thelinuxlink.net

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openb ... /10/486713

This is a historical lengthy debate that seems to have caused strife amongst the too camps.

Ahh, how sweet! RMS hearts OpenBSD!

RMS is behaving quite well on the list, and being unflappable and logical. Theo on the other hand just comes across as a jerk, to the surprise of everyone here, no doubt.

So what rms is saying is (and I am restating in my words):

When an the "official" developers/promoters of an OS/Distro in any manner suggest or offer the inclusion of non-free software by

[*]Providing non-free software downloads in repository for installation
[*]Providing scripts to install non-free software
[*]Documenting how to install non-free software


The he cannot, according to his beliefs, recommend that distrobution to another person because, according to his opinion; the inclusion of non-free software as per above violates his ethics.

His version of freedom is not just "freedom of choice" but also inherits the inalienable right for all people to share these freedoms to the point that this freedom does not allow for the freedom to remove this freedom.

What seems to be at the heart of the conflict is the interpretation of freedom and what one's ethical responsibility is. For RMS, it is the perpetuation of the GNU philosophy and 4 freedoms; and nothing else. Anything that restricts those freedoms is unethical to him and he being very logical and methodical he will argue those freedoms absolutely, and the requirements they entail. Thus, while the majority of a system may be free, should there be a taint of non-free in the system, put there or allowed in by the maintainers, then he cannot advocate that as being a free system.

It's all or nothing, absolute.

So when he says he cannot suggest OpenBSD as a free OS he aggravates those who believe it is a free os in that the majority of it is under the BSD license which provides complete freedom, even the freedom to remove the freedom in some respects and lock the code up; like MS has done. Furthermore, by providing non-free software in their "official" repositories they maintainers of OpenBSD have advocated the use of non-free software and thus have tainted OpenBSD regardless as to whether the majority of the OS and the tools are under a free license. But freely choosing to open the door and give others a choice as to whether they want to install this software they have let in the door a handful of software that violates the ethics of free software. Furthermore, the inclusions of this software in an official manner by the maintainers of the system implies endorsement of non-free software.

RMS's philosophy does not permit this and thus he cannot recommend the project.

Many people on that list accused him of being hypocritical, but that is clearly not the case when you look at his arguments logically RMS in utterly logical with regards to his position and they way he leads his life. But he admits to not being devoid of mistakes and what separates a non-free and a free os in this regards is the free distro would acknowledge their mistakes in including non-free software and remove it when discovered (or choices that would lead to non-free options).

Anyway, there is an argument that it is hypocritical on his part to deride disrobutions for including non-free software in their repository yet allowing gcc or other gnu software to be complied and installed/run under windows.

RMS endorses the use of free software by providing free software. He does not endorse the use of windows, but endorses the use of emacs or gcc. He will not endorse the use of windows because it is not free software. He will endorse the use of Linux so long as it does not include binary blobs, non-free software in the distro's repository, etc. It would be illogical for him to restrict the use of free software on a non-free system by the very merits that any system can be made non-free as simply as a non-free system can be made free by either closing or opening the code.

RMS would advocate the use of OpenBSD if the maintainers of OpenBSD removed non-free software from their ports and I would posit instructions on how to acquire and install non-free software from their documentation.

If Microsoft released all their software under a free license, then RMS would recommend Windows. If they released windows under a free license but left media player non-free, and offered it as a download from their site to install on windows, RMS would not endorse the use of Windows; to him it would not be ethical to recommend an OS that supports non-free software installation.

RMS is unwaivering in his philosophy and has every right to be. But not once have I heard him be hypocritical, which a lot of people accuse him of being in those emails above.

Yeah, you pretty much summed things up. He merely stated the reason he doesn't recommend OpenBSD is because they, by default, "recommend" non-free software through its inclusion in ports system, thereby legitimizing the use of non-free software. He has repeatedly stated that he appreciates the work of OpenBSD developers, and he hasn't said anything hurtful. All he has said is that he can't recommend using OpenBSD to others because they practice something that goes against his beliefs. The amount of flaming from the OpenBSD group is unbelievable; and there's such a desperate need to label him a hypocrite, which is entirely unfair in this case. RMS is simply being treated unfairly in that thread, with people refusing to listen to him, and shouts of "slimy hypocrite" coming from all directions. I've lost a lot of respect for the OpenBSD community, not because of their own beliefs, but because of their treatment of an honest person merely stating his position after someone had misrepresented his views.

dann wrote:So what rms is saying is (and I am restating in my words):

When an the "official" developers/promoters of an OS/Distro in any manner suggest or offer the inclusion of non-free software by

[*]Providing non-free software downloads in repository for installation
[*]Providing scripts to install non-free software
[*]Documenting how to install non-free software


The he cannot, according to his beliefs, recommend that distrobution to another person because, according to his opinion; the inclusion of non-free software as per above violates his ethics.

His version of freedom is not just "freedom of choice" but also inherits the inalienable right for all people to share these freedoms to the point that this freedom does not allow for the freedom to remove this freedom.

See this is what many people don't "get", when they try to debunk the arguments of RMS. The sort of freedom RMS is advocating is essentially "free speech for software", and if you look at it from that angle it makes complete sense that he can only recommend an OS distribution that completely and utterly rejects non-free software. Does it make sense to "allow people to give up freedom of speech" ? No it does not, because then there's a pathway for them to loose that essential right, although I am sure that that is against freedom of choice ... but like Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Vogateer wrote:The amount of flaming from the OpenBSD group is unbelievable; and there's such a desperate need to label him a hypocrite, which is entirely unfair in this case. RMS is simply being treated unfairly in that thread, with people refusing to listen to him, and shouts of "slimy hypocrite" coming from all directions.

