Stuart Henderson wrote on Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 06:43:00PM +0000:
quoted text
> On 2007/12/13 11:51, Richard Stallman wrote:

quoted text
>> I'm talking about something else:
>> what the system distro suggests that the user do.

quoted text
> OpenBSD does not suggest that people use ports.
> We suggest people use binary packages.

I think this answer is slightly incomplete and, in that sense,
not entirely accurate in the present context.

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgVsPorts

 "15.4.6 - What should I use: packages or ports?

  In general, you are *highly* *advised* to use packages
  over building an application from ports.
    [ ... snip about two paragraphs elaborating why ... ]
  Of course, there are a few good reasons
  to use ports over packages in some cases:
   - Distribution rules prohibit OpenBSD from distributing a package.
   - [ ... snip three other uncontroversial reasons ... ]
  However, for most people and most applications, using packages
  is a much easier, and definitely the recommended way of adding
  applications to an OpenBSD system."

Thus, *if* somebody is really determined to use non-free software
on OpenBSD, using ports is officially recommended, though certainly
not in any prominent way.  I think the recommendation makes sense
the way it is.

Thus, the project recommends *how* to install non-free software,
not sure whether the project *suggests* to install non-free software,
probably the project does not recommend using non-free software.

Using non-free software under OpenBSD is considerably more difficult
than using free software.  But note that these difficulties are not
artificially constructed in order to scare people away from non-free
software.  These difficulties just arise naturally as some of the
inherent downsides of non-free software; other downsides, no doubt,
will be less obvious to the casual user.

I understand that many people deem the right to keep the product
of one's own work to oneself an essential part of freedom,
even people contributing huge amounts of work to free software.
By contrast, I certainly hope for a world where *everybody* enjoys
sharing the products of her/his thought freely; yet, currently,
i do commercial software development to earn a living.
Completely coherent human beings are hardly imaginable:
If i understand correctly, Emacs Windows binaries might serve as
another example.   Either way, i don't feel like pointing fingers at
port Makefiles supporting non-free software right now.

quoted text
> With two exceptions (which look like they're marked in error since
> their licenses do indeed allow source code redistribution), where we
> provide a binary package, we also provide the source distribution
> files used to build them.