Is Ubuntu commited to free software?

[Danny Piccirillo]

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 16:37, David Schlesinger <lefty at access-company.com>wrote:

> On 6/9/10 1:21 PM, "Danny Piccirillo" <danny.piccirillo at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> Danny, if you or anyone else has an issue with the governance of the kernel
> project, attempting to address it via an end-run through a "litmus test" of
> Ubuntu's support for "software freedom" seems a rather passive-aggressive
> way to go about it. I don't see much productive coming out of this
> discussion.
>
> If you're not happy with the way the kernel project is being run, I suggest
> you'd do better to go talk to Linus and Andrew Morton about it.
>
> If Ubuntu's governance is not to your liking, there are plenty of other
> distros. If none of those is to your liking, you can roll your own.
>
>
The fact is that Linux is not entirely free, and there is a project which is
the Linux kernel without the nonfree bits. Talking about linux governance is
out of the scope of this discussion. Ubuntu's philosophy says it is free,
but even the free software only option has nonfree bits. Why shouldn't i
expect the mere option to have a fully free system using Ubuntu?

-- 
.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/20100609/02723e98/attachment.html>