Moral Contradictions in the Ubuntu Distribution

[daz4126]

How come Ubuntu refuses to use the official Firefox logo (due to copyright issues) in its distribution, but is willing to include propriety binary drivers and mono (with its associated IP issues with MS and Novell)?

Just seems contradictory to me...

DAZ

[aysiu]

It doesn't refuse to the official Firefox logo. In fact, that is the default logo in Edgy Eft.

Maybe you're confusing Ubuntu with Debian? Or the last time you saw the default logo was before you upgraded from Dapper Drake to Edgy Eft?

[daz4126]

It doesn't refuse to the official Firefox logo. In fact, that is the default logo in Edgy Eft.

Maybe you're confusing Ubuntu with Debian? Or the last time you saw the default logo was before you upgraded from Dapper Drake to Edgy Eft?

Didn't notice because I use the binary version from the mozilla web site, so had the logo anyway (it's the only way I can get colorzilla to work).

So what was the whole iceweasel fuss about then???

DAZ

[po0f]

Edgy betas used "Bon Echo"; I was slightly confused as to what this software was, but quickly figured it out. :)

You're getting "what's been done" (the Firefox logo bit) with "what's going to happen" (the proprietary drivers) mixed up here as well.

[aysiu]

Didn't notice because I use the binary version from the mozilla web site, so had the logo anyway (it's the only way I can get colorzilla to work).

So what was the whole iceweasel fuss about then???

DAZ
That was Debian.

Ubuntu decided to go with the official Firefox logo.

[daz4126]

You're getting "what's been done" (the Firefox logo bit) with "what's going to happen" (the proprietary drivers) mixed up here as well.

Wasn't mixing them up, just didn't realise the Firefox logo had been accepted in Ubuntu. It seems Ubuntu is becoming more pragmatic with it's acceptance of 'non-free' stuff.

DAZ

[shining]

Didn't notice because I use the binary version from the mozilla web site, so had the logo anyway (it's the only way I can get colorzilla to work).

So what was the whole iceweasel fuss about then???

DAZ

The whole iceweasel fuss was about Debian, not Ubuntu.
Debian Sid now has iceweasel (firefox), icedove (thunderbird), and iceape (seamonkey). It took a while, but they are finally all there.

We also wondered what was Ubuntu going to do, following Debian or not.
Finally, they didn't, Ubuntu came to an agreement with Mozilla (which one exactly is unclear to me) a few days before Edgy was released.

[daz4126]

iceweasel (firefox), icedove (thunderbird), and iceape (seamonkey).

HA! Those names just crack me up!!:D

[atoponce]

Wasn't mixing them up, just didn't realise the Firefox logo had been accepted in Ubuntu. It seems Ubuntu is becoming more pragmatic with it's acceptance of 'non-free' stuff.

DAZ

Firefox isn't non-free software. It's just trademarked. Ubuntu is also trademarked. It's important to separate trademarked software from non-free software.

[Polygon]

the reason debian didnt use the firefox logo because it was not completly open source and free to the public, it was licenced to mozilla. So they basically created ice* which is all the other programs like firefox and thunderbird, only with different names and logos.

and for the record, you are going to be given a choice on install whether or not you want to use the binary non-free drivers

[daz4126]

Firefox isn't non-free software. It's just trademarked. Ubuntu is also trademarked. It's important to separate trademarked software from non-free software.

I know, I know ... that's why I put 'non-free' in quote marks, trying to cover 'non-free, propriety, trademarked, copyrighted etc' all in one phrase, but obviously failed miserably.

DAZ

[shining]

Firefox isn't non-free software. It's just trademarked. Ubuntu is also trademarked. It's important to separate trademarked software from non-free software.

What about the logo?

[atoponce]

I know, I know ... that's why I put 'non-free' in quote marks, trying to cover 'non-free, propriety, trademarked, copyrighted etc' all in one phrase, but obviously failed miserably.

DAZ

Just making sure. A lot of people can't make the distinction.

