Ubuntu Board Votes On Non-Free Software Option

[blackiwid]

sorry for bad sentences and mistakes in last post, I am used to writing my posts and direcly send it, and then edit them, but here edit is buggy (does only work a few seconds) and my english is also not the best so hope you can anyway understand my points.

Android is naturally no guy ^^ its a peace of software. (I am a bit tired I guess, too)

[yogi_berra]

freedom is more importent than to save some unethical people 2 mouse clicks and 10 second install time.

This would be a great argument if downloading flash killed starving children in Africa. But it doesn't, and it never will.

There is nothing unethical about downloading and installing flash, please, keep the hyperbolic sermons for a time when you don't want to be taken seriously.

[blackiwid]

you support them, sites will uses this shit because such users install such software. If they would not the companys would not make them. So other users get problems if they dont use that. So you hurt people in forcing them to give up their freedom making them suffer if they dont.

So they maybe install that, and they loose their freedom, I am not talking here about some theoretical stuff, they loose control over their computer, they can be spyed, they can be controlled bogus errors if they use the software like the developers dont like it, they can get rootkits etc. all happend (sony rootkit). You unpower people, they cant help themselve or hire the neighbor to do fix stuff or change the software like they want it. They do not even know what the software does except what they see. Its like you make advertisment for trojans and viruses and rootkits, so you hurt people, so its unethical. Not only dieing kids are bad there are other stuff that is less bad but still bad.

[blackiwid]

if you take the idealism out of linux or Gnu or how you wanna call it, you have bsd - all the gpl(like) software. Try it out, so you gain very much from such idealism and people wanna be good community members, but give a shit about that cultur and ideas, its like you go in a church (I am not religios) to get free wine or something like that. There would be no free wine or breat or what ever, if there are not people who belive there in doing something good. If you say to that people screw it I dont belive in god but give me more free wine and a bit better tasting, and they would really stop beliving and having that culture, they would not make any church service any more.

So if you dont like free software like gpl describes it, go for bsd, or at least shut up and try not to enforce the people who writes the software that you like (linux, console-tools, x11, gnome, kde, ubuntu) to change their opinion to yours. And if you use that software (U use not just Ubuntu but also all the software from the developers that made the software they put together to a softwarestack + installer) you have to respect the lisences. You are shurely a guy who do think that copying comercial propriatary software is a crime? So you accept their very aggressive lisences, but you dont accept the lisences of developers they freely share source and binarys with you just with the one condition that you not make unfree software with it or writing comercial software that have direct dependencies on it.

So yes there are parts in our live that also unfree or even worse than what we can get here in the software world, but is that an excuse to letting all ethic go there too? We should defend our freedom in other parts of our live more, too, at least thats my opinion. What happens if give away our freedom we see today in japan.

[blackiwid]

I am no extremist, or lets say it that way I am making some compromises, I also accept if people install proprietary drivers or other proprietary software, I even accept if they install windows and other stuff. But trying to make out of linux a bit better windows is not the point.

Its like Media, there is no point (except money) if they get most viewers if they only write lies. Its good if linux gets more users, but if its then a windows-like os for free (like in free beer) with a bit other/better user interface then thats not the point.

Think about the Internet, think about here Aol or some other company would get it under control, nobody comes in it with only browsers from that company and would only see sites they put on a whitelist, thats in last consequence what you wanna have if you support unfree software. you use proprietary formats, so you put something in that format in the internet, so the others who wanna see it have to get also that software, and then the company have total control over you usage of that software, they can make a white or a blacklist in it, or do whatever they want. Why would you trust big companys like Microsoft or Sony or Apple, we see in nearly every branch that the big companies do not wanna be helping you or only seeling some stuff you really need. Lets take as example Monsanto, they contaminate seeds even in mexico the home of corn although they dont buy seeds from them. For what to sell in combination a hard gift that only their gen-manipulated seeds surfive. They make big lobby work to get that shit on the market, even if there are big consernce. No we eat all this gift in our food, and even if I would pay more to get bio or non-gentechnik food, 5-10% of that stuff is in there, because you cant control fly of the pollen.
Thats a sideeffect that they planed to do because what the only thing they are interessted is to make more money, and thats also the only interesst of example microsoft and other corporation. If they get away with it and they would get a good price they would sell your grandma.

