Talk:OpenBSD/Archive 1

message: Theo de Raadt gave me a permission to include a picture with OpenBSD logo. Click "Sloven?čina" at the main article to se it --193.2.136.41 12:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo Permissions 

message: Hello, I have made the following changes (diff here) to the page regarding the recent changes in the 3.7 snapshots. I forgot to login and didn't notice. --Kintaro 10:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.7 changes added 

message: If you look in the history, you'll find that I am making all sorts of random changes to this article.  Please fix any mistakes on dates and data I make, I am doing parts of this from my memory and have to track down better details for some of this, especially the information on grep, diff and gzip.  I will be looking in the archives of mailing lists for better details and if that fails, cvs.  65.94.52.193 21:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's it for now.  I'll try and go over that tomorrow to see if I made any gross errors, but I think it's pretty much right. 65.94.52.193 23:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presently being rewritten 

message: I believe it would be useful to indicate that Eclipse 3.1 (the latest stable version) is in the ports tree.  I know Wikipedia isn't a publicity platform, but I think it is worthwhile to inform potential users of that fact.
Currently, high-level application developers are very much interested in Eclipse and NetBeans.  They get the impression (I have only anecdotal evidence) that OpenBSD has only low-level (not in the pejorative meaning) dev. tools.
Pascal D.
:I don't think "low-level" is used as a pejorative in this context. Anyway, including that info in the article seems like a good idea. --Yath 20:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that would be a mistake. If someone wants to know that Eclipse is in the ports tree, they can take a look for themselves -- there is a link in the article. This is an article primarily about OpenBSD and not the software that runs on it. Dysprosia 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it is an article about OpenBSD and not the software that runs on it.  Though, asking for people new to OpenBSD to browse the Web CVS ports tree to figure out if Eclipse or NetBeans is available isn't a nice solution.  The goal is to inform potential users of the fact that "major" applications ARE available for this OS too.  I am not going to fight 'till death for that one though. ;-) --[Pascal D.] 24.202.172.138 16:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application development with Eclipse 

message: The development team for OpenBSD is "Theo de Raadt"?  He is the coordinator alright, but "the" team? --[Pascal D.] 24.202.172.138 16:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it inline with various other projects listed under "Free software operating systems". SimonMorgan 21:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development team 

message: The article reads:
"In their many years of "liberating" code, OpenBSD has made some significant strides - here are some highlights:"
Followed by a list that includes several replacements of GPL utilities.  According to wikipedia, GPL is a free software license.  Even according to the OpenBSD project, GPL is free (since they still include GPLed code in base).  But the article is impliing that it had to be "liberated".  I consider that to be POV.
However, just replacing the word with something else that doesn't imply GPL is not free is not enough, IMHO.  This is supposed to be a list of "significant strides".  And I don't think that things like re-writing grep or bc are significant strides.  Specialy when there's already a free version available (which is probably more complete).
I suggest simply removing the references to "GPL to BSD" rewrites.
Robertmh 19:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right about terminology, but you are confusing the issue of "significant strides", read the sentence backwards. Dysprosia 22:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You are completely wrong, liberating is a word which implies the removal of restrictions, that is exactly what is being done.  The GPL is not something that needs to be mentioned with this part, because it is soon followed by all those GPL programmes which were replaced, listing the reason for the replacement on a programme by programme basis.  Your point of view on what a significant stride is is obviously different from that of the OpenBSD team, which are looking to make this system more liberal - thus any replacement of a restrictive item is a step forward.  If someone wanted, they could make an even more liberated operating system, it could be released under the public domain.  That would be even more liberal than OpenBSD.  Think in degrees, where the GPL is less free than the BSDL and thus being replaced with the more liberal one.  Janizary 09:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course in this sense the word liberating means removal of restrictions. But this is not clear to all, and thus may not be exactly NPOV. Explaining what is going on would be best and neutral. Dysprosia 09:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO the current wording (In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licenced releases of code) is fair and NPOV. Whether or not you agree with the BSD philosphy or the GPL philsophy is irrelevant since the license of a BSD type licenses is clearly more liberal then GPL. If you really feel the need to change it, then perhaps something like "In addition, OpenBSD has a history of fighting for more liberally licensed that is fewer license restrictions on releases of code" Nil Einne 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "liberating code" is POV