I think the primary reason for this, is that BSD folks generally have a different interpretation on software freedom. I saw this comment, by a guy going by the name of Invincible Cow, on OSNews, and it quite clearly demonstrates the BSD perspective:

"Free" doesn't mean "restricted", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "confined", does it?
"Free" doesn't mean "restrained", does it?
Or does "free" mean "restricted"?
Yes, it does!

Do you use software because it's "free as in freedom"? If it's "free as in freedom" you should be able to do whatever you want with it, right? Is it still "free as in freedom" if you can't do whatever you want with it?

Sure, you can do whatever the author wants you to do with it, but can you do whatever you want with it?

I think the some of the GPL folks should pull their big egos together, learn English before they learn C and stop spreading lies.
Free means not restricted.
GPL restricts you.
Thus, GPL does not promote free as in freedom

Sure, we can discuss at length whether protecting software from commercial "misuse" is beneficial, but as long as the software is protected, it isn't free as in freedom, is it?

Although it's not "GPL folks" that need "to learn English before they learn C", it's Mr. Invincible Cow himself. He clearly does not understand the difference between commercial software, and proprietary software.
GCC is commercial software in a big way, both Red Hat and Novell have contributed buttloads of code to it, that was written by developers paid to write that code. If that's not commercial software, I do not know what it is.
Wiktionary defines commercial as:

Adjective
commercial (comparative: more commercial, superlative: most commercial)
Of or pertaining to a money-making endeavor that involves a corporation or other formalized group of workers and management working toward the production of goods or services to participate in an economy.

Which, to me, sounds a lot like what Red Hat is doing, even though Red Hat does not do proprietary software. Even the client for Red Hat Network (Which is part of RHEL) is under the GPL, so not even on that point is Red Hat proprietary, I find it amazing that people even can accuse them of being proprietary.

Anyway, sorry about that little rant... but as Mr. Invincible Cow was saying, the BSD interpretation of "freedom" is essentially total freedom to do anything and everything one might feel like. Now that is certainly not in any way a justification for them to start calling Richard Stallman "slimy hypocrite" mind you!

Tsuroerusu wrote: See this is what many people don't "get", when they try to debunk the arguments of RMS. The sort of freedom RMS is advocating is essentially "free speech for software", and if you look at it from that angle it makes complete sense that he can only recommend an OS distribution that completely and utterly rejects non-free software. Does it make sense to "allow people to give up freedom of speech" ? No it does not, because then there's a pathway for them to loose that essential right, although I am sure that that is against freedom of choice ... but like Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Free speech means that you may not agree with it but your accept what they say, gpl however stops you from making proprietary versions of software, where as free speech allows you to do what you want with your speech, i know that might not make any sense, but a lot of time free speech does not either.
There is a definitely limits to freedom of speech and for good reasons for example incitement to hatred or violence, that should be banned.
Freedom of choice is another huge puzzle. It does not exist, there are laws to obey essentially.
To give a good analogy that has spun into pages of debate on another board I use, is that Christian creationists want to build a theme park in england.
link http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 01,00.html
Many have said its just a propaganda front and that the creationist are planning a take over, there is some clear evidence of this, they tried to get creationism into schools and failed. There are some schools that teach it. link http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools ... 08,00.html

So from not getting into a majority of schools they are trying to build under the fluffy name "theme park" a private school.
Some say that's fine, freedom of speech should allow any lunatic to say what they want. Others have looked at the histories movement and what they believe in and what they would like and also the fact that the past prime minister supported them, meaning they could have influence with certain well known people although they never got much public support.

Remember everything that england and pretty much most of the world have gathered from science for centuries , such as trying to cure cancer,aids , these creationist reject. Building such a museum is a surely very very very very counter-productive.

Because there is one in the usa and it has not done as much damage as it could , people say let them build it and people will just laugh at it and it will be closed down sooner or later. Holy Land Experience is the name of the US creationist theme park http://www.holylandexperience.com/

You see, freedom of speech and freedom of choice is not so clear-cut.

It sounds like the bone of contention is just what is meant by freedom. From an anarchist point freedom is the absence of restraint the and the will for on to act as he or she desires. In the words of Aleister Crowley: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." This may work in a society of one, but when there is an other my freedom can and will encroach on the other's freedom should I exercise my complete desire within the personal space of the other. Given that, there is a popular quote that states: "My freedom ends where your nose begins."

At a philosophical level I am free to choose to act in any way I desire. On a social level, my actions have consequences which I am not free from. Thus, I make the conscious choice to restrict my behavior, limit my choices to those which will maximize the benefits to me and minimize the pain to others. It would be unethical for me to restrict the freedoms of others in favor of mine and thus should expect reciprocal behavior in that the behavior of others should not impact on my freedoms.

Given that, while the BSD license affords freedom in the absolute sense, it makes not regard for the restriction of these freedoms being imposed by another. It does not protect it's own freedom and allows the product to become encumbered in another project and locked away. Yet, the original code remains free, the use of the new code is no longer available.

The GPL on the other hand prevents this from happening. While you are free to use the code, you are not free to restrict the code or lock it up. That those you give to the code to have all the same rights you received from the original code and thus you cannot restrict those rights in any way.

It's no more hypocritical than saying the freedom of speech does not give you the right to restrict my speech.

Fully agree with Dann, though I'd like to complete the quote of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr:
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Great quote.