"Twice a year I get to release the song & lyrics, and write a little commentary on something the project dealt with other [than] the release. Hope you guys enjoy," said OpenBSD creator Theo de Raadt, including a link to the latest OpenBSD song. The OpenBSD project maintains a six month release cycle, with the upcoming 4.3 release officially scheduled for May 1st, 2008. Each release includes a song relevant to issues faced by the project during the past six months. The song for the upcoming 4.3 release is titled, "Home to Hypocrisy", with scathing references to some recent postings on the OpenBSD -misc mailing list by Free Software Foundation creator Richard Stallman. In his commentary, Theo explained, "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." He continued, describing the recent confrontation on the OpenBSD -misc mailing list:
"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. [...] 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."
From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...>
Subject: 4.3 song and lyrics and commentary
Date: Apr 11, 1:08 am 2008
Twice a year I get to release the song & lyrics, and write a little
commentary on something the project dealt with other the release.
Hope you guys enjoy.
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
From: Todd Alan Smith <tas-misc-openbsd@...>
Subject: Re: 4.3 song and lyrics and commentary
Date: Apr 11, 1:22 am 2008
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote:
> Twice a year I get to release the song & lyrics, and write a little
> commentary on something the project dealt with other the release.
>
> Hope you guys enjoy.
And that I have! I've already downloaded it and listened to it several
times. Excellent song!
Btw, already that thread was burned into my memory (I was recovering
from back surgery when it took place), but now, with this song, the
thread and the broader issues covered are archived in a different way
for all to remember it by. Good job on the subject selection!
I can't wait for my 4.3 CDs to arrive!
From: Leonardo Rodrigues <leonardovcr2@...>
Subject: Re: 4.3 song and lyrics and commentary
Date: Apr 11, 1:56 am 2008
Yeah, that was a loooong thread. Quite funny too hehe.
It's good to see that the artwork is as good as ever =)
Keep up the good job!
From: Pau <vim.unix@...>
Subject: Re: 4.3 song and lyrics and commentary
Date: Apr 11, 7:42 am 2008
Richard was here (universitat autrnoma de Barcelona) last Monday
http://www.uab.es/anycomputacio/
I went to his "talk", just out of curiousity.
It was interesting. Not what he said, which was the old same story
(and he dared to do it in Spanish, which made everything worse -my
English is way muuuuch better).
I say it was interesting because gnu/linux was the first thing I
discovered, when I left windows, some... 10? years ago (I was "using"
windows 3.11 last time I did) and I found incredible that you could
tell your computer to do something _you_ wanted.
I found everything amazing, and I became a fanboy of gnu/linux. Later
I saw The Light ;)
Well.. listening to Richard talking about the freedom of code etc, in
the way he did it: arriving 15 minutes later and making ~200 people
wait, burping and belching many times, because he had drunk two
teapots, and he also interrupted the talk asking aloud for a cloakroom
and explicitly asking a prof. to take him to it, not taking into
account that he had talked for more than two hours with long breaks
due to his insufficient expertise in Spanish etc etc... made me
thought of those years when I was a teenager.
I would very probably have loved "his way" (and I have to admit that
it's fine to be a bit rude from time to time to big bosses in general,
if you can afford it, but not to the students). But this time I
didn't.
(gnu)Linux is something like a teenager. It lacks maturity. That
"talk" was a wonderful metaphor of it.
I wonder... probably a bit of publicity of the like (a public talk,
but in a proper way) wouldn't hurt much to OpenBSD. I am almost sure
that it should not be a problem to invite somebody to give such a talk
and I, personally, would be very happy to see it happening...
anyway...
By the way, I love the small butts the nurses that are carrying the madgnu
wear
(in the last panel of the comic strip)
Pau Amaro Seoane
2008/4/11, Leonardo Rodrigues <leonardovcr2@gmail.com>:
> Yeah, that was a loooong thread. Quite funny too hehe.
>
> It's good to see that the artwork is as good as ever =)
> Keep up the good job!
From: nimmermehr <nimmermehr@...>
Subject: Re: 4.3 song and lyrics and commentary
Date: Apr 11, 9:19 am 2008
Just my two cents :
I remember an interview with rms (about two years ago) where he
critisised not only (open/net/free)bsd for shipping non-free software,
but also ubuntu, redhat and others. The only really free distribution
from his point of view is GNU/HURD, but since it will be released
shortly after Duke Nukem Forever, we'll have to stay non-free one or two
more months ;)
So he declared others as non-free at least once... god knows why he
didn't it do more often.
