To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
(which is good for users)
Well, that's just it. The theory goes that in the long run it's bad for users. The FSF stance is that promoting or aiding proprietary software to spread is evil exactly because the general population gives up their freedom to easily. By luring them into using proprietary software you have contributed to robbing them of their freedom.
The short-term fix may be to skip the hard work of reimplementing what functionality is already served proprietary. But in the long run that will leave the user without the power to help himself or his neighbor with their software.
RE: (Perhaps stupid) ultra-free Ubuntu question
"The better name is Ultra-FSF, with a resemblance sense to Ultra-Nazi. It's limiting the user choice to use anything whatever the license".
I'll refrain from commenting on the first point you made as I'm not sure I understand it. As to the second, I think you may have misenterpreted the intent of this discussed release. Far from limtiting choice, it extends choice. From what I understand one can either choose a 'regular' Ubuntu that includes some select propietary components, or they can choose an entirely free-software version. Therefore the "restriction" of which you write is entirely self-imposed. I myself use a few proprietary components (codecs and flash) but nonetheless, I am all for the new release. For anyone who so vehemently opposes a free-only version of Ubuntu to the point that they could no longer face running the distro, there will always be (among gazillions of other distros, debian based or otherwise) Mepis and Freespire, which are both Ubuntu based and make compromises with proprietary software.
So what could possibly be the harm?




Member since:
2007-02-22
The new "flavour" of Ubuntu will take "an ultra-orthodox view of licensing: no firmware, drivers, imagery, sounds, applications, or other content which do not include full source materials and come with full rights of modification, remixing and redistribution ... for those who demand a super-strict interpretation of the 'free' in free software," said Shuttleworth.
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought that regular Ubuntu fit this description, that being why a lot of graphics drivers, media codecs and the like are not included. Exactly how would the "ultra-free" version be different? I'm confused here.
Edited 2007-04-12 18:53