Ubuntu is not free.

[Gary W. Swearingen]

meets at free.fr writes:

> I think it's nonsense to go through so many tiny details to avoid the
> principal problem, which is the respect of the free licenses and the
> spirit of the free software. Why do people think that two portions of
> non free program are good for them ?

Let me remind you the RMS worked with his "free software" for many
years on fee-licensed, partially-closed-source Unix systems.  Even he
was practical enough to see sense in not insisting on 100%
GPL-compatible software.  And, of course, many other open source
proponents are more prectical in varying degrees.  About ten years
ago many were using one of two closed-source X11 versions with Linux.

It seems that the Ubuntu developers have a great desire to use only
GPL-compatible software, but have made some compromises in favor of
their many users who care little about such things and barely know
what GPL means besides a few slogans.  But it's their call.

I agree that the Ubuntu home-page claims seem to be a bit
over-reaching, but it's just ambiguous enough that it isn't an
out-and-out lie.  I'd suggest that you try to talk reason with
Ubuntu's parent company and/or whoever maintains any over-reaching
claims and complain directly to them too.

As for trying to direct the content of Ubuntu, everyone should be free
to express an opinion as you did, at least because opinions tend to
bubble up this way, but it generally does little good because the
developers rightly get their own way in content decisions.