<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16527" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would imagine that the key reason it is listed is
because of this statement:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"<SPAN class=highlight><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>it contains <STRONG><U>or distributes</U></STRONG> non-free
software."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
class=highlight></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=highlight>Ubuntu <STRONG><EM>allows
access</EM></STRONG> to restricted non-open-source drivers from ATI/Nvidia, some
multimedia plugins, and other hardware drivers in their
repositories.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=highlight></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=highlight>Really it boils down to
Richard Stallman being a little too psychotic about free software. On one end,
you have Microsoft, where 99.9% is closed source and proprietary - on the other
extreme is Richard Stallman (GNU) and his "everything must be absolutely and
without question 100% open source or the world is going to end" view. I'm a huge
proponent of open source software. I would like to see a world that was 100%
open source, but I know that chances of that happening in my lifetime are slim
to none...so, if I have to use one or two source applications with my free
software, that is okay by me.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=highlight></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=highlight>In the world we are in today,
we must make a compromise between open-source and closed source software - I
have yet to see a truly 100% functional and usable Linux system that can access
the majority of web audio/video content without the aid of closed-source
software. (And I'm talking<STRONG> legal</STRONG> open-source software - not
illegal (at least in the US) open-source items like
libdvdcss2.)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jimmywu013+ubuntu-user-list@gmail.com
href="mailto:jimmywu013+ubuntu-user-list@gmail.com">Jimmy Wu</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
href="mailto:ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-users</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, August 25, 2007 2:12
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> GNU/Linux, FLOSS, and
Ubuntu</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hello list,<BR><BR>I've been spending a little bit of time on
<A href="http://gnu.org">gnu.org</A> (interesting reading), and it claims that
most of the popular Linux distros come packaged with "non-free"
software. The list of completely free GNU/Linux distros is woefully
short, and does not include Ubuntu. That puzzled me, because I thought
the whole Ubuntu philosophy was big on free software. <BR><BR>Could
someone please explain the relationship between Ubuntu and GNU, <BR>and does
anyone know what parts of the default Ubuntu installation, if any, are
restricted/non-free/proprietary?<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR><BR>Jimmy <BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>-- <BR>ubuntu-users mailing
list<BR>ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com<BR>Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>