By the way, Puffy lost his clothes when he left the ship ;)
Good
"Amen" to that. Keep up the good work!
stupid rules
"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."
... which really begs the question: do they listen to people who DO follow their own stupid rules?
?
They listen to Theo...
Unfortunately Theo is an
Unfortunately Theo is an idiot as well ...
He might be an idiot, but
He might be an idiot, but he:
Sadening comments
I know Stallman often overdoes it, but Theo & Co's reaction is equally ridiculous here. Emacs on Windows, and the bad quality of Stallman's tired old speech ? Please, that's off-topic and just plain low.
The idea is that if a distro provides access to non-free software (via official packages), it is non-free. May sound extreme, or even a moot point when said packages are labeled properly as non-free, but it is a fair point. Wether that type of "non-free"-ness bothers you or not doesn't change the fact that it exists.
The FSF has been pushing against this practice wherever it comes from, no hypocrisy or anti-BSD issues AFAICT. They also promote some "totally-free" distros (which probably no practical-minded person bothers with).
I'm no Stallman fan, and quite like the OpenBSD way of things... But these not-so-rare stories showcase a hatefull, not-so-rational comunity, which makes me (regretfully) stay away from OpenBSD.
Off topic?
How is that off topic? "Shame on you, you provide a way for people to use non-free software!" Then he provides binaries for Windows. How's that for "plain low"?
See above. How is that not hypocrisy? And don't give me that stupid "going from free to non-free is bad, but going from non-free to more free is good" crap.
You won't be missed.
rms
The emacs binaries for win32 are still free software..? I don't really see what's so difficult to understand here.
Remember, there are lots of BSD software that runs on Windows and he has not said a word about that. (I strongly doubt the emacs port for win32 would even exist if Stallman opposed it, FSF has produced free software on non-free operating systems since forever.) He just did the same to BSD which he has flamed every Linux distribution for since they came about.
You may or may not agree with the man but he is in no way a hypocrite. He's probably the most stubborn person alive. I am sure you can find an old essary or two on his stance if you really want to understand his point. A good flame war from time to time perhaps does him good, I don't know about that, but you will have to do much better than that.
Ah, but you forgot!
You forgot that making free software available on a non-free system makes the non-free system more attractive, and thus users are less likely to reject it!
(Not an argument I place much stock in, mind you, but I have heard it floated more than once.)
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
That's true. Yet, at the
That's true. Yet, at the same time, you are making all free software systems attractive too, as the software they use is available for most of them. While I'm no free software advocate, I think it's fair to recognise that, by bringing free software to non-free systems, you are making them more free and their users are more likely to change to a fully free system. In other words, once all you use is Firefox, OpenOffice.org and Thunderbird, there's nothing stopping you from running a Linux system if it copes well with your hardware.
That would be the counter-argument, also floating around.
once you've got the people
once you've got the people there, they might say: "okay, we rely on firefox, thunderbird, openoffice, and ... matlab (the original, not some half-baked, unsupported gnu/fake)" - so getting them to switch the operating system requires them to have matlab available.
So having matlab optionally available on a free system makes the free system more attractive. and once they're there, they are in an environment with a larger free software base, instead of before, with a larger closed source software base.
re: rms
Why on earth would he say anything about that? That'd be incredibly stupid, since he does the same with GNU software.
Oh, I understand his point perfectly. I've read his essays and listened to his speeches. I don't oppose to having free software binaries for Windows, mind you. I don't see anything wrong in doing so.
What I do mind is that RMS says the OpenBSD ports system gives the non-free parts sort of a legitimacy and that it suggests using non-free software. Well, if this is true, then surely using Emacs on Windows gives Windows sort of a legitimacy and surely it suggests using non-free software (Windows IS non-free, you know).
This is where the hypocrisy begins.
The emacs binaries for win32
I have a problem with understanding how it can be OK to provide free software for a non-free system, but not OK to provide (or, actually make it easier to use) non-free software on a free system.
Either non-free things are bad and you stay away from it, or it is OK, and you can do as you like.
--
Erik Wikström
free on non-free VS non-free on free
Ah, that's where opinions differ then, and how the accusation of hypocrisy could be justified.
To me there's a fundamental difference. Providing free software on a non-free OS promotes freedom. Providing non-free software on a free OS demotes freedom.
Forget about the arguments of "does doing X increase the chance of migrating users to a free system", which nobody can agree on. The down-to-earth, obvious (?) outcome is that in the first case you make free software more prominent, and in the second case you make proprietary software more prominent.
