<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 16:37, David Schlesinger <<a href="mailto:lefty@access-company.com">lefty@access-company.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div class="im">On 6/9/10 1:21 PM, "Danny Piccirillo" <<a href="mailto:danny.piccirillo@ubuntu.com">danny.piccirillo@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote: > > Upstream linux is not free. That is why LinuxLibre was created. > > <a href="http://libresoft.es/Members/herraiz/blog/linux-is-not-free-software" target="_blank">http://libresoft.es/Members/herraiz/blog/linux-is-not-free-software</a> > > I have doubts that this was unintentional. Here's a list of nonfree stuff in > Linux: > > <a href="http://manulix.wikidot.com/kernel-blobs" target="_blank">http://manulix.wikidot.com/kernel-blobs</a> </div>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. </blockquote></div> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">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 ☮♥Ⓐ - <a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo">http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo</a> Every (in)decision matters.