Kubuntu annoyances (check list)

Bry Melvin brymelvin at msn.com
Mon Apr 10 22:41:31 UTC 2006

>From: Edulix <edulix at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Kubuntu Help and User Discussions 
><kubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
>To: Kubuntu Help and User Discussions <kubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
>Subject: Re: Kubuntu annoyances (check list)
>Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:46:12 +0200
>Hi back:
>Oh dear, I knew there was a point which I missed addressing... the legality
>problem. How could I? Let's see:
>USA is a contry where it might be illegal to install something like 
>Australia and UK probably too. But that doesn't mean that it's illegal in
>every country, because for example here in Spain DMCA means nothing, and
>patents on software are unlawful.
>If you're not willing to do so because it's risky, then you could alway
>provide a link to a repository (whose server should be in a country where 
>stored packages are legal) where it can dowload the version of the software
>with the wizzard addin, or whatever. But it should be point and clic, maybe
>it could be done using klik:// altough I don't think this level of paranoia
>is needed.
>     Edulix.
>El Lunes, 10 de Abril de 2006 19:34, Gary W. Swearingen escribió:
> > Yeah, my main problem with the current situation is that I'm unsure
> > what's legal and what's not, except the Real and Flash players from
> > their owners.  I'd really like to see an article or something
> > explaining the situation really well.  Are 3rd-party Real players
> > legit, or are they based on illegal (DCMA?) reverse engineering?  I'm
> > fairly sure decoders for normal DVDs are illegal in the USA, but how
> > many DVDs need decoding?  All of them?  Etc.
> >
> > I get the impression from
> >
> > I know there's some risk in using any software because you can't know
> > who owns and cares about what IP (esp. patents) that might apply.
> > Fortunately, the risk seems sufficiently small to accept in most
> > cases, at least for most users.

The "nonfree"libraries are always an issue. I am sure many are using them 
illegally. Many more with licenses with other commnercial software are in a 
grey area (using the codecs on their Dual boot setup or in a VM)  In other 
words those with valid win licenses etc.

However I really don't think putting them in the standard installation is 
the answer. It makes things questionable. Ubuntu is supposed to be a totally 
free distribution. In order to do this it would seem there needs to be a 
paid/free version split. Which is exactly what ubuntu seaks to NOT do.

There have been reports that Linspire's paid access to codecs etc may be 
available in the future for Ubuntu. I think this woud be the most logical 

Linspire is not free, but gives access to install codecs etc AND even the 
commercial software to run windows on linux.(Crossover)

I Don't think patents are going to go away soon.
Ubuntu has shown that they are pursing the commercial market with the recent 
DB2 cert.
I use ubuntu servers now having migrated from OS/2. I actually don't care 
about the restricted libraries, they are more in the area of a consumer 

To add these in with a bunch of install caveats is not going to be a good 
thing for commercial users, who then pay Canonical for support contract, 
which in turn pays for all the "free" users. the way the current installs 
are set up a commercial user can use a default install, and be sure that 
she's not installing anything illegal or of questionable nature (unless SCO 
wins anyway)

Pushing for an available paid add on service like "click and run" from 
Linsire for Ubuntu would make a lot more sense. When you pay for this 
service, you are paying for the rights to use the patented technologies. 
Thus ends the question where you are legal or not.


More information about the kubuntu-users mailing list