Fixing Modem Manager in 10.04
Hi, I use a Huawei E1260 USB modem (provided by Tata Photon+). This does not work out of the box with a stock 10.04 install. However after installing an updated version (0.3-0ubuntu4) of modemmanager from http://ppa.launchpad.net/hardik-dalwadi/ppa/ubuntu, it started working fine. Is it possible to integrate whatever fix is need from this ppa into the main repository in a future update to Lucid? -- Chandra Sekar.S -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Of course it is! At least according to our philosophy: http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy Still, many people don't think that Ubuntu is truly committed to free software in practice. These people can and should be our allies. Their concerns are valid, and they are not difficult to appease. I'd like to present a short list of simple ways that Ubuntu could show it's commitment: 1. Offer ways to easily purge all non-free software from one's system. * This would require supporting the linux libre kernel (it doesn't have to be by default, but the option should be available) 2. Make a point of saying why and how non-free software was bad, but also why the option is given to install it * This would need to be shown every time Ubuntu recommends proprietary software like restricted drivers That's it! -- .danny ☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo Every (in)decision matters. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: Of course it is! At least according to our philosophy: http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy Still, many people don't think that Ubuntu is truly committed to free software in practice. These people can and should be our allies. Their concerns are valid, and they are not difficult to appease. I'd like to present a short list of simple ways that Ubuntu could show it's commitment: 1. Offer ways to easily purge all non-free software from one's system. * This would require supporting the linux libre kernel (it doesn't have to be by default, but the option should be available. No. It doesn't. That kernel removes the ability to run non-free drivers. The exact same amount of non-free code runs if you don't have any installed. Just about the last thing Ubuntu needs is the maintenance overhead of another kernel that only serves ideological purposes. There is already a free software only install option that not only will not install anything non-free, it also disables the restricted and multiverse repositories so that people who are concerned about this can safely install new packages without fear of contamination. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Hi Danny, On 9 June 2010 17:57, Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: Of course it is! At least according to our philosophy: http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy Still, many people don't think that Ubuntu is truly committed to free software in practice. Where many people == the FSF. These people can and should be our allies. I don't particularly want allies that do this:- http://www.defectivebydesign.org/amazon-kindle-swindle and this:- http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple-challenge Their concerns are valid, and they are not difficult to appease. I'd like to present a short list of simple ways that Ubuntu could show it's commitment: How about answering the questions/concerns posed to you in the other threads you've raised today and engage in the discussion rather than fire-and-forget. You're in danger of falling into the same behaviour as other FSF members before you. It goes something like this:- 1. Send a mail mandating how things should be done 2. Lots of people reply, some people ask questions asking you to clarify position 3. Ignore those questions 4. Choose another mailing list and GOTO 1 I'm all for having a discussion about these things, but I don't appreciate being talked _at_ by someone who isn't willing to at least engage. 1. Offer ways to easily purge all non-free software from one's system. We have that, and has been for a few releases now. Boot an Ubuntu Live CD and press F6 at the boot screen/menu, choose Free Software Only. Announced over two years ago here:- https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-April/000651.html 2. Make a point of saying why and how non-free software was bad, but also why the option is given to install it * This would need to be shown every time Ubuntu recommends proprietary software like restricted drivers We do. Jockey pops up a dialog box when you install non-free drivers, as does totem when you install non-free codecs. Perhaps the wording could be adjusted/improved to clarify the position, but I think we're pretty much there. That's it! That's never it in my experience. There are always those who will go further in terms of freedom than you. Other ideas I've seen suggested which go beyond That's it! include such choice suggestions as:- * Removal of Firefox due to license concerns around the logo usage * Block installation of non free extensions in Firefox * Block installation of non-free software full stop * Only install on systems that have a free software BIOS ..and so on. Cheers, Al. