Slashdot Mirror

I just looked at the download directory for bash and 1.14 seems to be the oldest version available, though you apparently have to back-diff it to get to 1.14.0. Who knows how long the bug may have been in there before that. So effectively, this bug has been in bash since day one.

And for those of you interested in the details, here is the patch.

I just looked at the download directory for bash and 1.14 seems to be the oldest version available, though you apparently have to back-diff it to get to 1.14.0. Who knows how long the bug may have been in there before that. So effectively, this bug has been in bash since day one.

And for those of you interested in the details, here is the patch.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

To do what exactly?

To mirror the website into a set of static HTML pages. This requires the blog to be up, of course.

BTW, '-m' doesn't appear to be valid wget command switch.

Manual claims it is.

It would be better... if you could program [Objective C] on something other than a Mac.

You can!

No idea what will be included in blivit in the long run, but at least AFAIK, parted lacks the following:
- lvm [1] [2].
- cryptofs [3]
- Complex software RAID setups (usually w/ lvm) [1].
- Network based storage management (iSCSI, etc).

- Gilboa
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/p...
[2] AFAIK gparted *does* support LVM, but it requires the LVM to be inactive while being used. Which more or less makes it useless when trying to management the storage on a production server...
[3] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/sho...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was possible to deploy "service as a software substitute" in a manner consistent with free software philosophy.

But it's the practicality of it that doesn't work, the same as RMS points out in his The Javascript Trap:
"It is possible to release a JavaScript program as free software, by distributing the source code under a free software license. But even if the program's source is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the original."

Sure you can release code under the AGPL but that code can call other web services (it does not mandate that other web services - or services of any kind for that matter - be released under the same license) making it impractical to replicate everything on your own system. Moreover whilst you can use the web application from almost any web-connected device you may not even have the hardware to replicate that functionality on your machine even if you have the code.

You do not have control, all you get is the source code that they tell you is compiled into the binary the server is running.

You must be very confused indeed if you are wondering about Stallman's view of open source.

He doesn't give a shit about "open source". He believes in Free Software.

You should check fsf.org and gnu.org for more info. This page might be a good starting point.

In general, he does not endorse any distribution that includes non-free software. (This is nearly all distributions.) He also makes no distinction between platforms and applications, or system vs. user software. It should, ideally, all be Free Software.

Give Stallman some software with a BSD license and see how he responds.

The FSF recognizes that a non-copyleft free software license is better in some cases, such as when trying to replace entrenched patented MP3 with newcomer free Vorbis (source; more reliable ones would be appreciated). It's also better for programs shorter than the GPL itself, as mentioned in the page about the suggested license for build scripts and the GPL FAQ's recommendation of the Apache License 2.0.

Give Stallman some software with a BSD license and see how he responds.

The FSF recognizes that a non-copyleft free software license is better in some cases, such as when trying to replace entrenched patented MP3 with newcomer free Vorbis (source; more reliable ones would be appreciated). It's also better for programs shorter than the GPL itself, as mentioned in the page about the suggested license for build scripts and the GPL FAQ's recommendation of the Apache License 2.0.

Give Stallman some software with a BSD license and see how he responds.

The FSF recognizes that a non-copyleft free software license is better in some cases, such as when trying to replace entrenched patented MP3 with newcomer free Vorbis (source; more reliable ones would be appreciated). It's also better for programs shorter than the GPL itself, as mentioned in the page about the suggested license for build scripts and the GPL FAQ's recommendation of the Apache License 2.0.

Here's what happened, taking away people's motivations and leaving only the legal/software stuff.

There are 3 distinct projects:
1. The Minecraft server, in this case decompiled. It has a proprietary license, and Mojang have been tacitly allowing it to be distributed.
2. Bukkit, a GPL library that could theoretically handle plugins for many Minecraft like games, although it's really only useful for Minecraft.
3. Craftbukkit, which statically links both Bukkit and Minecraft.

