ethical ubuntu

Jack Wasey gmane at
Wed Jun 14 09:55:16 BST 2006

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 10:32:19AM +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
>> - Is it a way for the user tu avoid in any way the installation of these
>> packages, either through a pre-install menu or any kind of optional
>> configuration during the installation process?
> No.
>> - The user of this example had apparently a 100% Debian system working
>> on the same hardware. Would this mean that he can *probably* (I'm not
>> asking "surely") remove the non-free kernel packages without damaging
>> the system?
> Yes.

Going back to the original spec, Idea 5 in the implementation section could be 
relevant, esp. w.r.t. Ubuntu-Libre. The user would choose what distro or 
ubuntu-derived distro to install, and then not be bothered by ethical/non-free 
info, etc.. The question is, should Ubuntu-Libre be the core, and Ubuntu 
'standard' be derived; or the other way around... What do you think?

The status quo is a mostly libre Ubuntu, with a software libre hardcore to 
derive a distro from it. My preference would be a more fussy core Ubuntu, which 
can be adjusted by Mepis, Bad-buntu, etc., to use 'naughty' components. Please 
add insights to the spec Primarily, it was 
motivated not by non-free, but by real world ethics which can't be ignored.

More information about the sounder mailing list