"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.
"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.