Now, here's the relevant section of the GPL FAQ, where it states that you cannot distribute a GPL and a proprietary program statically linked together.

A contributer to Bukkit (not Craftbukkit) for certain reasons blew the GPL whistle, and had Craftbukkit taken down for GPL violations.

Yes and no...

  Mojang didn't originally violate any license or infringe on copyright. Bukkit were always the ones in violation (of Mojang's license and copyright infringement). ...But now, Mojang "bought" Bukkit (the name and infrastructure, but not the code assets). This is where things get weird.

Mojang/Bukkit is no longer in violation of Mojang's copyright, but neither is the Bukkit package in compliance with the GPL. Although that actually isn't clear either:

A) Mojang/Bukkit are distributing the complete "source" to Bukkit (via the decompiled Minecraft server code). Although...that decompiled code isn't under GPL...

B) Bukkit is the derivative (much like writing a GPL driver for Windows, or in general the issues of linking GPL code to non-GPL code: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp...

Does Bukkit's license have the exception called for in the GPL FAQ linked above? Maybe, but it may not matter. Legally the exception may be considered implied because it was/is required and the distributor (the original Bukkit coders) knew/know that.

But reguardless...Mojang could easily side step the whole issue by stripping the Mojang/Bukkit distributable of all non-GPL code (ie, the decompiled Minecraft server code). So long as Mojang/Bukkit doesn't distribute GPL/non-GPL mixed binaries (ie, only distributes Bukkit source sans Minecraft source), they aren't in violation. The GPL only requires you distribute source for the binaries you distribute and it is not a violation to simply distribute source that can't be compiled or can only be compiled once "brewed" locally with non-GPL code by the end user. While that end-user can't legally distribute their non-compliant binaries, they can legally use them themselves.

And Mojang can count on the InterWebz to make available "unofficial" distributions of the needed decompiled Minecraft code and/or distributing (in violation) compiled binaries. Mojang isn't responsible for other people violating licenses (even as they benifit from the activity) and is under no obligation to expend effort or coin to pursue them. The butthurt Bukkit devs would need to do that legwork on their own dime if they cared.

The "Parts of Minecraft" are decompiled and unobfuscated by a third party from the Java binary that Mojang distribute. These parts infringe on Mojang's copyright, and have never been licensed for use anywhere. Technically, Mojang were doing the community a favour by not issuing legal challenges and takedowns for this illegal decompilation of their work.

Oh, and unless I've missed something, Wolfe can't issue a DMCA for his own code, as he has already licensed it under the GPL, and is not allowed to withdraw that license.

In all the various awks the string concatenation operator is implicit. Brian Kernighan is quoted as saying "It seemed like a good idea at the time".

Thus, awk literally has an invisible operator. Most coders make this a little more obvious with an explicit space, ASCII code 32 (decimal), but it's still invisible. Hijinks ensue.

Other that this, awk is admittedly a great language for text processing. And the GNU awk is an exceptionally good version - it permits fixed fields and socket I/O and has numeric conversion operators.

get neat one-liners for a thing most C programmers don't bother to do

Not bothering to check whether an allocation succeeded is a problem.

at the expense of adding a hard to notice source of bugs to every if statement.

Several compilers display a diagnostic for if (variable=value) which is silenced with if ((variable=value)). GCC for example offers -Wparentheses to warn "when there is an assignment in a context where a truth value is expected, or when operators are nested whose precedence people often get confused about."

So what you're basically saying is, you want the Hurd. Very few, if any, drivers in kernel space; most of them are user-space daemons.

The problem is, if a kernel-level driver stuffs something up to that extent, you don't know what went wrong. You don't know how to reliably fix it. Maybe everything's okay. Maybe it walked all over the system memory, and continuing would result in massive filesystem corruption. You don't know. At that point, the safest bet is to bail out. Sorry; you've lost everything you were working on that hasn't been saved; but at least you haven't lost everything on the system.