[Temar]

Then its surely a good decition to include proprietary software in a distribution, because it would violate gpl

Can you quote the part of the GPL which forbids adding proprietary software to a distribution? I can't see where the GPL forbids that.

Maybe their lawers think that they can maybe win there, but a law suit would break have very hard consequences for ubuntu, most developers use linux and other free software because they belive in it, they would not make any ubuntu packages or would stop using ubuntu, it would split up the ubuntu-users and 30-50% of the users would search a new distribution, it would hurt ubuntu.

You don't know that. That's just an assumption. I on the other hand think that most Ubuntu users use Ubuntu because it works out of the box and because the Ubuntu developers are not that narrow-minded and actually do add proprietary drivers to their distribution.

Again it would violate gpl, even the very industrie friendly (no gpl3, pro tivoisation) linux guys dont want non-free drivers.

Well, but Ubuntu already adds them. Beware that we are not talking about adding the propriertary stuff to the installation CD (though Ubuntu already does that with some drivers) but the files will be DOWNLOADED on installation.

Its even a question if a driver like Nvidia that directly is derivided work of the linux kernel to be non-free is allowed.

No it's not. Read the COPYING file in the Kernel source tree. The kernel interface is not part of the GPL.

But delivering both with one installer as one product together by a company is absolutly out of discussion (legaly)

Usually only because the software vendors forbid redistribution. Not because of the GPL.

And what are you talking about flash? thats obsolete anyway, wait just a while and youtube dont needs that crap anymore, this software slows down pcs and makes them hang up.

I get it that you don't like flash, but many people do. And HTML5 can not fully replace Flash.

Sorry, you did not really convince me. You seem to fear that the whole Linux world will go down, if even one single distribution gets more user-friendly. That's just nonsense.

You tell me that you are not an extremist, but you do not even want to allow one single distribution being more user friendly and opening itself up to proprietary software. Why not let the users and developers decide? Are you afraid that Ubuntu could actually be successful? It really is not that much of a big deal if one distribution opens itself. There are still plenty of free distributions and they will continue to exist.

[blackiwid]

Can you quote the part of the GPL which forbids adding proprietary software to a distribution? I can't see where the GPL forbids that.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Point 6: "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."

Thats gpl v2.0 which uses the kernel, and most people think that as example the binary drivers from Nvidia are based on the kernel. In other cases its a question what lisence they use if they use libs that have libgpl its maybe allowed. So flash is as far as I know allowed.

You don't know that. That's just an assumption. I on the other hand think that most Ubuntu users use Ubuntu because it works out of the box and because the Ubuntu developers are not that narrow-minded and actually do add proprietary drivers to their distribution.

yes but its a different story if you install on your own pc such software or distribute it together in one iso, btw I think even Nvidia would not allow this by its lisences.
Its one thing to make the install process as easy as possible and another to install such drivers by default and maybe include it to the distro-iso.

Well, but Ubuntu already adds them. Beware that we are not talking about adding the propriertary stuff to the installation CD (though Ubuntu already does that with some drivers) but the files will be DOWNLOADED on installation.

yes but auto-download it per gui tool is still a thing that the user have to do, thats ok with the lisence.

No it's not. Read the COPYING file in the Kernel source tree. The kernel interface is not part of the GPL.

So Ok its allowed to make such driver and distribute it ok, but its another thing to distribute both as one "product". I am no lawer but I am prette shure that this is not allowed from gpl. And it taints all the linux kernels, so you cannot get support if you use such stuff, so even if it would be allowed ubuntu can have no interesst to taint all there kernels and become zero support from the kernel devs.

Usually only because the software vendors forbid redistribution. Not because of the GPL.

So again even Nvidia does not allow to include such driver on a iso so why would you default select software to install which is non free and you cannot even guarentee that the servers are up and you can download it at the moment you install your ubuntu from your install medium? Then if Nvidias server are down they all would say see here linux is buggy, even the install routine does not work.

I get it that you don't like flash, but many people do. And HTML5 can not fully replace Flash.

Sorry, you did not really convince me. You seem to fear that the whole Linux world will go down, if even one single distribution gets more user-friendly. That's just nonsense.

You tell me that you are not an extremist, but you do not even want to allow one single distribution being more user friendly and opening itself up to proprietary software. Why not let the users and developers decide? Are you afraid that Ubuntu could actually be successful? It really is not that much of a big deal if one distribution opens itself. There are still plenty of free distributions and they will continue to exist.

Lol where did I say that I do not want a more user-friendly distribution, is the only way to make user-friendlier distribution to put unfree stuff in it by default? I accept the compromisses that ubuntu did, I accept there software center even there mp3-shop stuff, I am ok with the decition to deliver firmwares because if you wanna get that hardware to work you need this stuff at the moment. So its not good but its a compromise. But install a proprietary driver from the only company who fights aktive free software with its policy is not fair to the 2 other companys that deliver free drivers. Again yes the distribution that have most users have a bit of responsability to not go to far, what happens if you do so we see by novell, they are gone to far and nobody who cares a bit about free software will use there stuff.

[Temar]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Point 6: "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."

Thats gpl v2.0 which uses the kernel, and most people think that as example the binary drivers from Nvidia are based on the kernel. In other cases its a question what lisence they use if they use libs that have libgpl its maybe allowed. So flash is as far as I know allowed.

No, "most people" do NOT think that. In fact, it is plain wrong as the kernel license clearly states that using the kernel interface is not considered derived work: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kerne...OPYING;hb=HEAD

^^ Just read the first paragraph. So basically the Linux kernel is released as GPL with the exception that using the kernel interface is not considered derived work. As you can see, not even the kernel developers think that proprietary drivers are derived work and they should know their license.

yes but its a different story if you install on your own pc such software or distribute it together in one iso, btw I think even Nvidia would not allow this by its lisences.
Its one thing to make the install process as easy as possible and another to install such drivers by default and maybe include it to the distro-iso.

So Ok its allowed to make such driver and distribute it ok, but its another thing to distribute both as one "product".

We are not talking about one product! The whole discussion of this thread is about auto-downloading the packages on installation. That's what this news article is about.

So again even Nvidia does not allow to include such driver on a iso so why would you default select software to install which is non free and you cannot even guarentee that the servers are up and you can download it at the moment you install your ubuntu from your install medium? Then if Nvidias server are down they all would say see here linux is buggy, even the install routine does not work.

You are grasping a straw here. The nvidia drivers can be distributed (and are distributed) via the Ubuntu repositories. Only redistribution on installation media is forbidden.

Lol where did I say that I do not want a more user-friendly distribution, is the only way to make user-friendlier distribution to put unfree stuff in it by default?

No, not the only way. But adding proprietary software which many people do use is one piece of the puzzle. Beware that we are not talking about adding as much proprietary software as possible, but about adding THE proprietary software which most people use, like for example Flash or Skype...

But install a proprietary driver from the only company who fights aktive free software with its policy is not fair to the 2 other companys that deliver free drivers.

So that's what it is about? Being fair to a company? Sorry, but the free drivers still suck compared to the closed ones. Being user friendly is not about being fair, but about having the best possible user experience. For modern cards the free drivers just don't cut it. For older cards however the free drivers are probably the better choice. And people will see it as it is: They will be happy and thankful to the OpenSource community if they can still use their old card without problems. Overall they will think positively about OpenSource. However, if you force OpenSource drivers on people with modern cards they will just think that OpenSource sucks.

[blackiwid]

I do not force that, no body have a problem with the 1click installer integrated in ubuntu, but that have to be in, because nobody would even know that the company that they use a product from is a enemy of free software.

You dont care about such stuff but most developers from which you get all that free software do care or else they would all used bsd-lisence when they would not care about such things. So see that small thing as price as you pay XXX $ for Microsoft or Apple OS. Thats what they want. At least thats whats the idea behind the lisence they did choose.

[yogi_berra]

You unpower people, they cant help themselve or hire the neighbor to do fix stuff or change the software like they want it. They do not even know what the software does except what they see. Its like you make advertisment for trojans and viruses and rootkits, so you hurt people, so its unethical. Not only dieing kids are bad there are other stuff that is less bad but still bad.

Bullshit. You claim to not be an extremist after making an extreme argument equating Flash with a root kit which you know damn well that it isn't.

Watching a cat video has never killed anything but time, watching a music video has never "unpowered" anyone, and while some videos may make you a little queasy, the codec they use is not unethical. If you are worried about being "spied upon" run a packet sniffer and you will soon see that you are, in fact, not being spied upon when you watch a flash video.

You really are grasping at straws to support an untenable position.