"The idea is that if a
"The idea is that if a distro provides access to non-free software (via official packages), it is non-free"
That is crap man.
You as author get a tool where YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
The FSF claims that this is non-free, which is bullshit. Windows is more non-free, yet the FSF encourages all the GNU crap for this plattform.
You know what is FSF problem? They do not want to empower people.
I as a user simply want an option to decide on my fucking own, without anyone else telling me how or what to do it. I think that the FSF initial goals are laudable and right, and I think the GPL is a great license as far as PREVENTING others from abusing open sourced apps can go, but claiming that OpenBSD is becoming non-free because the users can decide on their own what they want is bad FSF propaganda.
I think Theo overreacts, but I can understand him when statements like "OpenBSD is non free" are triggered.
Theo is a tool. RMS is a
Theo is a tool.
RMS is a tool.
They both overreact, ignore logic counter to their world-view, and are generally unpleasant individuals to listen to or read about. Rude and condescending behaviour is the norm there.
The BSD license is more "Free" than any of the GPL licenses. It doesn't restrict what you do. The GPL licenses add restrictions which are intended to keep subsequent redistributions freely accessible as well. Some like that model, some don't. Many argue about them as if they were a religious-political system. They're not. Sorry.
If, by including "non-Free" software via the ports system makes OpenBSD "non-Free", then every single Linux distribution I've ever seen is also "non-Free". Maybe there are some that don't do this, who knows. I surely have not seen one.
If OpenBSD's ports system does NOT include non-Free software, but instead allows the USER to download non-Free software, then OpenBSD is Free, yet allows the USER to make the decision to include non-Free software. That's the same as any other software distribution that follows the same model. This, in my opinion, is the ideal goal for which we should aim: end-users having a choice.
The genital-envy contest between RMS and Theo is beyond childish. Both "camps" produce good, quality software, and as long as the ultimate goal is to ensure end-users and customers have the choice to use whatever is best for them, there is room enough for both kinds of software. There is even room for Proprietary software. There must be the freedom to choose what is best for YOU.
BTW, making Free software available on proprietary platforms is a good thing, and is the beginning of a migration path away from the proprietary platform. RMS and other "purists" completely and unfortunately dismiss making proprietary software available on a Free platform as an additional step in this process. See the Matlab example in previous comments -- if that were available on a Free platform, the previous example could migrate its organization from Proprietary to Free, while searching for a replacement to Matlab.
-M
>ignore logic counter to
>ignore logic counter to their world-view
rms *ignore* logic ?
Excuse me for not reading the rest of your post.
If, by including "non-Free"
Yes, there are some Linux distributions that are "entirely free", such as gNewSense, but hardly anyone is using them.
For the record, it's one of the few distros that RMS is advocating; he doesn't "advocate" non-free Linux distros either; see http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions
"The idea is that if a
"The idea is that if a distro provides access to non-free software (via official packages), it is non-free."
OpenBSD doesn't provide access to non-free software via official packages.
We've some ports for non-free stuff in our ports tree, but we don't provide packages for this stuff. Yet, having something like /usr/ports/www/opera, which contains a Makefile and some more Goo that makes it possible for users to fetch and install Opera is sufficient for RMS to declare OpenBSD as non-free. IIRC (in RMS's words), we're supposed to be non-free just because ports like www/opera contain URLs pointing to non-free software.
How evil! We tell people (via that www/opera port, and some other ports) that there's a way to run proprietary shit even on OpenBSD, and in the world of RMS we're non-free. At the same time, RMS ensures that his emacs thingy works on Windows, but this of course does not hurt freedom. (Of course it doesn't hurt freedom, but it clearly contradicts RMS's definition of freedom).
Just my 2p
-- Kili
correction
please. that's like saying living in a city with a few brothels is the same as buying a hooker.
//The idea is that if a distro provides access to non-free software (via official packages), //it is non-free.
Sadening reaction
I know Stallman often overdoes it, but Theo & Co's reaction is equally ridiculous here. Emacs on Windows, and the bad quality of Stallman's tired old speech ? Please, that's off-topic and just plain low.
The idea is that if a distro provides access to non-free software (via official packages), it is non-free. May sound extreme, or even a moot point when said packages are labeled properly as non-free, but it is a fair point. Wether that type of "non-free"-ness bothers you or not doesn't change the fact that it exists.