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: * This would require supporting the linux libre kernel (it doesn't have to be by default, but the option should be available. On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: No. It doesn't. That kernel removes the ability to run non-free drivers. The exact same amount of non-free code runs if you don't have any installed. Just about the last thing Ubuntu needs is the maintenance overhead of another kernel that only serves ideological purposes. Noting what Scott mentioned above, I'll add that *changing hardware enablement fundamentally alters an Ubuntu experience*. Let's pause and think on what removing support for non-Free drivers actually means. Suppose you're low-vision/hard-of-seeing/blind, and you need a screen reader. Now let's remove a nontrivial number of sound driver blobs[0]. That pretty much neuters any sort of session accessibility you're going to get, no? That was a fairly specific use case, but it's fairly trivial to see how providing an easy path for people to install these markedly different *foundational* components into an Ubuntu system is a very slippery slope to madness. Best, -Dan [0] Now, I know that there is the option delimited within the F6 menu, but Linux-libre appears to be much more comprehensive, e.g., http://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/software/linux-libre/scripts/deblob-2.6.34. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Upstream linux is not free. That is why LinuxLibre was created. http://libresoft.es/Members/herraiz/blog/linux-is-not-free-software I have doubts that this was unintentional. Here's a list of nonfree stuff in Linux: http://manulix.wikidot.com/kernel-blobs On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 16:08, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 13:19, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: Of course it is! At least according to our philosophy: http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy Still, many people don't think that Ubuntu is truly committed to free software in practice. These people can and should be our allies. Their concerns are valid, and they are not difficult to appease. I'd like to present a short list of simple ways that Ubuntu could show it's commitment: 1. Offer ways to easily purge all non-free software from one's system. * This would require supporting the linux libre kernel (it doesn't have to be by default, but the option should be available. No. It doesn't. That kernel removes the ability to run non-free drivers. The exact same amount of non-free code runs if you don't have any installed. Just about the last thing Ubuntu needs is the maintenance overhead of another kernel that only serves ideological purposes. There is already a free software only install option that not only will not install anything non-free, it also disables the restricted and multiverse repositories so that people who are concerned about this can safely install new packages without fear of contamination. Yes, the free software only option is there, but isn't entirely free. That's what linux-libre is for. Linux libre should be the kernel for the free software install. Mainline Linux is not free because it includes binary-only firmwares hidden as source code files (or blobs) Then these are bugs. They should be fixed. If the effort that's going into a political kernel fork were put into high quality patches more progress would be made. I suspect it's not because the fork is more about taking away people's freedom to run non-free code than it is about fixing problems with inadvertent problems with non-free bits in the kernel. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- .danny ☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo Every (in)decision matters. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Hello. I'm usually a lurker on the list, but I feel a bit compelled to jump into the fray here. On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 16:49 -0400, John King wrote: Ubuntu is targeted at a more mainstream user; that user more than likely wants his computer to just work, even if that means proprietary software and/or binary blobs. One of those driver blobs could mean the difference between 'Happy Ubuntu Convert' and 'Failed Ubuntu Convert'. Trisquel is aimed at a user who is uncompromising in his/her pursuit of complete software freedom; IMO a great goal and one that we should all work towards, but not one that really encompasses the average computer user at this point. I'm the guy he's talking about here. Although I've now been using Linux long enough that I feel myself to be somewhere on the low side of intermediate in terms of what goes on under the hood, I feel that I'm a bit rare in that I didn't come to Linux because it was open source software, but rather because it was free as in beer. And actually, believe it or not, it wasn't technically free from a wallet perspective. I bought a copy of Mandrake from the clearance rack at Walmart for, I want to say, US$10 for something like that. In fact, I didn't even know (or care at the time) about open source software, GPL, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, or anything else about the open source or Linux world. But what I did know was the Windows ME on the machine I had bought was an epic fail, and I couldn't find Windows 98 anywhere. So, to