Ubuntu is not free.

[Alan McKinnon]

On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 10:33 -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> > This definition has nothing to do with the freedom to use or not use
> a
> > given piece of software, but the freedom to modify software as you
> > like and give your modifications to your neighbors (or to keep them
> to
> > yourself).  The first freedom, the freedom to modify, implies that
> you
> > are not free to restrict modifications by others to software you
> > distribute (thereby denying those people the freedom to modify their
> > software).
> 
> Craftily said.  But your freedom to publish _your_ modifications is
> severely restricted.  You _must_ cross-license your modifications
> under GPL-compatible terms, or not publish.  That's not freedom, IMO.
> That's barter in IP.

There are two conflicting agendas here:

1. The freedom for the developer to do with the modifications as he/she
wishes
2. The guarantee that the *user* will always have the four freedoms that
form the backbone of the Free Software philosophy.

These two things can be at odds, and in GPL-land, #2 always takes
precedence. The GPL is about the users, not the devs. To guarantee the
user's freedoms, RMS had to rig it so that the dev could not restrict
the user's freedom in any way, even at the expense of the dev's freedom.

It all comes down to this: if you are not prepared to GPL your mods to
existing GPL'ed code, then don't use and modify existing GPL code.

alan