| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
They didn't overreact immediately...They didn't overreact immediately...Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:10 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: They didn't overreact immediately... by i3839 Parent article: Insufficiently free?
Richard Stallman made some statements that people proved to be wrong, taking away the initial reason given to not consider OpenBSD free enough. If he would had admit his wrong then, there would be no news, but as he didn't and apparently continued discussing/arguing, Theo de Raadt had enough of it and started flaming him. RMS said that he does not recommend OpenBSD because its ports systems includes specific instructions/code to install specific pieces of non-free software. No one disputes this fact as far as I can tell, although of course people can disagree with his conclusion. What you are referring to instead, is people going after tangential points, such as the imprecision of his phrasing that the ports system "includes" non-free software (he responded here). They also attacked other points even less relevant to his position—statements that he explicitly disclaimed he wasn't sure of, e.g. whether OpenBSD includes binary firmware blobs (he was happy to hear that they don't) or whether the OpenSSH license is GPL-compatible (he said he couldn't remember, but that it didn't matter to him because it was free software). Whether it is ethical to recommend non-free software, or give instructions on how to use it with your system, is an issue over which reasonable people can disagree, of course. (And, like many disagreements about ethics, ultimately seems to be a difference in value systems rather any factual/logical disagreement.) But let's not stoop to rhetorical tricks.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||