The FSF has been pushing against this practice wherever it comes from, no hypocrisy or anti-BSD issues AFAICT. They also promote some "totally-free" distros (which probably no practical-minded person bothers with).
I'm no Stallman fan, and quite like the OpenBSD way of things... But these not-so-rare stories showcase a hatefull, not-so-rational comunity, which makes me (regretfully) stay away from
The FSF is stupid
OpenBSD ports aren't official.
Same story to me
Almost the same story for me, the only difference is that I don't regret staying away from them. I decided to do that after the whole day the BSD guys got into their panties when Linux was using some of their code , bye bye all their tales about how they don't want any restrictions in their software. And now that I see this childish behavior from Theo I am glad I dashed that bullet.
It's always funny when the
It's always funny when the greatest hypocrites names the lesser ones... :p
It is, whats that got to do
It is, whats that got to do with anything ?
DUH
whats the big flap!
That was Richards opinion. I disagree on his thesis that ports make OBSD none free. I agree about making open source work on all platforms too.
Slamming RMS dont make Theo right. Its all a matter of opinion that has no resolution.
Move on...
Good news, everyone! More flamebait
This has to be the thing that disappoints me the most about F/LOSS. The perpetual trolling cycle is just depressing. The comments by Richard and the comments by Theo are neither new or newsworthy. I really wish that the community of tech news sites like slashdot, kerneltrap and osnews would just stop reporting whenever a F/LOSS personality behaves badly. These men are at once visionaries, engineers and scientists, but they are not (and never have been) diplomats. To pick up on and report every step they take in their mutual cycle of distrust and disrespect only throws more fuel on the flames of angry fanboys from all corners of the F/LOSS world.
Of course, it's just wistful thinking on my part. A "Theo and Richard" story is to a tech blog what Britney Spears without panties is to a tabloid. Distasteful, worn-out and overdone? Absolutely. A subject that draws viewers? Without a doubt.
Agreed. For some reason, big
Agreed. For some reason, big F/OSS names all tend to have the level of social competence usually found in six year olds.
Have you ever truly seen RMS
Have you ever truly seen RMS troll?
Britney Spears without
Britney Spears without panties ?
What a shame
I think that it is shame when there is rivalry between the OpenBSD and Linux community, and such.
We do have our differences, but lets not forget that basically we're both the same. We have different approaches, but the fundamental concept behind it, is the same.
Yes, Richard is stubborn as hell, possibly the most stubborn person in the world. But thats good, he have to be, else he wouldn't be able todo what he does.
Love him or hate him, but he did a lot of good.
And about free software on Windows, I think its a good idea. I came from Windows, and then I came across free open source software, and started to flirt with that. I liked it, and I eventually got more and more FOSS on my computer, and phased out proprietary software.
Then I stood there with a system full of free software, except for the operating system, and I wanted to switch, so that the whole system could be free. So I moved to Linux, to be free. Having used many free software in Windows, it was easier to move to Linux, and use the same free software.
Cross-platform software is very important, and its important with free software for Windows too.
I discovered the wonderful world of free software, when I came across FOSS software in Windows.
RMS vs THEO
The problem here is that one stubborn asshole (RMS) is conflicting with another stubborn asshole (Theo The Rat). The best approach is to ignore BOTH of these guys as much as possible, and get on with life.
"The problem here is that
"The problem here is that one stubborn asshole (RMS) is conflicting with another stubborn asshole (Theo The Rat). The best approach is to ignore BOTH of these guys as much as possible, and get on with life."
Theo The Rat? => Theo de Raadt
common we should ignore you.
childish (wo)men.
Theo is the lamer
Theo is the sucker here. Lest all forget about the guilt by association fallacy he pulled out. Let's also ignore how he doesn't get the difference between those ports and emacs' windows version.
But Theo is a moron who doesn't follow his own rules, and you find him calling RMS a hypocrite for the very same thing he does! Let's remember the previous controversy Theo armed after some BSD licensed code was used in Linux . "We are freer than them we don't add any restrictions, yadda yadda yadda" but we get on our panties if the code is used in Linux. We allow everybody BUT Linux to use it ! That's how non-hypocrites we are.
Actually, if you weren't
Actually, if you weren't busy being blinded by your own prejudice, you'd understand that the issue was the removal of a copyright in an unmodified source file, the ONE AND ONLY restriction that copyright had.
So, yeah. Keep those blinkers on...
