On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:47:00PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:This thread has gone off-track. (I don't mean Theo.) It is extremely important for a very large number of reasons, some of which I understand well and some of which I understand hardly or not at all, that what software is included in, and distributed by, OpenBSD, is free software. This is well-known. It is a serious consideration for many of OpenBSD's current and potential users. About twenty-two minutes and ten seconds into the bsdtalk interview, Richard Stallman says of the BSD's: "... all of them include, in their installation systems---in some cases I believe it's called a ports system, I don't know if they all use that term---they all include some non-free programs, and as a result I can't recommend any of them." It has been pointed out to Richard Stallman, more than once, that this is not a correct statement about OpenBSD. (See Theo's confirmation, above.) Whatever the practical convenience of not telling the truth, it is not ethical to aver that OpenBSD includes non-free software when it does not. (Ignorance is not at issue here. Just as one can say "I don't know" about the CDDL, one can say "I don't know" about OpenBSD.) Since Richard Stallman has chosen to pronounce on the matter, and to include OpenBSD in his pronouncement, the ethical thing for him to do now is to acknowledge clearly and unambiguously that OpenBSD does not include non-free software. Full stop. The question of inclusion and/or distribution is clear, precise and unambiguous. OpenBSD neither includes nor distributes non-free software. This is not about Richard Stallman's recommendation. This is about the truth. Questions that concern mention, naming, suggestion, lending legitimacy, and so forth, and attempts to persuade Richard Stallman to recommend OpenBSD, form the material of another discussion.