Is Ubuntu commited to free software?

[Danny Piccirillo]

Upstream linux is not free. That is why LinuxLibre was created.

http://libresoft.es/Members/herraiz/blog/linux-is-not-free-software

I have doubts that this was unintentional. Here's a list of nonfree stuff in
Linux:

http://manulix.wikidot.com/kernel-blobs

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 16:08, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:

>
>
> "Danny Piccirillo" <danny.piccirillo at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 13:19, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "Danny Piccirillo" <danny.piccirillo at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Of course it is! At least according to our philosophy:
> >> >http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy
> >> >
> >> >Still, many people don't think that Ubuntu is truly committed to free
> >> >software in practice. These people can and should be our allies. Their
> >> >concerns are valid, and they are not difficult to appease. I'd like to
> >> >present a short list of simple ways that Ubuntu could show it's
> >> commitment:
> >> >
> >> >1. Offer ways to easily purge all non-free software from one's system.
> >> > * This would require supporting the linux libre kernel (it doesn't
> have
> >> to
> >> >be by default, but the option should be available.
> >>
> >> No. It doesn't. That kernel removes the ability to run non-free drivers.
> >> The exact same amount of non-free code runs if you don't have any
> installed.
> >> Just about the last thing Ubuntu needs is the maintenance overhead of
> >> another kernel that only serves ideological purposes.
> >>
> >> There is already a free software only install option that not only will
> not
> >> install anything non-free, it also disables the restricted and
> multiverse
> >> repositories so that people who are concerned about this can safely
> install
> >> new packages without fear of contamination.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, the free software only option is there, but isn't entirely free.
> That's
> >what linux-libre is for. Linux libre should be the kernel for the free
> >software install. Mainline Linux is not free because it includes
> binary-only
> >firmwares hidden as source code files (or blobs)
> >
> >
> Then these are bugs. They should be fixed. If the effort that's going into
> a political kernel fork were put into high quality patches more progress
> would be made. I suspect it's not because the fork is more about taking away
> people's freedom to run non-free code than it is about fixing problems with
> inadvertent problems with non-free bits in the kernel.
>
> Scott K
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>



-- 
.danny

☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo
Every (in)decision matters.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20100609/cf190f2a/attachment.html>