Maybe the Ukrainians could start using GNU Social or GNU Network?

Maybe the Ukrainians could start using GNU Social or GNU Network?

From: patl@athena.mit.edu (Patrick J..LoPresti)
Subject: The True Path (long)
Date: 11 Jul 91 03:17:31 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs,alt.slack

When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi *and* Emacs are just too damn slow.. They print useless messages like, 'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'.. So I use the editor that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.

Ed, man! !man ed

ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)

NAME
ed - text editor

SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
---

Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first alphabetically, but because it's the standard.. Everyone else loves ed because it's ED!

"Ed is the standard text editor."

And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair.. Just look:

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs


Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.

Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

"Ed is the standard text editor."

Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:

[see the real thing here. /. lameness filter doesn't like it]

Note the consistent user interface and error reportage.. Ed is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity.

"Ed is the standard text editor."

Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.

ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!

When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!!
Not a "viitor".. Not a "emacsitor".. Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED!
ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!

TEXT EDITOR.

When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their "edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No.. Emacs? Surely you jest.. They chose the most karmic editor of all.. The standard.

Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on.. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs.. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi.. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION.. THE SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS.. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!

?

Whoosh.

You can already ask some compilers to do what you are asking - it's just often not on in shipped builds.

At compilation time warnings can be generated for out of bounds accesses that can be determined statically. Clang has -fsanitize=bounds, GCC has -Warray-bounds.

As an Anonymous Coward pointed out, it can be hard to detect runtime allocations overruns at compilation time. For these something like Clang's AddressSanitizer (GCC has added it too will help but at a cost of both time (slow down factor of 2) and space which is why you're unlikely to find it enabled on your precompiled SSH server binary. It's true there are cheaper checks (such as GCC's FORTIFY_SOURCE) that are less thorough/specialized that are often enabled by distros.

The GPL wasn't designed with freedoms of the developer/company in mind; it was developed with freedoms of the client/user in mind. RMS started the whole thing partially because of his experience with a printer that the company refused to give drivers so he could make it work on his computer (see the section A Stark Moral Choice).

GPL protects the user's right to do what they want with the software once they've received it (either paid for it, or were given it for free - most software these days is free, but the GPL allows the developer to sell it too). GPLv3 was written when it was realized that a loophole was being used to prevent the owner of the device from changing out the software on the device -- a device the owner paid for and of course now owns! How ridiculous to let a company tell you that you are not allowed to tinker/update the thing you now own. So the "TiVoization" clause was added to prevent that in the future.

The GPL is more of a developer's promise that, once you have paid for the software (even if the price was $0), you will be given complete freedom to use the software as you see fit and the developer/seller will not interfere. That promise is made stronger legally with v3.

GNU/FSF projects won't accept contributions (beyond a couple lines) unless you've signed a CLA

This is basically the reason I don't use ebooks - with a paper book, I can buy it and read it, then my wife can read it, I can lend it to friends/family, it can sit on book shelves for years and then my kids can read it, their kids can read it decades later, or I can sell it, etc. All this stuff is considered the "normal" way to use a book. Compare to an ebook: I buy it. Then my wife has to buy it(*). Them my friends/family have to buy it. Then my kids have to buy it. Their kids have to buy it. See the problem?

Oh, and people used to make fun of Stallman's The Right to Read for being so far-fetched. Almost everything in there has already happened, and it only took 20 years, not 100.

but many open-source apps can be found at the store from unofficial sources that have a cost

FSF says it's perfectly fine to distribute free software for a fee, so long as the license is followed.

But platforms relying on a single app store have in the past made copyleft license compliance difficult or impossible. The GNU General Public License, for example, defines "source code" to include what GPLv3 calls "Installation Information" and GPLv2 calls "scripts used to control compilation and installation". When a platform requires all code to be digitally signed, a signing key is part of this "Information" or these "scripts". And the terms for obtaining a code signing certificate tend to forbid developers from sharing the private key with the public. This is why GPL software like VLC can't be on Apple's App Store, nor can ScummVM be on the Wii console.