Mozilla wishes that their logo be distributed if you're going to call the software under the same name. Debian has a similar logo, where it's only used for "official" use. It is trademarked, and cannot be used for unofficial use, of which they have another logo for. Ubuntu has their logo, which also has certain restrictions for use.

Does this make any of this non-free software? Certainly not. Corporations/organizations just want to protect the trademark, and there is nothing wrong with that. All of the 3 above examples can be considered Free Software.

[atoponce]

What about the logo?

What do you mean "what about the logo"?

[shining]

What do you mean "what about the logo"?

Anyway, isn't non-free defined by the Free Software Foundation?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The same guys started the gnuzilla / iceweasel project, because they consider the binaries released by Mozilla as non-free :
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

If Mozilla / Firefox were entirely free software, how could the main advantage of Gnuzilla / Iceweasel be that they are entirely free software?

You've the right to think their definition is ********, but redefining it?

[atoponce]

Anyway, isn't non-free defined by the Free Software Foundation?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The same guys started the gnuzilla / iceweasel project, because they consider the binaries released by Mozilla as non-free :
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

If Mozilla / Firefox were entirely free software, how could the main advantage of Gnuzilla / Iceweasel be that they are entirely free software?

You've the right to think their definition is ********, but redefining it?

GNU recognizes several licenses as defining Free Software. Check out the page at Wikipedia about what licenses they recognize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_licenses#FSF-approved_free_software_licenses). One of them is the Mozilla Public License. GNU recognizes Firefox, Thunderbird and Sunbird as Free Software. Their gripe is, you cannot redistribute Firefox under the Firefox name without the Firefox logo.

You can still redistribute Firefox under a different name with a different logo. Swiftfox, IceWeasel and Flock are perfect examples. If Firefox was not Free Software, this would not be possible.

Tell me where I'm redefining the definition. I'm curious. Rather than put words in my mouth, look at the licenses that GNU recognizes that makes software Free Software.

[jhaitas]

why can't we get 3d working on the free nvidia drivers?

[Rhapsody]

GNU recognizes Firefox, Thunderbird and Sunbird as Free Software.

Wikipedia to the rescue!

"The FSF considers the official Firefox binaries released by Mozilla to not be free software because they include the proprietary crash reporter Talkback, have trademark restrictions on the Firefox name and artwork, and force the user to accept a clickwrap agreement (the latter only applies to the Windows version)." - Mozilla Firefox#Licensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox#Licensing)


Swiftfox, IceWeasel and Flock are perfect examples.

Flock is based on Firefox, but it has more extensive changes than Swiftfox and IceWeasel do, resulting in it not being compatible with Firefox extensions any more. It's really more of a derivative work.


why can't we get 3d working on the free nvidia drivers?

Because they're not advanced enough for stable and full-featured 3D. Plus NVIDIA is paranoid about releasing any substantial information about their hardware or drivers for fear of inadvertently divulging trade secrets. It's notable that the only non-open bit of the PS3 is the graphics hardware. Guess who made that?

[zetetic]

Polygon wrote:

«and for the record, you are going to be given a choice on install whether or not you want to use the binary non-free drivers».

So we are all wrong, including Mr. Mark Shuttleworth...
Or haven't you read Shuttleworth, himself, talking about this issue?
And for some reason people are already switching for other distros...

But if you know something nobody else knows, please feel free to share your information with us.

zetetic

[atoponce]

Wikipedia to the rescue!

"The FSF considers the official Firefox binaries released by Mozilla to not be free software because they include the proprietary crash reporter Talkback, have trademark restrictions on the Firefox name and artwork, and force the user to accept a clickwrap agreement (the latter only applies to the Windows version)." - Mozilla Firefox#Licensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox#Licensing)

I was not aware of Talkback being proprietary. With this information, I now need to look for a Free browser, pending further investigation.


Flock is based on Firefox, but it has more extensive changes than Swiftfox and IceWeasel do, resulting in it not being compatible with Firefox extensions any more. It's really more of a derivative work.

Still, they are taking the Firefox code, and making their own browser. It's called a fork, and because of the licensing nature of Firefox, this is okay.

[Iandefor]

why can't we get 3d working on the free nvidia drivers? Because, even with full hardware documentation from NVIDIA, it would be a monumental task to write a working NVIDIA driver that supported 3D acceleration from scratch.

The documentation isn't available, so it's even harder.

[Johnsie]

Or haven't you read Shuttleworth, himself, talking about this issue?

On Marks blog he said binary drivers are a choice. He is even providing a version Ubuntu called Gnubuntu that is completely free of prop software and us supported by GNU-founder Richard Stallman. Anyone who is unhappy with this decision can either download the other more "free" version of Ubuntu or find another distro. The average computer user just wants an o/s that performs well and operating systems need to be competitive. It's a matter of balancing performance vs. openness and no matter what decision you make there will always be people who are unhappy. At the end of the day it's the hardware producers who are creating the problem, not Mark or anyone else.

[atoponce]

Haven't heard anything about "Gnubuntu", but there is "gNewSense (http://www.gnewsense.org)", which to me, is a HORRIBLE name. Is it just me, or does it sound like nuisance?

[atoponce]

Ok. I've looked at the Talkbalk addon, and it's not distributed with Debian, as it would break the DFSG, so as such, it's not distributed with Ubuntu. This may change with Feisty. However, Talkbalk is an Addon, and can be uninstalled if it is shipped with the binary.

So, the distributed build, even if GNU doesn't recognize it as Free Software, hardly takes any time to turn the product around, and make it such.

But, with that said, I'll be switching to IceWeasel, just because of the trademark issue between Debian and Mozilla. Mozilla soured me in that respect. But I can wait for Feisty before making the switch.

[utabintarbo]

...

But, with that said, I'll be switching to IceWeasel, just because of the trademark issue between Debian and Mozilla. Mozilla soured me in that respect. But I can wait for Feisty before making the switch.

I don't understand this "more Catholic than the Pope" attitude regarding the Mozilla products. It seems that it is much ado about nothing. As if only using "absolutely free" software put one on the short path to heaven.

It's just a minor trademark issue, not a portent of the apocalypse. It would seem all this energy could be better used elsewhere. :rolleyes:

[darkhatter]

if you don't like the distribution leave, if you don't like the browser leave, don't expect the world to change for you.

[dbbolton]

i think the moral contradiction is firefox' copyrighting its logo.

[kevinlyfellow]

You can still redistribute Firefox under a different name with a different logo. Swiftfox, IceWeasel and Flock are perfect examples.

Actually swiftfox is much more dramatic, it isn't even licensed the same way!

[weasel fierce]

so basically, people now have even more choices about their software and what to use ?

Great :)

[DoctorMO]

hmmm, all this talk of restricting users rights. it's not good for the soul. are we mistaken by thinking why we are at this place?

[darkhatter]

aren't there other binary drivers installed in ubuntu by default already?

[Hex_Mandos]

I don't see anything inherently wrong in providing non-free drivers. Sure, free software is great, but software is only good while it's usable, so increased usability is always better. There's no need to be a FS Fundamentalist. In the end, making Ubuntu more functional will attract more users (who want an OS to live and work with, not philosophy) and the larger userbase will convince more hardware developers to provide Linux drivers, software developers to port their apps, etc. It can't be too bad.

[Alveric]

Thing is, I gave up Windows on my home machine for two reasons:

1. Sick and tired of spending so long downloading security updates, AV definitions et al.; and

2. Read some RMS and got hit by the "Corporate proprietary software companies are Eevil" vibe.

I'm not a programmer, just a user, and when asked why am I using Linux on my home machine, I talk about wanting to stick it to the Man and wanting to feel ever so slightly morally superior to the Microsoft drones. Its come as a bit of a surprise to find out that I'm not quite so proprietary-free as I thought.

I haven't installed anything I know to be iffy except the gstreamer plugin to play the 000s of mp3s I still have from Windows days (<cough> I am still building up the nerve to re-rip my entire CD collection in ogg...).

Yet now I find out that the Ubuntu *kernel* itself isn't exactly pure (not the right word, but you know what I mean).

So where's my moral superiority gone? How do I get it back?

[stryderjzw]

I don't see anything inherently wrong in providing non-free drivers. Sure, free software is great, but software is only good while it's usable, so increased usability is always better. There's no need to be a FS Fundamentalist. In the end, making Ubuntu more functional will attract more users (who want an OS to live and work with, not philosophy) and the larger userbase will convince more hardware developers to provide Linux drivers, software developers to port their apps, etc. It can't be too bad.

I know others have said something similar, but well said. I couldn't agree more.

[atoponce]

I don't understand this "more Catholic than the Pope" attitude regarding the Mozilla products. It seems that it is much ado about nothing. As if only using "absolutely free" software put one on the short path to heaven.

It's just a minor trademark issue, not a portent of the apocalypse. It would seem all this energy could be better used elsewhere. :rolleyes:

Hey. To each their own. I use Free Software by choice. I'm not preaching Damnation, Hell, Fire and Brimstone. And what "energy" are you referring to? Me making the choice to use another browser? Would my energy be better channeled if I used Epiphany or Konqueror?

[atoponce]

if you don't like the distribution leave, if you don't like the browser leave, don't expect the world to change for you. Exactly. I don't like the browser, so I've left. I'm not expecting anyone to follow suit. I could hardly care less what your browser of choice is.

[utabintarbo]

...

So where's my moral superiority gone? How do I get it back?

Sorry, but you never actually had any to get back.

Software is just a tool to make your PC work. It is not an ethical talisman. Your search for ethical purity should likely point in a different direction. :roll:

[utabintarbo]

Hey. To each their own. I use Free Software by choice. I'm not preaching Damnation, Hell, Fire and Brimstone. And what "energy" are you referring to? Me making the choice to use another browser? Would my energy be better channeled if I used Epiphany or Konqueror?

The "energy" I referred to was that spent whining about non-free software/logos/etc. If this energy was used to actually help produce something better, the problem(?) would take care of itself.

It does noone any good to have petty little squabbles like this. Least of all those with the smaller market/mind-share.

[aysiu]

The "energy" I referred to was that spent whining about non-free software/logos/etc. If this energy was used to actually help produce something better, the problem(?) would take care of itself.

It does noone any good to have petty little squabbles like this. Least of all those with the smaller market/mind-share.
While I agree the whining is generally not useful, I don't know that all the people whining necessarily have the skills to help produce something better with that same energy. We're not all programmers here (I'm certainly not).

[utabintarbo]

While I agree the whining is generally not useful, I don't know that all the people whining necessarily have the skills to help produce something better with that same energy. We're not all programmers here (I'm certainly not).

Then they have no right to whine in the first place. Besides, it's annoying.

[aysiu]

Then they have no right to whine in the first place. Besides, it's annoying.
I was agreeing with this statement:
It does noone any good to have petty little squabbles like this. and disagreeing with this one:
If this energy was used to actually help produce something better, the problem(?) would take care of itself.

[utabintarbo]

Pardon me for being pedantic, but whether or not the whiners are able to code is irrelevant to where the energy expended would be better utilized. But we essentially agree on the main point...

[aysiu]

Pardon me for being pedantic, but whether or not the whiners are able to code is irrelevant to where the energy expended would be better utilized. But we essentially agree on the main point...
That I can definitely agree with, which is why I wrote this:
What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741&highlight=whining+forums+making+difference)

It's targeted at anti-Linux Windows users, but it could easily apply to the "it must be Free!" zealots, too.

[Alveric]

Sorry, but you never actually had any to get back.

Software is just a tool to make your PC work. It is not an ethical talisman. Your search for ethical purity should likely point in a different direction. :roll:

Fair enough, mea culpa.

(I think it's called hyperbole.)

Al.

[Alveric]

Apologies for whining.:-#

Al.