be blunt, I said what the hell, grabbed the box with the penguin on it, and the rest is history. UNTIL I found Ubuntu, I had a love/hate relationship with Linux, where I would use it, go back to Windows, back to another distro, back to Windows, lather, rinse, and repeat. Ninety percent of the time, each of these iterations in the cycle was caused by something that just didn't work. Graphics didn't work right. Network card wouldn't be seen. And it wouldn't play mp3s. Now, I understand that for many, wouldn't play mp3s is considered a feature, not a bug. But ... for the mainstream user just coming over from the Windows world, not being able to play mp3s, or not being able to play DVDs equals *broke*. After all, they worked in Windows, but not Linux. To them, it is not a matter of free vs. proprietary, nor is it a matter of closed source vs. open source. It's a matter of works vs. broke. And as a mainstream user, I went through a ton of broke distros. I was even more frustrated with SuSE, when, in order to listen to mp3s, I had to add another independently maintained repo to yast, which completely hosed yast. And so, I went back to Windows. Now then. Having been involved in the Linux society and culture, I understand why closed-source software is shunned. However, I also see that, at this juncture, it is often necessary to make things work. Right now, I've got a wireless driver and a graphics driver that are proprietary. I know this because the Device Manager told me. I also have the restricted extras package installed. But Ubuntu works, and I've stuck with it ever since. It works. I can't repeat that enough. IT. WORKS. In my experience with Linux, I've noticed that over time, open source solutions to close sourced problems pop up, given enough eyeballs. Perhaps those are eyeballs like mine, the folks that see Ubuntu as a shining star because it works, and are coaxed into realizing the advantages of open source software. I believe you attract a lot more people if you give them something that works, but say We believe this is a problem because it works, but it's closed source. Can you help? It's better to walk along the fence line with folks who are new to Linux, as opposed to pelting them with rocks from fifty feet away and saying If you want this to work, throw rocks with us. And honestly, I think one of the greatest issues that Linux, as an operating system, is struggling with right now is not the proprietary developers in front of it, but the wild fanatics behind it shooting it in the back of the head, yelling Give me free or give me death. So, yes, I am committed to free software. But I also know the carrot works better than the stick, and the better it works out of the gate, the more eyeballs you have to open things up even more. Just my twelve cents. Your mileage may vary. And so forth. - Travis. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Travis, I understand that for many, wouldn't play mp3s is considered a feature, not a bug. Could you explain why anyone thinks that? hanks. PB - On 6/9/2010 4:59 PM, Travis Beaty wrote: Hello. I'm usually a lurker on the list, but I feel a bit compelled to jump into the fray here. On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 16:49 -0400, John King wrote: Ubuntu is targeted at a more mainstream user; that user more than likely wants his computer to just work, even if that means proprietary software and/or binary blobs. One of those driver blobs could mean the difference between 'Happy Ubuntu Convert' and 'Failed Ubuntu Convert'. Trisquel is aimed at a user who is uncompromising in his/her pursuit of complete software freedom; IMO a great goal and one that we should all work towards, but not one that really encompasses the average computer user at this point. I'm the guy he's talking about here. Although I've now been using Linux long enough that I feel myself to be somewhere on the low side of intermediate in terms of what goes on under the hood, I feel that I'm a bit rare in that I didn't come to Linux because it was open source software, but rather because it was free as in beer. And actually, believe it or not, it wasn't technically free from a wallet perspective. I bought a copy of Mandrake from the clearance rack at Walmart for, I want to say, US$10 for something like that. In fact, I didn't even know (or care at the time) about open source software, GPL, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, or anything else about the open source or Linux world. But what I did know was the Windows ME on the machine I had bought was an epic fail, and I couldn't find Windows 98 anywhere. So, to be blunt, I said what the hell, grabbed the box with the penguin on it, and the rest is history. UNTIL I found Ubuntu, I had a love/hate relationship with Linux, where I would use it, go back to Windows, back to another distro, back to Windows, lather, rinse, and repeat. Ninety percent of the time, each of these iterations in the cycle was caused by something that just didn't work. Graphics didn't work right. Network card wouldn't be seen. And it wouldn't play mp3s. Now, I understand that for many, wouldn't play mp3s is considered a feature, not a bug. But ... for the mainstream user just coming over from the Windows world, not being able to play mp3s, or not being