[jprzybyl]

I personally like free software. (My personal stance lines up the most with the Debian Social Contract.)

However, OpenBSD (my second choice of system) does not, and they've been vocal in the past.

https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43

It's pretty simple - freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That includes in a proprietary environment. That includes whatever you want it to include. The other three freedoms then tell you "except in some ways we personally don't like."

They also don't like the FSF much. They have done some things that are a little controversial, like require devs to cede ownership of code so that the FSF can relicense when they want to (mostly to new versions of the GPL).

[JdeBP]

That's a misrepresentation of what the OpenBSD people were getting at. They had a dispute with Richard Stallman over his deciding to not endorse OpenBSD. That does not mean that they don't like free software. Tellingly, the ports tree has an abundance of free softwares. The idea that they don't like free softwares is disproven by the very thing that they and Stallman had the dispute over.

[bonoboTP]

What are you talking about? You can use the software however you wish. Even "in a proprietary environment" (like you can run LibreOffice in Windows).

What you mean is probably copyleft licensing which is only a subset of free software licenses. Copyleft means that you cannot redistribute the software and its derivatives unless you give the freedoms down the road to your clients/users as well.

However, there are free software licenses that aren't copyleft too.

[jprzybyl]

> What you mean is probably copyleft licensing which is only a subset of free software licenses.

Yep, that's what I meant! Sorry, wrote that one late last night...