I'm not sure if the idea of a contributor license as you suggest is in the spirit of open source

Perhaps you should share your qualms with the good folks over at the Free Software Foundation, since they insist on them as well.

Free Software != Open Source

I'm not sure if the idea of a contributor license as you suggest is in the spirit of open source

Perhaps you should share your qualms with the good folks over at the Free Software Foundation, since they insist on them as well.

You're moving the goalposts with this "No true Linux" thing.

I said GNU/Linux in #47550429 precisely to avoid "no true Linux".

if you buy an appliance-type computing device (which I gave multiple examples of already,

I must have missed where you named a make or model of appliance of using GNU/Linux, not a non-GNU userland on the Linux kernel. The point I was trying to get across in #47550429 was that GNU/Linux is less likely than other kinds of Linux-based operating system to come installed on an appliance locked down against its owner.

and smartphones are one)

As the GNU/Linux FAQ explains: "There are complete systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is an example. [...] What makes Android different from GNU/Linux is the absence of GNU." I think we're in violent agreement on the concept, just not on the terminology.

It's news because so many people are never taught to think of software freedom. Instead sites like this one shill for Microsoft, Apple, and a weaker "open source" message that was designed to draw attention away from ethical examination of the issue. Cutting off service and not providing programs for various systems are just two of the things proprietors with the power they wield over users. Software freedom would mean letting users maintain older OSes as much as they want to, backport programs they found valuable, and run builds of modern programs as much as desired.

You're quite right to point out that Apple is no friend on these grounds. But this shouldn't be looked at in terms of business; the effect on the user is far more important. Proprietors are the same in how they treat people because the heart of any nonfree software is unethical power over someone else's use of a computer. Richard Stallman reminds us that Apple uses this same leverage to pressure users into malicious "upgrades":

Using the lever of "You have a choice, but unless you say yes, your old activities will stop working" is something that Apple has done before, with malicious "upgrades". Apple ostensibly doesn't force people to accept the new nasty thing; it just punishes them if they don't.

Nobody should be obliged to work on developing programs and nobody should have the power to prevent users from developing the software.

It's news because so many people are never taught to think of software freedom. Instead sites like this one shill for Microsoft, Apple, and a weaker "open source" message that was designed to draw attention away from ethical examination of the issue. Cutting off service and not providing programs for various systems are just two of the things proprietors with the power they wield over users. Software freedom would mean letting users maintain older OSes as much as they want to, backport programs they found valuable, and run builds of modern programs as much as desired.

You're quite right to point out that Apple is no friend on these grounds. But this shouldn't be looked at in terms of business; the effect on the user is far more important. Proprietors are the same in how they treat people because the heart of any nonfree software is unethical power over someone else's use of a computer. Richard Stallman reminds us that Apple uses this same leverage to pressure users into malicious "upgrades":

Using the lever of "You have a choice, but unless you say yes, your old activities will stop working" is something that Apple has done before, with malicious "upgrades". Apple ostensibly doesn't force people to accept the new nasty thing; it just punishes them if they don't.

Nobody should be obliged to work on developing programs and nobody should have the power to prevent users from developing the software.

Ed, man!

( obligatory, credit to: https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/... )

When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi and Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like, ‘C-h for help’ and ‘“foo” File is read only’. So I use the editor that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.

Ed, man! !man ed

ED(1) Unix Programmer's Manual ED(1)

NAME
          ed - text editor

SYNOPSIS
          ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
          Ed is the standard text editor.
---

Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed because it's ED!

“Ed is the standard text editor.”

And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs
Of course, on the system I administrate, vi is symlinked to ed. Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

“Ed is the standard text editor.”

Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:

golem$ ed

?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
---

Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity.

“Ed is the standard text editor.”

Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.

ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!

