Re: [GNU-linux-libre] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs

[Riley Baird]

On 29/12/14 15:31, Jason Self wrote:
> Riley Baird <address@hidden> wrote ..
>> So, it is with great excitement that I announce today LibertyBSD.
> 
> I wonder if there is an advantage to work with the people of NuBSD [0]
> instead of starting another free BSD?

I hadn't heard of them. It seems that they're system is based on
FreeBSD, though. In any case, since I've already finished making
LibertyBSD, I don't see any point in not releasing it.

>> LibertyBSD is a fork of OpenBSD that contains only free software.
> 
> I've not been able to examine LibrertyBSD, mostly due to the last item
> I mention, but from the website I do have a concern. The FAQ mentions:
> 
>> Does the ports tree work with LibertyBSD?
>> Most likely yes, but it has not been tested. However, usage is
>> discouraged for the following reasons:
>>
>> * Programs in the ports tree have not undergone a security audit by
>> OpenBSD's developers. By using the ports tree, you may very well be
>> undermining the security of your own system.
>> * The ports tree contains Makefiles for some non-free programs, and
>> these are not labelled as such. If this concerns you, you'll need to
>> do some research on the program that you're building first.
>>
>> Do you have plans to make a ports tree with only free software?
>> Depending on how this fundraiser goes, I might be interested in
>> starting a fundraiser for a free ports tree later on. (I don't have
>> the time or the skills to do a security audit of the ports, though,
>> so that problem would still remain.)
> 
> Until/unless an FSDG ports tree exists, I suspect that this means 
> that LibertyBSD would need to not have a ports tree at all in order 
> be compliant with the GNU FSDG. ("The system should have no 
> repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for 
> installation of particular nonfree programs.")

I already strongly recommend against using the ports tree. However, the
BSDs being what they are, a ports tree fetched two weeks from now may
not work on a release downloaded today.

For this reason, I would like to provide the tarball of a working ports
tree, such that people can work on deblobbing it if they wish to do so.
Otherwise, there is no hope of ever having a free ports tree.

It seems that this is okay with the FSDG, "For a borderline case, a
clear and serious exhortation not to use the nonfree program would move
it to the acceptable side of the line."