[Bug 269656] Re: AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP

Dragonlord dreamsareimmortal at hotmail.com
Sat Sep 20 17:18:12 UTC 2008


I hate to say this here, but Mark Shuttleworth is a businessman, a
company leader, not exactly what I would call a free software leader.
And that's fine! But we need to know what we're talking about. Even
launchpad is not free software (yet), one wouldn't expect from a "free
software leader" to release non-free software, wrong? Anyway, this is
not about bashing mr. Shuttleworth, honestly, but we need to view things
from a realistic perspective. If Ubuntu was not created with profit as
one of the purposes, it would have been developed by a community,
Debian-style, and not under the guidance, funding, and decisions of a
company. Tim Post, I hear you, but you should know by now that companies
are about profit. If you want to promote a distro that is and will
remain faithful to the free software principles, use Debian or something
else created and maintained only by a community. Maybe Canonical has an
agreement with Mozilla to get a part of the Google money to have these
services enabled, or maybe they just see it from a marketing point of
view and want the brand recognition that firefox carries, for example to
maintain their deal with Dell who might prefer something with Firefox
since they have the choice between so many distros. Canonical is a
company and that's what they do, go with the marketing rules, and that's
understandable. If the community that supports, spreads Ubuntu and for
the largest part makes it what it is likes that and lets it happen is
another thing. For me, it's very fortunate and desirable for the free
software community to have Canonical work with the laws of marketing to
spread free software, as long as it doesn't compromise the principles of
free software for this cause - because, you know, it becomes pointless
since you can't support free software by contaminating it with non-free
services that require a user agreement, at least on a default
installation. It has become clear by now that the essence of this issue
has not been fixed, since we're still talking about a user agreement
required to use the software on its default configuration, it's now only
hidden and considered that the user has agreed without stating it, only
by not disabling the services. It's the same as bombing for peace,
f***ing for virginity etc.

-- 
AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mozilla
Bugs, which is subscribed to firefox-3.0 in ubuntu.




More information about the Ubuntu-mozillateam-bugs mailing list