Ubuntu is not free.

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 09:54 +0200, Ouattara Aziz wrote:
> I agree but what we have to keep in mind is that we can't be very
> fast 
> releasing the last hardware driver or the last useful software on
> GPL. 
> It takes time to develop and some manufacturers doesn't release their 
> specs (I sometimes wonder why). So to be usable quickly by anyone
> Linux 
> can have the non-free software/drivers available since when comes the 
> time they can handle it well on GPL.

No.

That is so completely wrong I don't know where to start. In an ideal
world everyone would see the benefit of FLOSS and work in that
direction. The real world is different. In this world, what happens is
that a hardware manufacturer has decided that getting the customer to
bend over for a shafting is AGoodThing(tm), and this behaviour is
reinforced by the customer gladly bending over. When we willingly
include proprietary stuff in our OS for normal everyday commodity
things, this is exactly what we are doing[1].

In all of history, there is only one thing that has ever reliably made
companies open up their standards and technologies, and that is when
customers demand they do so or they will take their business elsewhere.

Trust me, there is no middle ground on this. Only when a significant
percentage of customers demand open standards from their suppliers will
those suppliers provide them. They do it under duress and no other way.
Or are you suffering from the delusion that they will do it based on
it's own merits and because it's a good idea?

[1] There are some exceptions. Releasing software under GPL that
controls the detonation of a thermonuclear bomb is probably not a good
idea. Highly specialized hardware where only a few units are sold is
another valid case - try medical imaging equipment for starters.
Software that plays music, displays pages or does anything else where
several alternatives are easily available has no business trying to lock
customers in to proprietaryness.

alan