[ubuntu-in] Subject of Proprietory Software(s) codecs etc on Ubuntu

Jasbir Khehra jasbir.k at gmail.com
Sun Mar 11 19:39:43 GMT 2007

ramnarayan.k at gmail.com wrote:
> Onkar Shinde wrote:
>> On 3/11/07, ramnarayan.k at gmail.com <ramnarayan.k at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> This is a follow up on the previous posts on piracy
>>> there is a persistent issue of Ubuntu not being totally open source and
>>> that it includes components (codecs etc ) that are propreitory and that
>>> basically go against the GNU/Linux core FLOSS philosophy
>>> comments !!!
>> Wrong analogy. 
> yep true
> Just that while the discussions on the ebook were on it struck me that
> this was one question i had been wantin to ask - to clarify
>> The ebook was published by someone (or some company)
>> and there is no mention about it being freely redistributable.
>> FOSS is about sharing but not something which is not owned by you or
>> when you don't have license for sharing.
> FOSS yes but the question still is about the proprietory stuff -  the
> difference i guess is that a. the proprietory drivers, etc are not
> licensed as open source - even if they are freely distributable
> [whereas in the case of the book it is not freely distributable (and nor
> is it open source)]
Yup, you got it right this time. :)
Just that in the case of proprietary h/w driver stuff u only need them 
if you 'purchase' the hardware. So here comes the difference between the 
  vendors which support Linux(with proprietary drivers) and those which 
support Open Source.


More information about the ubuntu-in mailing list