On remet un peu d'huile sur le feu avec cet autre mail :

If OpenBSD eliminates the non-free programs from the ports system that it recommends to users, then I will consider it good.

Bon, c'est parti dans tous les sens, chacun répondant à l'autre. Alors, résumons donc en récapitulant les réactions de Theo de Raadt :

The ports tree is just a scaffold.

Richard, you are wrong. You said very clearly in your interview that the ports tree contains non-free software. It does not. It is just a scaffold of Makefiles containing URLs, and an occasional patch here or there.

You are just plain wrong. And you are not enough of a man to admit that you are wrong.

I may be unfriendly at times, but you are a power-misusing hypocritical liar who attacks projects that try harder than any others to only make free software available.

Shame on you.

Mais Theo a été trop gentil jusqu'à présent. Le connaissant, il a dû bondir de sa chaise en lisant le mail de RMS, étant donné que c'est l'hôpital qui se fout de la charité...

But once again, you failed to educate yourself before you opened your big fat mouth on a talk show and stated utterly uneducated and false statements . You have had ample opportunity to say "I was wrong", yet you have not done so yet.

You keep argueing, and that is because you are a coward.

Alors, donc, RMS critique OpenBSD car il inciterait les gens à utiliser du logiciel non libre ?

The actual real issue is that gcc has code in it to let it compile on Solaris, and even on Windows.

That encourages users to continue using non-free software.

Richard, you are a big hypocrite.

Un peu plus de preuve :

Please see

http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html

And

ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/

What's that, there?

Emacs *binaries* for *Windows*

Supplied right by Richard's http and ftp mirrors.

Richard, I may be unfriendly, but you are a lying hypocritical asshole.

Et dans un autre mail :

GCC contains a file called config/sol2.h:

/* Operating system specific defines to be used when targeting GCC for any Solaris 2 system. Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

What does that say to the public? It says you can use gcc on a non-free operating system.

How's it feel to be a hypocrite?

What about

gcc/config/rs6000/aix.h gcc/config/vax/vms.h

Or how about gcc/config/i386/win32.h:

/* Operating system specific defines to be used when targeting GCC for hosting on Windows NT 3.x, using a Unix style C library and tools, as distinct from winnt.h, which is used to build GCC for use with a windows style library and tool set and uses the Microsoft tools. Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

And hordes thousands upon thousands of #ifdef's and other crap to support the Windows ABI.

I note that date of 1995 on the above file. That's around the last time when you were around actually touching code, right?

Richard, you are a total hypocrite. You are in here creating a fuss about our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same thing yourself.

Alors, Theo de Raadt est sûrement l'un des plus gros trolleurs de la terre, la plus grande gueule de l'open-source, et a d'autres défauts. Mais sur ce coup, on est venu encore une fois le faire chier sur sa mailing-list et il a clairement bien su répondre à Stallman (qui d'ailleurs détourne toutes les questions qu'on lui pose).
Et quand on sait qu'OpenBSD est sûrement le dernier système vraiment libre, ça la fout mal de reprocher ça...
Alors Stallman serait un gros hypocrite fouteur de merde ? Eh oui, on a beau être des grand acteurs du logiciel libre, cela n'empêche pas de se comporter en adulte :-)