able to play DVDs equals *broke*. After all, they worked in Windows, but not Linux. To them, it is not a matter of free vs. proprietary, nor is it a matter of closed source vs. open source. It's a matter of works vs. broke. And as a mainstream user, I went through a ton of broke distros. I was even more frustrated with SuSE, when, in order to listen to mp3s, I had to add another independently maintained repo to yast, which completely hosed yast. And so, I went back to Windows. Now then. Having been involved in the Linux society and culture, I understand why closed-source software is shunned. However, I also see that, at this juncture, it is often necessary to make things work. Right now, I've got a wireless driver and a graphics driver that are proprietary. I know this because the Device Manager told me. I also have the restricted extras package installed. But Ubuntu works, and I've stuck with it ever since. It works. I can't repeat that enough. IT. WORKS. In my experience with Linux, I've noticed that over time, open source solutions to close sourced problems pop up, given enough eyeballs. Perhaps those are eyeballs like mine, the folks that see Ubuntu as a shining star because it works, and are coaxed into realizing the advantages of open source software. I believe you attract a lot more people if you give them something that works, but say We believe this is a problem because it works, but it's closed source. Can you help? It's better to walk along the fence line with folks who are new to Linux, as opposed to pelting them with rocks from fifty feet away and saying If you want this to work, throw rocks with us. And honestly, I think one of the greatest issues that Linux, as an operating system, is struggling with right now is not the proprietary developers in front of it, but the wild fanatics behind it shooting it in the back of the head, yelling Give me free or give me death. So, yes, I am committed to free software. But I also know the carrot works better than the stick, and the better it works out of the gate, the more eyeballs you have to open things up even more. Just my twelve cents. Your mileage may vary. And so forth. - Travis. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2927 - Release Date: 06/09/10 06:35:00 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
I would assume that he's referring to the fact that some people wouldn't want to have or care about MP3 playback because it's a patented format. I've seen Ubuntu users whose entire music library exists in non-patented formats like Vorbis and FLAC. Guthro gut...@earthlink.net wrote: Travis, I understand that for many, wouldn't play mp3s is considered a feature, not a bug. Could you explain why anyone thinks that? hanks. PB - On 6/9/2010 4:59 PM, Travis Beaty wrote: Hello. I'm usually a lurker on the list, but I feel a bit compelled to jump into the fray here. On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 16:49 -0400, John King wrote: Ubuntu is targeted at a more mainstream user; that user more than likely wants his computer to just work, even if that means proprietary software and/or binary blobs. One of those driver blobs could mean the difference between 'Happy Ubuntu Convert' and 'Failed Ubuntu Convert'. Trisquel is aimed at a user who is uncompromising in his/her pursuit of complete software freedom; IMO a great goal and one that we should all work towards, but not one that really encompasses the average computer user at this point. I'm the guy he's talking about here. Although I've now been using Linux long enough that I feel myself to be somewhere on the low side of intermediate in terms of what goes on under the hood, I feel that I'm a bit rare in that I didn't come to Linux because it was open source software, but rather because it was free as in beer. And actually, believe it or not, it wasn't technically free from a wallet perspective. I bought a copy of Mandrake from the clearance rack at Walmart for, I want to say, US$10 for something like that. In fact, I didn't even know (or care at the time) about open source software, GPL, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, or anything else about the open source or Linux world. But what I did know was the Windows ME on the machine I had bought was an epic fail, and I couldn't find Windows 98 anywhere. So, to be blunt, I said what the hell, grabbed the box with the penguin on it, and the rest is history. UNTIL I found Ubuntu, I had a love/hate relationship with Linux, where I would use it, go back to Windows, back to another distro, back to Windows, lather, rinse, and repeat. Ninety percent of the time, each of these iterations in the cycle was caused by something that just didn't work. Graphics didn't work right. Network card wouldn't be seen. And it wouldn't play mp3s. Now, I understand that for many, wouldn't play mp3s is considered a feature, not a bug. But ... for the mainstream user just coming over from the Windows world, not being able to play mp3s, or not being able to play DVDs equals *broke*. After all, they worked in Windows, but not Linux. To them, it is not a matter of free vs. proprietary, nor is it a matter of closed source vs. open source. It's a matter of works vs. broke. And as a mainstream user, I went through a ton of broke distros. I was even