They didn't overreact immediately...

> Richard Stallman made some statements that people proved to be wrong,
> taking away the initial reason given to not consider OpenBSD free enough.

I don't think this is true.  RMS's statement is that the OpenBSD ports system contains ports
for non-free software.  That is a fact that is not in dispute.  In his OPINION, that equates
to OpenBSD recommending non-free software, so he chooses not to recommend OpenBSD.  There is
no "proving" that RMS's OPINION is wrong, unless you prove that the facts that he used to form
his opinion are wrong--and they are not.

Of course anyone is free to THINK that RMS's opinions are wrong, just as much as he is free to
have them.  But, there's no reason why he should be blamed for not "admitting" he is wrong
when nothing that was said changes the facts.  Flaming him for not changing his mind simply
because you think he should is not a reasonable response.

Actually I can't understand why the OpenBSD folks care whether RMS recommends their software
in the first place.  They obviously almost universally despise the man out of all proportion
to any affront he's done to them.  Sometimes I think that deep down they just enjoy flaming
for flaming's sake.  Breaks up the monotony of coding I guess.  Certainly they're far from
alone in this.

As far as I can tell, RMS's positions are internally consistent.  Just because they don't
always inform the real-world "grey areas" most of us wrestle with doesn't mean that he's a
hypocrite.