Is Ubuntu commited to free software?

[Philip Muskovac]

On 06/11/2010 12:41 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 10.06.2010, 19:24 +0200 schrieb Remco:
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 19:10, Remco <remco47 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 18:53, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
>>>> Once again:  those are bugs.  Let's just focus on solving the problem in the existing kernel instead of adding another one.
>>>>
>>>> It's more difficult to segregate the non-free material so it can be provided via the restricted repository for those that want it than it is just to rip it all out,  but that's the way to support both freedom of software and freedom of choice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. My lingering question is, does this bug actually exist? I was
>>> under the impression that all the non-free parts were already removed
>>> when the "free-only" option was selected.
>>
>> Debian, for example, separates the firmware into a free and a non-free variant:
>> http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=firmware-linux
>>
>> Ubuntu does not use those package names. Where did the firmware end up
>> in Ubuntu?
> 
> Just search for package with 'firmware' in its name. We have
> linux-firmware in main and linux-firmware-nonfree in multiverse.
> 
> 
Considering the discussion and that linux-firmware is in main:

$ apt-cache policy linux-firmware
linux-firmware:
  Installed: 1.36
  Candidate: 1.36
  Version table:
 *** 1.36 0
        500 http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/ubuntu/ maverick/main Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

shouldn't it be in restricted instead? Or am I misunderstanding
something here...?