Ubuntu is not free.

[charlie derr]

Alexander Skwar wrote:
> meets at free.fr schrieb:
> 

<snip>

> No, you were not. Just read what you wrote. You tried to speak for all
> the free software users.

The "he said, she said" that's happening here isn't something I want to get involved in here.

> 
>> Otherwise, why should a free software user want theses components be
>> put in the kernel
> 
> 
> Maybe because there aren't free alternatives available (see madwifi, which
> basically can never be free; see nvidia, which isn't free) to support
> the hardware.

This part is really important though.  Whether or not it's actually productive in the end (only time, and the decisions made by individual hardware manufacturers will tell...) there are some of us who 
believe the extra effort of searching out components that don't require non-free firmware in order to work with linux is something that's worth the time spent.  Lots of people use linux for lots of 
reasons, but a significant subset of us believe that the "freedom" part is quite important.  If ubuntu doesn't acknowledge these non-free bits and doesn't provide its users the means to know which 
devices are encumbered by them, then the hardware manufacturers have fewer reasons to consider opening up the firmware source code for these specific devices.  If that information is readily 
available, then those of us who don't mind the extra effort can more easily make the decision to attempt to reward hardware manufacturers who are providing access to their firmware source code.

	~c
> 
> Alexander Skwar