Error was caught
Recall that the particular transgression did not get merged it into official Linux sources. The error was caught quickly. I don't see why the OpenBSD folks still make hay of it. Given the number, eagerness and lacking legal background of developers, it is inevitable that things like that happen occasionally. What matters is that there is enough review to catch them. Openness helps here.
But that was not the
But that was not the argument the OP was making (which was that the OpenBSD crowd was 'whining about BSD code being used in Linux'); your statement is only marginally relevant, if at all.
The OpenBSD guys had no
The OpenBSD guys had no problem with the code making it into the kernel, but they had a problem with them relicensing the code without permission. Had the BSD license remained, it would have been a non-issue.
Are most OpenBSD developers
Are most OpenBSD developers so spiteful and petty or just (as I suspect) the more vocal minority ?
You Need To Read The Mile-Long Tread.
You are missing the point. RMS came on and said he cannot recommend OpenBSD because it lets users, via Ports, install non-free software. And then RMS's argument narrowed down to, well, OpenBSD encourages users to use non-free software by providing URLs so he still cannot recommend it.
OpenBSD people reacted citing all kinds of references to EMACS, GCC and the FSF itself providing direct support and binaries (far in excess of URL links to non-free software) for non-free systems. It wasn't the OpenBSD people being spiteful here. It was RMS not comprehending his own words and actions. As far as I know, OpenBSD is the only site RMS went to informing a project they were "unrecommendable" when, by RMS's standards, nearly every Linux distro is "unrecommendable" too.
And when discrepancies were pointed out on system RMS did recommend, his answer was to say, oh, will have to fix that instead of saying I'm going to have to "unrecommended" them too.
It was all a moot point narrowly splitting hairs so fine defining what a "free" OS is that no one would ever come to an agreement with these two parties.
OpenBSD
So OpenBSD is attacking RMS for putting his own GPLed apps on a non-GPL OS...
Isn't this the same BSD that threw a hissy fit when they were told to stop stealing GPLed code and putting it in their own non-GPL kernel?
Isn't this the same BSD that threw a tantrum when their supposedly more "free" BSD code was used in a Linux driver?
Home to hypocrisy indeed.
It was more about the
It was more about the copyright, but the openbsd community was pretty dramatic about it. Despite that fact, I don't believe the restriction of keeping copyright abides by the definition of free.
"So OpenBSD is attacking RMS
"So OpenBSD is attacking RMS for putting his own GPLed apps on a non-GPL OS"
No, they are pointing out that RMS is stating OpenBSD is non-free because it does not discourage users from compiling non-free code, which seems strange when RMS then goes to great lengths to make emacs available for Windows. I do not think, though I cannot speak for the project, that they are saying RMS should not make emacs available for Windows, but it certainly does not discourage people from running Windows. If OpenBSD is non-free due to ports, surely emacs is non-free due to Windows compatibility.
"Isn't this the same BSD that threw a hissy fit when they were told to stop stealing GPLed code and putting it in their own non-GPL kernel?"
Actually they never put GPL'd code into their kernel, it was headers from a driver that was being rewritten, but unfortunatly they prematurly removed the GPL license before all GPL'd code was removed. The code was not active, as it was there for reference, but it was publicly available from the CVS. It was a misunderstanding and could have been resolved more amicably, but it got ugly because it was not seen as being handled tactfully, by either side.
"Isn't this the same BSD that threw a tantrum when their supposedly more "free" BSD code was used in a Linux driver?"
A developer porting a driver to linux removed the BSD license without consulting the copyright holders first. Certain files were duel licensed, but others were not. It wasn't the copyright violation that caused the uproar so much as many key developers in the linux community had been relentlessly trying to get the code relicensed for a long time and would not take no for an answer and hoping that sooner or later they would give in to the pressure, so it was seen as underhanded when the copyright notice was straight removed without permission.
This is almost as bad as RMS
This is almost as bad as RMS on acoustic guitar.
Can I unhear those lyrics please? PLEASE?
And then there's his flute "playing"
http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossible.mp3
Am I the only one seeing a
Am I the only one seeing a difference between making free software available on a non-free platform and making non-free software available on a free platform?
Spanish
The Spanish guy in the quoted mail thread criticises Stallman's Spanish skills. I find that a bit arrogant. Just how often do you get Americans abroad try giving a talk in your own language anyway? Invariable they use English and expect the hosts to understand or provide translation. Stallman was trying to show respect for the language of his hosts, so don't slam his poor command of it. [I'm Finnish, by the way. About the only Americans one finds here that try to speak Finnish are Mormon missionaries... which I find is admirable dedication to their cause]