[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No more ports of unfree software



Hello!

> This is the problem with this little sub-topic we're on.  Several don't
> think ports set with PERMIT_* set to "no" conflict with the Goals.  If
> it is "ruled" as such then there it is... so be it.

I see the ports tree as an instrument to make installing software 
easier and cleaner. A port bundles all fixes/patches/extensions made 
specifically for OpenBSD.The problem with taking out ports of non-free 
software is that it makes it much more difficult to install proprietary 
software.  And let's face it, the world does not entirely consist of 
Free Software (which is a pity). Example: To do any serious Java 
programming, you need devel/jdk.  It would be a PITA if you had to 
consult *two* separate port collections to find a working version.

> Don't think of it as "I can't have software I once could" think in 
> terms
> of "I'd like to run "foo" but it breaks on OpenBSD and I don't know
> enough {C|make|C++|shell|perl|python|whatever} to make it work.  I wish
> there was a central place that people who know that sort of thing would
> place it... like the ports tree or something."  :)

Yes, that is the point. The ports tree is the place where users look 
when they want to install a program, free or not. Fragmentation of the 
ports tree is a Bad Thing (tm). Even the Debian project, which has been 
known to be very picky about licenses, have an *official* "non-free" 
section (albeit separate from the main section).

--Benny.