.

        Comments

        1. By Jack Ripoff (201.6.246.124) jack.ripoff@gmail.com on

          >
          > I hope I am not alone in that opinion.
          >

          Hope dies last...

  10. By DoDo (217.19.26.102) on

    I hope that OpenBSD never gets a PR department. :P

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (219.90.173.132) on

      I wouldn't wish a PR department upon any organisation :)

  11. By Anonymous Coward (74.15.130.36) on

    A release song that's all about trashing RMS - why? Seems a bit childish.
    I liked better the songs about tech improvements, wireless drivers, freedom concerns, etc.
    No new improvements to sing about? :/

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.]