When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!! Not a “viitor”. Not a “emacsitor”. Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!

TEXT EDITOR.

When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their “edlin” on a Unix standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.

Ed is for those who can remember what they are working on. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE SO-CALLED “VISUAL” EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!

So don't buy a TiVo then. "Tivoization of your code" is nonsense because Tivoization doesn't have anything to do with the code, in fact you can get the code here licensed under GPLv2 and use it under those terms just as you would any GPLv2 project.

Read the preamble to the GPLv2 or the philosophy of the FSF. Tivoization is a legal end run around the philosophical purpose the license.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

"Specifically, free software means users have the four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions."

Tivoization of GPL code preserves those 4 rights, but withholds the implicit desire of GPL users to be able to exercise those rights on the hardware the software is running on.

Tivoization is a manifestation of "what good is your right to a phone call, if we take away your ability to speak".

When the GPL2 was written no one had conceived that you might receive GPL code installed on a device, be allowed to run it, be allowed to change it, be allowed to redistribute it... but NOT be allowed to run the changed software on the original device.

It was a loophole that was implicitly intended by the GPLv2, but not made explicit. The GPLv3 attempts to close the loophole.

And as an aside, the AGPL3 is mean to meant to close another loophole that wasn't originally conceived of... developers would use GPL code, and distribute only access to the code running remotely rather than copies of the code itself, thereby exempting them from the need to share the source.

You'd not only rightly reject Google Chrome you'd also reject choice as a reason to favor nonfree software. Chrome is a nonfree browser so that is right out. A choice of nonfree programs doesn't satisfy what computer users need—software freedom. Choice is easily satisfied in that there's more than one alternative but choice of software says nothing about how well the alternatives address important needs to control one's computer (rather than letting the software control the users). So choice of software is a weak substitute for the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify software.

Stallman is crazy. Even crazy people can be right about a few things here and there, but overall he's a zealot. The jokes goes "even a stopped watch is right a couple times a day - though you need a second working watch to see when."

The Hurd has been under development since 1983. Three decades, and still not a stable version? When he started the HURD we didn't have the web, nor the Internet. If we waited for Stallman to actually ship, we would have lost out on a lot (both good and bad, but mostly good).

The issue with Stallman is where do you stop? OK, so now you have an OS totally under your control (well maybe, but lets pretend yes). Now, the hardware! OK, rewrite the BIOS/OpenFirmware. Now you're under control! No, there may be stuff in the chips.... lets go grab some sand.

Soon enough, you either have to say you write everything (and this is the mess you get from making your own toaster) or just realize you need to have faith in some companies you may or may not want to trust.

The other thing that seems to be frequently lost in these "Linus acting off" articles is how few and far between his rants actually are. We see 1, perhaps 2 of these a year? And as near as I can tell practically *all* of his discussions are on public mailing lists.

I suspect most readers getting all hot and bothered over Linus's response on the kernel mailing list probably missed the fact he went and raised a GCC bug on the issue, and seemed to have a perfectly reasonable interaction with the GCC developers: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

Actually, "in the engineering room" he sang a different tune: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

GCC 4.5.0 was released in April 2010, so I wonder how many kernel oops it has caused.

To be fair, the tirade occurred on the Linux Kernel mailing list and was intra-kernel team bitching. This wasn't directed at the gcc devs personally - he was telling another kernel dev that the output of from his version of gcc was crap. It's a snapshot of a mailing list conversation, not an official statement.

His actual bug report was professional and courteous. He thanked the gcc devs for quickly coming up with a fix.

Claiming the GCC crew will 'fix this bug in short order' is like claiming Obama is leading the charge in transparent government.

Since the bug has already been fixed, I suppose this means you'll be wholeheartedly endorsing Obama now?

End result, the GCC people will fix this bug in short order (what are GCC point releases for anyway)

The bug was reported 4 point releases ago. It just now started effecting the kernel.

