WAT.
An example: http://openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43
You can even download an MP3 or Ogg of it being sung (With backing.) by Nikkos Diochnos.
Needless to say, the BSD guys aren't really fans.
>Richard felt that this "ports tree" of ours made OpenBSD non-free. He came to our mailing lists and lectured to us specifically, yet he said nothing to the many other vendors who do the same; many of them donate to the FSF and perhaps that has something to do with it.
See here for example: http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
Stallman and the FSF apply the same standard everywhere. He rejects Red Hat (a major GNU sponsor) as "non-free" just like OpenBSD, in contrast to what the BSD guys claim.
>Richard has personally made sure that all the official GNU software -- including Emacs -- compiles and runs on Windows.
What?! Most official GNU software does NOT run on Windows.
to complement this story a little. rms had heard from one source or another that OpenBSD was "completely free" too (probably based on their hard and much appreciated work on wifi drivers and blobs), and looked into the matter to see if it could be included in the list of FSF endorsed operating systems (which thus far have only GNU/Linux systems). He found references to non-free software in the ports tree and wrote to the openbsd mailing list to ask for clarifications. There were actually a few saner voices who politely stated that was the intent and that OpenBSD as a project had a different definition of "free" and as such should not be included in the officially endorsed FSF-list.
Of course, for the less stable elements, it was a good pretext to scoff and insult the the man. Some even riled on and created a song about it. OpenBSD is a fine operating system, but for a normal person the culture around it can be quiteoffputting.
Choice statement:
> Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development.
> Don't waste it!
Also, I don't mean to implicate that you share beliefs with the OpenBSD people, since you are merely reporting on their position -- accurately, in my mind. But I thought this is an interesting bit of related information for the discussion.
FreeBSD is pretty much neutral on the GPL, but BSD licensed software is sort of their "thing", so it's natural they'd prefer a BSD licensed compiler.
NetBSD used to be pretty hostile until control was wrested from wasabi systems which disliked the GPL because it prevented them from closing down GPL software.
Dragonfly never really took a position, so it's safe to assume they're neutral too.
That leaves only the OpenBSD guys, of whom (some of) the vocal part thinks anything not OpenBSD is a joke.
I think that's a bit more of a qualifier than "The BSD guys", most of which don't particularly care about phasing out GNU (even though that happens when accumulating BSD licensed software in their OS), some of which are sympathetic but simply like BSD systems more, and what seems to be a fringe minority which is actually hostile for one reason or another.