|| ||Richard Stallman <rms-AT-gnu.org>|
|| ||Theo de Raadt <deraadt-AT-cvs.openbsd.org>|
|| ||Re: Real men don't attack straw men|
|| ||Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:07 -0500|
|| ||espie-AT-nerim.net, marcusandree-AT-gmail.com, misc-AT-openbsd.org|
Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to
compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,
you are a slimy hypocrite.
I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.
There is a big practical difference between making a free system
suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a
non-free system. We treat the two issues differently because they are
People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is
unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them
about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching
operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a
non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it.
Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a
free program run on it is small. However, it is our practice when
doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and
bad for your freedom. If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows
don't say this, I'll make sure to add it.
By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and
installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything
else you do. Thus, even telling people about a non-free application
could very well lead them to install it.
I've published both of these positions before, but in this discussion
I only mentioned the one that is relevant to my views about OpenBSD.
Is that hypocrisy? Is that lying? No, just sticking to the point.
But now that people have raised the other issue, here is my position
to post comments)