In fact, it has been fixed in trunk even before Linus' rant.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

... and they already fixed the bug two weeks ago, see the bug report

According to the actual bug report this problem seams to have started in 4.5. They only triggered it in 4.9.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s...

What you are looking for already exists. The Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA) is a license that implements certain restrictions on software use, based on the universal declaration of human rights.

However, because of these additional restrictions, it cannot be considered to be a free software license in the strict sense even though it shares many similarities. It is unlikely that the FSF/RMS will ever create a similar license, as they criticized the HESSLA for beeing ineffectice (as others have mentioned, governments and the "defense industry" will simply ignore the restrictions) while harming the free software movement due to incompatibilities with other licenses.

If you really want to do something against oppressive, war-mongering governments, trying to make use of the law controlled by the same people is hardly going to be effective. Instead, it would be more beneficial if we focused our efforts on a technical level where we can actually make a difference, e.g. by making surveillance harder by using secure, standardized protocols.

If the drive's software were flashable (the device could be updated with different software) and the software were Free Software, there would be no reason to fear Intel's connection to the NSA. Users would have the freedoms they need to make sure the software does what they want it to do. Proprietary encryption, no matter who writes it or distributes it, is always untrustworthy for the same reason proprietary software is untrustworthy—you don't really know what it's doing and neither does anyone you can trust to help you understand what it's doing. Furthermore you can't make it do what you want and you can't help others by distributing improved versions that respect other user's freedoms.

[...] not everything has to be blessed by Stallmann to be acceptable

Regarding this point, Stallman certainly does endorse Free Software. And so much of what is in OpenBSD is Free Software—software that respects a user's software freedom—and the same goes for OpenSSL. Stallman (and his organization, the Free Software Foundation(FSF)) are known for standing up for a user's software freedom. Non-copylefted Free Software is Free Software. Furthermore, in 2004 the FSF gave Theo de Raadt an award for the Advancement of Free Software, "[f]or recognition as founder and project leader of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects, Theo de Raadt's work has also led to significant contributions to other BSD distributions and GNU/Linux. Of particular note is Theo's work on OpenSSH". A free system need not include GNU software or be licensed under a GNU license (such as the GPL) to respect a user's software freedom.

The FSF is quite clear why it doesn't list OpenBSD (or the other BSD distributions) in their list of Free system distributions:

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs.

Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called "blobs", and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term "blob" means something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD distributions (called "projects" by BSD developers) have the policy of not including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the developers say these distributions âoecontain no blobsâ, it causes a misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.

No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware that might be loaded even by free drivers.

Including nonfree software and pointing users to nonfree software is quite common among those who endorse the open source philosophy, as the FSF has long pointed out (older essay, newer essay). The open source movement's philosophy is a development methodology built to toss aside software freedom for practical convenience in an attempt to be "more acceptable to business". So this philosophical difference sets up a radically different reaction in the face of reliable, powerful proprietary software. Quoting the newer essay:

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

[...] not everything has to be blessed by Stallmann to be acceptable

Regarding this point, Stallman certainly does endorse Free Software. And so much of what is in OpenBSD is Free Software—software that respects a user's software freedom—and the same goes for OpenSSL. Stallman (and his organization, the Free Software Foundation(FSF)) are known for standing up for a user's software freedom. Non-copylefted Free Software is Free Software. Furthermore, in 2004 the FSF gave Theo de Raadt an award for the Advancement of Free Software, "[f]or recognition as founder and project leader of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects, Theo de Raadt's work has also led to significant contributions to other BSD distributions and GNU/Linux. Of particular note is Theo's work on OpenSSH". A free system need not include GNU software or be licensed under a GNU license (such as the GPL) to respect a user's software freedom.

The FSF is quite clear why it doesn't list OpenBSD (or the other BSD distributions) in their list of Free system distributions:

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs.

Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called "blobs", and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term "blob" means something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD distributions (called "projects" by BSD developers) have the policy of not including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the developers say these distributions âoecontain no blobsâ, it causes a misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.

