Wheres the "WHAT?!". The BSD guys have gone on record multiple times saying that they think that RMS and GNU are a joke. It seems natural that they would try and phase out GNU when possible in light of this belief.
Hm. That example is entertaining and creative, but not really consistent with the actual viewpoints of the FSF[0].
Choice statement:
> Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development.
> Don't waste it!
Redhat is a good example of a company doing well distributing free software and making money doing it; it's just that the typical shrink-wrap license business model doesn't fare so well when copying and modifying the distributed program is allowed and protected.
Also, I don't mean to implicate that you share beliefs with the OpenBSD people, since you are merely reporting on their position -- accurately, in my mind. But I thought this is an interesting bit of related information for the discussion.
FreeBSD is pretty much neutral on the GPL, but BSD licensed software is sort of their "thing", so it's natural they'd prefer a BSD licensed compiler.
NetBSD used to be pretty hostile until control was wrested from wasabi systems which disliked the GPL because it prevented them from closing down GPL software.
Dragonfly never really took a position, so it's safe to assume they're neutral too.
That leaves only the OpenBSD guys, of whom (some of) the vocal part thinks anything not OpenBSD is a joke.
I think that's a bit more of a qualifier than "The BSD guys", most of which don't particularly care about phasing out GNU (even though that happens when accumulating BSD licensed software in their OS), some of which are sympathetic but simply like BSD systems more, and what seems to be a fringe minority which is actually hostile for one reason or another.
>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.
Stallman and the FSF apply the same standard everywhere. He rejects Red Hat (a major GNU sponsor) as "non-free" just like OpenBSD, in contrast to what the BSD guys claim.
>Richard has personally made sure that all the official GNU software -- including Emacs -- compiles and runs on Windows.
What?! Most official GNU software does NOT run on Windows.
">Richard felt that this "ports tree" of ours made OpenBSD non-free. He came to our mailing lists and lectured to us specifically"
to complement this story a little. rms had heard from one source or another that OpenBSD was "completely free" too (probably based on their hard and much appreciated work on wifi drivers and blobs), and looked into the matter to see if it could be included in the list of FSF endorsed operating systems (which thus far have only GNU/Linux systems).
He found references to non-free software in the ports tree and wrote to the openbsd mailing list to ask for clarifications.
There were actually a few saner voices who politely stated that was the intent and that OpenBSD as a project had a different definition of "free" and as such should not be included in the officially endorsed FSF-list.
Of course, for the less stable elements, it was a good pretext to scoff and insult the the man. Some even riled on and created a song about it. OpenBSD is a fine operating system, but for a normal person the culture around it can be quiteoffputting.
For bonus points, in the actual recording they note that Hypocrites "Smells like thousand year old goat cheese.". which no doubt refers to Stallmans's legendary hygienic practices. [0]
Yea, most BSD guys I know are also fans of Apple; iOS and Macs on desktop rather than GNU or Linux and Clang is supported by Apple for license reasons.
