Ubuntu completely Free

[BrokeBody]

The Glossy Gnu will nonetheless play a role in this next release,
because Ubuntu 7.10 will feature a new flavour - as yet unnamed - which
takes an ultra-orthodox view of licensing: no firmware, drivers,
imagery, sounds, applications, or other content which do not include
full source materials and come with full rights of modification,
remixing and redistribution. There should be no more conservative home,
for those who demand a super-strict interpretation of the "free" in free
software. This work will be done in collaboration with the folks behind
Gnewsense.


https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2007-April/000276.html

[Fascination]

This has already been mentioned in the Gutsy Gibbon discussion thread here in the same forum. ;)

EDIT: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=407366&page=2 <---- about halfway down its mentioned. :)

[v8YKxgHe]

It basically means Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu will remain the same (IE, with closed-source drivers etc) however a new flavor, unnamed yet, will also come a long with 7.10

[Quillz]

Can't seeing this being very popular. Try going to just about any video site, like YouTube, without at least one non-free codec.

[Adamant1988]

Can't seeing this being very popular. Try going to just about any video site, like YouTube, without at least one non-free codec.

There is a niche for this product, so I can certainly understand it's creation.

[Fascination]

I for one dont really care about 'how free' the software is on my systems (read into that what you will), but I am looking forward to seeing what its got and I know for a fact Ill install it on one of my machines simply to play around in it. :)

[Rhapsody]

Can't seeing this being very popular. Try going to just about any video site, like YouTube, without at least one non-free codec.

You do know that the GPLed Gnash (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) can more or less handle YouTube videos now, right? The various audio and video codecs are a much bigger and more difficult problem due to software patents, not to mention compression formats like RAR and ACE which can only be handled with proprietary programs as things are.

[bastiegast]

I for one dont really care about 'how free' the software is on my systems (read into that what you will), but I am looking forward to seeing what its got and I know for a fact Ill install it on one of my machines simply to play around in it. :)

Me neither, but some do. So I think it's a good thing they make a 100% free version. And If the free version at one point actually provides sufficient drivers and desktop experience I and others will prefer it over the non-free version.

I think the the first year or two the free version will indeed be not very popular, but think about projects like nouveau and the free flash implementation (can't remember it's name EDIT: see above post, Gnash). If they have matured enough and I have a laptop with an intel WiFi card -that has open source drivers- I will certainly use the free version.

On a side note it might actually give the "normal ubuntu" more opportunities to install some proprietary software by default like flash and video drivers.

[Fascination]

On a side note it might actually give the "normal ubuntu" more opportunities to install some proprietary software by default like flash and video drivers.

Thats a really good point, would be interesting to see what other apps Ubuntu could take on after such a release (mplayer springs to mind straight away). :D

[Tobster]

I do not understand the issue with close codec. As ex-MS Windows users or Apple users we already paid for these codec and so have a right to use them and download them as stated by law both in the UK and USA and across the world.

Toby

[grte]

I do not understand the issue with close codec. As ex-MS Windows users or Apple users we already paid for these codec and so have a right to use them and download them as stated by law both in the UK and USA and across the world.

Toby

I've never purchased a copy of either one.

[Tobster]

Unless you made your PC. When you buy the PC from the store it comes with Windows or Apple depending on what you brought right? You know all that so called extra 'free software' that you get on your new PC from the store - it not free, no GNU license.

The total software cost on a new PC is around £250 so if you take £250 -£300 off the total cost of brand new PC you will get the true cost of your computer. that £250 also covers all the cost of the codec's that you get in MS Windows or Apple.

Thanks

Toby

[grte]

Unless you made your PC.

This is what I do. I've never bought a hard disk with anything preinstalled.

[Tobster]

In your case then you would need to pay for the codec's but I am not sure how you would go about that.

Thanks

Toby

[koenn]

Unless you made your PC. When you buy the PC from the store it comes with Windows or Apple depending on what you brought right? .... £250 also covers all the cost of the codec's that you get in MS Windows or Apple.


It might be a bit more complicated that that.
1- you should check the EULA on "the software" that came with the computer. It might say that the software is a "bundle" and that the right to use it only applies tyo the whole, not to individual components such as codecs

2- it might give you the right to use these codecs, but that doesn't auyomatically imply that a Linux distributor such as canonical has the right to distribute them, i.e. include them in a distro.

[Tobster]

I agree that Conical should not install codec's in Ubuntu but I believe software like Automatix is important so that people can install them who meet the legal requirements.

Thanks

Toby

[VinzClortho]

Pardon my cynicism, but the completely "free" version of *buntu seems to be an attempt to kowtow to the RMS types as a palliative for giving users what they really want: an OS which is functional and useful out-of-the-box.