No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware that might be loaded even by free drivers.

Including nonfree software and pointing users to nonfree software is quite common among those who endorse the open source philosophy, as the FSF has long pointed out (older essay, newer essay). The open source movement's philosophy is a development methodology built to toss aside software freedom for practical convenience in an attempt to be "more acceptable to business". So this philosophical difference sets up a radically different reaction in the face of reliable, powerful proprietary software. Quoting the newer essay:

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

[...] not everything has to be blessed by Stallmann to be acceptable

Regarding this point, Stallman certainly does endorse Free Software. And so much of what is in OpenBSD is Free Software—software that respects a user's software freedom—and the same goes for OpenSSL. Stallman (and his organization, the Free Software Foundation(FSF)) are known for standing up for a user's software freedom. Non-copylefted Free Software is Free Software. Furthermore, in 2004 the FSF gave Theo de Raadt an award for the Advancement of Free Software, "[f]or recognition as founder and project leader of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects, Theo de Raadt's work has also led to significant contributions to other BSD distributions and GNU/Linux. Of particular note is Theo's work on OpenSSH". A free system need not include GNU software or be licensed under a GNU license (such as the GPL) to respect a user's software freedom.

The FSF is quite clear why it doesn't list OpenBSD (or the other BSD distributions) in their list of Free system distributions:

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs.

Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called "blobs", and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term "blob" means something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD distributions (called "projects" by BSD developers) have the policy of not including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the developers say these distributions âoecontain no blobsâ, it causes a misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.

No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware that might be loaded even by free drivers.

Including nonfree software and pointing users to nonfree software is quite common among those who endorse the open source philosophy, as the FSF has long pointed out (older essay, newer essay). The open source movement's philosophy is a development methodology built to toss aside software freedom for practical convenience in an attempt to be "more acceptable to business". So this philosophical difference sets up a radically different reaction in the face of reliable, powerful proprietary software. Quoting the newer essay:

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

[...] not everything has to be blessed by Stallmann to be acceptable

Regarding this point, Stallman certainly does endorse Free Software. And so much of what is in OpenBSD is Free Software—software that respects a user's software freedom—and the same goes for OpenSSL. Stallman (and his organization, the Free Software Foundation(FSF)) are known for standing up for a user's software freedom. Non-copylefted Free Software is Free Software. Furthermore, in 2004 the FSF gave Theo de Raadt an award for the Advancement of Free Software, "[f]or recognition as founder and project leader of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects, Theo de Raadt's work has also led to significant contributions to other BSD distributions and GNU/Linux. Of particular note is Theo's work on OpenSSH". A free system need not include GNU software or be licensed under a GNU license (such as the GPL) to respect a user's software freedom.

The FSF is quite clear why it doesn't list OpenBSD (or the other BSD distributions) in their list of Free system distributions:

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include instructions for obtaining nonfree programs in their ports system. In addition, their kernels include nonfree firmware blobs.

Nonfree firmware programs used with Linux, the kernel, are called "blobs", and that's how we use the term. In BSD parlance, the term "blob" means something else: a nonfree driver. OpenBSD and perhaps other BSD distributions (called "projects" by BSD developers) have the policy of not including those. That is the right policy, as regards drivers; but when the developers say these distributions âoecontain no blobsâ, it causes a misunderstanding. They are not talking about firmware blobs.

No BSD distribution has policies against proprietary binary-only firmware that might be loaded even by free drivers.

Including nonfree software and pointing users to nonfree software is quite common among those who endorse the open source philosophy, as the FSF has long pointed out (older essay, newer essay). The open source movement's philosophy is a development methodology built to toss aside software freedom for practical convenience in an attempt to be "more acceptable to business". So this philosophical difference sets up a radically different reaction in the face of reliable, powerful proprietary software. Quoting the newer essay:

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.

The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.