OSNews

I think the reason this is a good thing is that it gets rid of the concept of a "good" software repository (the free one) and a "bad" software repository (the non-free one).

Only some parts have been released under the GPL at this point. They don't plan to have it in its entirety GPLed until the release of 1.7.

Not yet, no. Only the Java Micro Edition has been GPL'd as of the end of 2006. The Java Standard Edition should be released under the GPL sometime during early 2007 (according to Sun's Java website).

http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Interviews/lynch_qa...

"Automatix takes about 2 commands to get installed"

One of the aim of this package is in fact to get ride of automatix.
The full spec is here :
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommonCustomizations

"""and this is where a lot of FOSS slips up. Don't mix your ethics with your process."""

Indeed. It is sometimes tempting for programmers and distro maintainers to use their superior grasp of the technical as a weapon to coerce users into their way of thinking.

And it is usually a bad idea.

Take care of your customers. If you don't, someone else will.

Actually, this is an example of how to reach both communities.

This makes the default decision "ship open source" (except for firmware, which Debian is okay with too) but make it *easy* for people to *choice* to add non-open source components.

This ensures that the base distribution will be free from the issues associated with proprietary software (and encourages the development of open source alternatives), but allows people to choose to make the short term tradeoffs on a case by case basis.

Please don't turn this into yet another discussion about what constitutes "real" freedom. Thanks.

The system itself doesn't have any non-free codecs. It is up to user to decide and install those packages. Instead of doing:

apt-get install gstreamer0.10-pitfdll gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-multiverse gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly-multiverse gxine libxine-main1 libxine-extracodecs ogle ogle-gui

as one had before, user now types 'only':

apt-gt install ubuntu-restricted-extras .

After reading TFM one can see the clear warining:

"The use, modification and distribution of restricted extras is restricted by copyright or by legal terms in some countries."

I fail to see you logic, and the reason why is this "bad news".

The article is blocked by my proxy, but hey :
"The use, modification and distribution of restricted extras is restricted by copyright or by legal terms in some countries."

Is that all you've got ? Nothing about freedom, free software ?

Ubuntu is definitly not for me...

Do you think 99% of the users give a damn about that?

That's fine that it's not for you but it's that attitude that has been keeping Linux from wider acceptance. There are many people who are very interested in an alternative to Microsoft but who don't care that they are running 100% free software.

Distributions are going to have to start compromising on things like this and proprietary video drivers if Linux is ever going to be more than a niche product.

Choice is rarely a bad thing.

It is clearly shown that none of this is installed by default, therefore your vanilla system does not include these items. Some people will want this and some will not. Those who do must make a conscious effort to add it.

As for "what if it hoses my machine ?" well two things: first software cannot easily "hose" a machine, only other software and data (including, in extreme cases, an OS). Second, as with any software you may install, you are always doing so at your own risk, read most EULAs they will explicitly exclude reponsibility for any "damage" caused.

Choice must be excercised wisely. This applies in all of life.

Edited 2007-01-09 08:04

From what I understand, the MS Fonts are freely available for download from non-MS sites, however they may only be distributed if you have a license from MS. Basically, although it's inconvenient to enable, MS can't use this as a club in the future.

//From what I understand, the MS Fonts are freely available for download from non-MS sites, however they may only be distributed if you have a license from MS.//

I don't believe even that is required. AFAIK, MS originally distributed these TTF fonts in .cab or .exe format at a time when only Windows systems could deal with .cab or .exe, and only Windows systems could use TTF fonts anyway. AFAIK, MS stipulated no restrictions on the fonts other than that they had to be re-distributed in their original form only.

MS gave them in this form to sourceforge, after all.

At one point (quite early on), MS actually were interested in web interoperability. They have changed their tune since.

I think the opposite is true. Including stuff that people want is imperative. If at some stage Patent issues or Copyright comes into play then with a greater audience that is using Ubuntu there will be a greater understanding of how FUBAR the whole software industry is in those respects.

It might lead to then seeing people who have become accustomed to Ubuntu as an OS stick with it but tell the Law and MS to f-off. At the end of the day it is the sum of all the little people who pull the weight not a corporation. If enough little people band together then there is one hell of a voice to contend with.

Worked in many a revolution so why not here?

Edited 2007-01-08 22:51

//I think a distinction must be made in this case as MS created and patented this software for it's own use, and so has an undeniable and absolute right to do whatever it wants with it.//

While you could debate this one way or another, I don't believe this is actually the case for TrueType and the MS core web fonts.

MS published the TrueType specification, and MS released the core web fonts for public redistribution.

AFAIK, the only caveat placed on the redistribution was that the fonts had to remain in their original form. No "derivatives" allowed. You may not edit the fonts and derive look-alikes.