Look at the increased popularity of Linux Mint. It is not much more than Ubuntu with codecs and a green theme. Yet, as reported by Distrowatch (http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070416#news), it is flying out of the mirrors.

Is it really necessary to spend time and resources just to prove Ubuntu's bona fides to the RMS types? What, precisely, is gained?

[Mateo]

<-- This post is not free. You may not either reproduce it, nor modify it without my permission. This gets zealots' underwear in a bunch, I'm sure ;)

[jrusso2]

A totally free version of Ubuntu by its nature will not be popular as most people want their software to easily be useful to them in playing multimedia codecs, flash, and dvd. Not to mention use their wireless cards and video cards.

This is just Mr. Shuttleworths way of cow towing to the "political wing" of the FSF advocates.


Hopefully one day Mr. Shuttleworth will look at the sucess of Linux Mint and try to take his distribution more in that direction.

Use the software that makes your computer productive. For most of us this is not some kind of 'Holy War" for free software.

[Anthem]

A totally free version of Ubuntu by its nature will not be popular as most people want their software to easily be useful to them in playing multimedia codecs, flash, and dvd. Not to mention use their wireless cards and video cards.

This is just Mr. Shuttleworths way of cow towing to the "political wing" of the FSF advocates.
So? It's not hurting the mainline distro any... this is just an additional distro. It brings in more people to the Ubuntu ecosystem, which is always good. Plus, it spurs the development of totally-free drivers, which is good no matter how you slice it. A working free driver is much better than a working non-free one. Anything that spurs the development of open wireless and graphics drivers makes me happy.

There's no downside here... I'm not sure what the problem is.

[aretei]

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/108

As we discuss this issue, Mr. Shuttleworth has words to confirm and clear up his motives on this move. I sure can't wait to use and "free" (as in freedom) ubuntu when this version is released. If I need to stain my computer with blood (proprietary programs), I will do it with my own hands and I think ubuntu should do its best to free the OS. This sure is a brave step taken by Mr. Shuttleworth, and it is a big one. :D

[bobbob94]

My first thought when i heard this was "great!", but i can't help wondering if this won't also serve to make it easier to include proprietary/closed source stuff in Ubuntu by default. There's been, rightly imho, disagreements over things like whether to include closed source video drivers by default, and I wouldn't like a situation to develop where the answer becomes something like we'll put more and more closed stuff in Ubuntu and if you don't like it move to the totally free version. Most people will install and use the main version, and I believe what does and doesn't go into that is worth serious discussion...

[slayerboy]

guys, remember one thing. We're talking about free as in "freedom of choice" versus free as in "free beer".

I think the direction that this is going in is to have a distro that combines more of what Mint and Linspire offer in their distros as well as have a choice to adhere to a more "debian-style" distro where the software is free as in "freedom".

For the most part, I feel that Ubuntu has done pretty good at trying to be on the "freedom" side of things, but, let's face it....the average user converting from windows wants everything to just work. Most distros that have tried to be non-free have decided for their own good to move more towards "freedom" and utilize outside resources for ease of installing non-free stuff. I remember when PCLinuxOS used to have an Nvidia version and an ATI version. I understand why they stopped this, but I really don't know if this was a good decision. All of a sudden PCLinuxOS started to lose some of it's "luster" and started to feel like every other distro, but a little easier to use.

I think by having a "freedom" version of ubuntu and a no-holds-barred version of ubuntu where things that windows users are used to (like nvidia/ati drivers, adobe reader, flash, etc) are installed by default. You could do it one of two ways. First way, you could have separate versions for each video card (nvidia and ati), or you could have a hybrid installation where it checks the net and checks your hardware and installs the appropriate version for your hardware. This would be the ultimate ease of use for all newer users.

I can appreciate where everyone on the "freedom" side of things is coming from, but I really do think we need to set aside a little bit of leeway to get new users used to Linux. There really isn't a security issue here either. What's to stop a user from downloading and installing all of these non-free things themselves?

Why are we making it harder on ourselves? I honestly think more hardware vendors would develop linux drivers if they didn't fear that they had to open up their code. Just because you use an open-source OS, doesn't mean EVERYONE can't use closed-source programs or drivers if they want to just because you don't agree with it.

Also, let's set one more thing straight. You are NOT paying for the codecs when you buy a computer. You are NOT paying for the software that comes with your computer. The manufacturers get paid to install software on their computers that they sell, plain and simple. This is why, for most low end systems, it's cheaper for me to buy a low end machine from a vendor and wipe the hard drive than it is for me to build a system with the same specs.

I understand allowing closed-source software to be installed by default might pose some moral or ethical questions, but in the end, this is what's holding Linux back. Freedom of choice. Don't hold others back because you don't agree with a certain idea. It's not hurting you, you have the choice to install a "freedom" version or a closed version. In most cases, I've found the open source stuff to be better than the closed source, with the exception of hardware drivers.

I really am liking the future of ubuntu and linux in general right now. I think CNR will make a huge difference with getting people to realize that Linux doesn't have to be hardcore. And yes, even with all the advancements we have made in the last year, I still say Linux is more hardcore than it needs to be because distros fear including closed drivers and software in their installations.

[VinzClortho]

...
Why are we making it harder on ourselves? I honestly think more hardware vendors would develop linux drivers if they didn't fear that they had to open up their code. Just because you use an open-source OS, doesn't mean EVERYONE can't use closed-source programs or drivers if they want to just because you don't agree with it.
...
QFT++

[3rdalbum]

Am I the only one who remembers the existance of Gnusense, which is EXACTLY like a version of Ubuntu without Restricted?

[VinzClortho]

Am I the only one who remembers the existance of Gnusense, which is EXACTLY like a version of Ubuntu without Restricted?

No.

[slayerboy]

Am I the only one who remembers the existance of Gnusense, which is EXACTLY like a version of Ubuntu without Restricted?

I may be wrong about this, but I think what Mark is trying to do is make ubuntu a brand umbrella. IIRC, he said that they would be working with the Gnusense team to create this free version. The same way he's working with the Mint and 'Spire teams for the "non-free" version, or it would seem.

I have no way of knowing what Mark and the team is thinking with all this, but look at the forks that are now considered different flavors of ubuntu and "supported". Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.

I have to confess...I HATE forks.

yes I realize that Ubuntu is a distinct fork of Debian, but Debian can never be a "commercial" distro, because the nature of Debian is to break away from corporate support. I think forks are great in this instance, because it made Debian fun and popular again in a strange kind of way

Every distro has forks, that's almost considered a neccessary evil. I think what Mark may be trying to do is look at the forks and say "hey...this is a good idea, let's incorporate this in our next release and future releases" This gets the forked devs working to HELP ubuntu, instead of take away from the distro it forked from.

If this is indeed what Mark is doing, I think this is the best way to look at forks. Maybe the forks are doing things better than you are currently, let's try and get some needed help and get the forked devs over to help on the main distro and get the devs of the main distro to work on more important things.

I'm not sure I'm really explaining things in an easy way. I just think you're going to see Gnusense and LinuxMint end up under the umbrella of ubuntu similar to Xubuntu and Edubuntu, maybe even rebranded to keep the 'buntu naming scheme going.

Yah, I'm crazy...lol

:popcorn:

[richardjennings]

This seems to be an extremely important step forward. It seems rational to me to assume that part of Ubuntu's dev efforts will be aimed at improving 'out of the box' capabilities. For example, the afor mentioned flash project. Rather than focusing soley on the operating system; which I think most would agree is superb, this announcement, (to me at least) rallies visions of lateral development.

[bobbob94]

Just because you use an open-source OS, doesn't mean EVERYONE can't use closed-source programs or drivers if they want to just because you don't agree with it... Don't hold others back because you don't agree with a certain idea. It's not hurting you, you have the choice to install a "freedom" version or a closed version.

I'm absolutely not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to install closed-source software if they want to (not that there's any way to stop it even if you wanted to...). I'd say it should be made easier if anything, so people are offered the choice during installation. What I'm not comfortable with is having it automatically installed as part of a default installation of Ubuntu. Of course if people want to make distros/versions with binary drivers etc included by default then why not, and they have done of course. The question i'm interested in is what goes in the main Ubuntu release by default...

[wesley_of_course]

I'm absolutely not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to install closed-source software if they want to (not that there's any way to stop it even if you wanted to...). I'd say it should be made easier if anything, so people are offered the choice during installation. What I'm not comfortable with is having it automatically installed as part of a default installation of Ubuntu. Of course if people want to make distros/versions with binary drivers etc included by default then why not, and they have done of course. The question i'm interested in is what goes in the main Ubuntu release by default...

Wesley here ;

Me too .

[maniacmusician]

So? It's not hurting the mainline distro any... this is just an additional distro. It brings in more people to the Ubuntu ecosystem, which is always good. Plus, it spurs the development of totally-free drivers, which is good no matter how you slice it. A working free driver is much better than a working non-free one. Anything that spurs the development of open wireless and graphics drivers makes me happy.

There's no downside here... I'm not sure what the problem is.
yeah, exactly. No problem. I guess some people are never satisfied with any kind of compromise.