Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
lefty at access-company.com
Thu Jun 10 16:32:05 UTC 2010
On 6/10/10 9:13 AM, "Remco" <remco47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Meh, you can still use the original kernel if you want to. It's
> software after all. ;)
By the same token, you (and the handful of others who share these concerns)
can still use a forked kernel if you want to. Or "The HURD". Go wild.
That would seem to be a lot less effort for those who don't especially care
about this, i.e. the ones you and others are asking to do this work on your
> ...politics is always part of open source! There is no other
reason for the
> "Use only free software" option on the cd installer.
Whether or not this "free
> kernel" is needed, I don't know. If the "use
only free software" option also
> gets rid of all blobs in the kernel,
then I don't see the need.
I disagree: these "politics" are part of "free software", not "open source
software". There's nothing in the OSI Definition dictating that you remove
the option to use non-open source software from users if that's their
choice. Feel free to point out where I've missed it, if you believe it's in
If you don't know "whether or not this 'free kernel' is needed", perhaps
your time would be better spent getting an authoritative answer to that
question rather than insisting that a possibly unnecessary option needs to
be thrown into the build (and tested and regressed and, and, and...)
(If there's another common thread in these things, it seems to be the idea
that a bunch of other people who presumably have better things to do--and
are doing them--will simply _stop_ in order to cater to a demand presented
by someone who's not willing/able to do the heavy lifting themselves.)
Having gotten that authoritative answer, I'm _still_ not sure it would have
the slightest bit of relevance here. Go create a "FSF-Buntu" or something,
if you feel the burning need.
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss