Ubuntu Board Votes On Non-Free Software Option

[blackiwid]

so its a view point if I am extreme or not, but forget about me, lets say in your example, somebody let people live for free in their houses or even give them away for free, the only condition is to use such from you described doors they are buildin, and the only thing is that they say if you wanna sell or give it away again you have to put in that doors again or let it in in the first place. So whats your problem with that? Respect the house-builders wishes or dont use the house.

If I would be extreme I would demand that ubuntu would remove that easy install options and if they dont I would aktivily fight em and would nobody tell to use Ubuntu. So I care about freedom, but I respekt if other people don?t and manuelly install some blackboxes that nobody except the programmers who build it and maybe the company knows what that does.

The Bios is a problem, yes I am waiting to get that fixed, if I have really no choice I go for bios but I think I will not get a board with EFI included because its bigger so more place for harmfull stuff.

But again to point to other problems does not make this problem go away. I change first what I can change easier then I go further if possible.

With your argument, you can point out one unethical or unmoralic example and then completly forget about such catagories in any other aspect of your life. Thats no good thing. But again if you must go on with flash and non-free driver, but its a difference if one user or some users decide to use such stuff or if a distribution decides that for all users. They have more responsibilities.

Its like when you look at copies of non-free software, if you do that as a company its much worse legaly then do it for your personal live, same its with drugs at least in theorie in my country.

[ean5533]

Thats not extreme we both cant know it, so you have to trust, or do you have the source code.

Do you have the source code for your motherboard's BIOS? I bet you don't. Therefore you don't REALLY know what your motherboard's firmware is doing behind the scenes. It might be silently taking every bit that's read from RAM and copying it to the ethernet port, sending it out over the wire to a pre-programmed IP. So I hope you compiled your motherboard's firmware yourself, otherwise who KNOWS what kind of terrible things the man might be doing.

Hell, forget about your computer -- how about the firmware in your standalone Bluray/DVD/CD player? How about the GPS device running in your car? How about your $5 cell phone? All of these things have code running on them that you don't have access to, yet somehow you manage to live your life while using them. And I'll bet they're pretty decent products, too.

The point that you're pushing an extremist stance regarding userland software that is not only inconvenient for users, but completely useless considering all the other attack vectors that you're ignoring. It's like insisting that everyone in the world must have a 10-inch steel door with 15 locks on it, but ignoring the fact that they leave their windows open all day when they feel like airing out the house. And I've got a funny feeling people will get tired of locking those 15 locks pretty quickly, too.

But hey, feel free to ignore my advice live out your extremist agenda. It's no skin off my nose if you like tinfoil hats. Just stop trying to preach it to everyone else when they've already told you once to shut up.

[blackiwid]

1. that was not only a quote that was aimed against flash but all closed-source propriatary software. Thats not extreme we both cant know it, so you have to trust, or do you have the source code. And jsut because they dont mass-spy all stuff everytime, it could be in backdoors to watch people that they want to. Or other stuff that starts under some conditions not on each user. So you have no control, what happens. You cant know it so you have to trust, and I am not trusting any corporation because its their only goal to make money. And I set examples in the past (Sony rootkit) where they did really bad things.

They can as example only release a buggyer version for linux which more often crash get money from ms, to do this to make linux a bad name. So how can you exclude such possibility?

You cant, me and you have no source code, and if you make by using that stuff help the company to distribute that stuff you create pressure to people that they use it also or they cannot watch such stuff.

I think its not worth to talk about that dieing peace of software. Because if youtube works without it (even better less cpu load) nearly nobody is interessted in the other features of flash, maybe 1% of all users will install it for some flash games or so. Even if I am wrong and more people still use it it will be less people than today so, even Steve Jobs said that its a peace of shit software by technical reasons I go with him there.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.