more frustrated with SuSE, when, in order to listen to mp3s, I had to add another independently maintained repo to yast, which completely hosed yast. And so, I went back to Windows. Now then. Having been involved in the Linux society and culture, I understand why closed-source software is shunned. However, I also see that, at this juncture, it is often necessary to make things work. Right now, I've got a wireless driver and a graphics driver that are proprietary. I know this because the Device Manager told me. I also have the restricted extras package installed. But Ubuntu works, and I've stuck with it ever since. It works. I can't repeat that enough. IT. WORKS. In my experience with Linux, I've noticed that over time, open source solutions to close sourced problems pop up, given enough eyeballs. Perhaps those are eyeballs like mine, the folks that see Ubuntu as a shining star because it works, and are coaxed into realizing the advantages of open source software. I believe you attract a lot more people if you give them something that works, but say We believe this is a problem because it works, but it's closed source. Can you help? It's better to walk along the fence line with folks who are new to Linux, as opposed to pelting them with rocks from fifty feet away and saying If you want this to work, throw rocks with us. And honestly, I think one of the greatest issues that Linux, as an operating system, is struggling with right now is not the proprietary developers in front of it, but the wild fanatics behind it shooting it in the back of the head, yelling Give me free or give me death. So, yes, I am committed to free software. But I also know the carrot works better than the stick, and the better it works out of the gate, the more eyeballs you have to open things up even more. Just my twelve cents. Your mileage may vary. And so forth. - Travis. No virus found in this
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Hi PB. From what I understand, there were patent issues with the mp3 format, which is why a lot of the distros which I've dealt with outright refused to play it, or made you jump through hurdles to get it to happen. There is of course Ogg format -- which is a fine format! Unless, you have an entire CD collection which you've already ripped to MP3 format. A lot of times, the responses I got when asking about it went along the lines of mp3 is evil. By not supporting it, we are supporting open source solutions, a.k.a. sticking it to the man. Or, that they were protecting the distro from being sued later on, as the tinfoil hats told them someone was going to pop the patent on them and let them have it. Again, I can understand the fear of patent war ... we've seen a bit of that recently. But it returns to the fact that the mainstream user will see it in black and white terms ... works in Windows, broke in Linux. They could care less about the politics behind it. It's just one example of why I start twitching when people want to make it harder for me to have Linux just work. - Travis. On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 17:07 -0500, Guthro wrote: Travis, I understand that for many, wouldn't play mp3s is considered a feature, not a bug. Could you explain why anyone thinks that? hanks. PB -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 16:59 -0500, Travis Beaty wrote: Now then. Having been involved in the Linux society and culture, I understand why closed-source software is shunned. However, I also see that, at this juncture, it is often necessary to make things work. Right now, I've got a wireless driver and a graphics driver that are proprietary. I know this because the Device Manager told me. I also have the restricted extras package installed. But Mp3 playback isn't closed source, it's not a problem because it's licensed under the LGPL. You can play back MP3s and still be completely free as in speech... patents aren't copyright, the owners of the code actually want you to use these things as open source. Martin, -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Hmm. This confuses me, then. Because I know it was a problem at one point, at least with SuSE. I had to get different packages from plf in order to play them. - Travis. On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 19:25 -0400, Martin Owens wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 16:59 -0500, Travis Beaty wrote: Now then. Having been involved in the Linux society and culture, I understand why closed-source software is shunned. However, I also see that, at this juncture, it is often necessary to make things work. Right now, I've got a wireless driver and a graphics driver that are proprietary. I know this because the Device Manager told me. I also have the restricted extras package installed. But Mp3 playback isn't closed source, it's not a problem because it's licensed under the LGPL. You can play back MP3s and still be completely free as in speech... patents aren't copyright, the owners of the code actually want you to use these things as open source. Martin, -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Once again, the issue is basically that the Mp3 format is patented, nothing else really that I know of. Travis Beaty twbe...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm. This confuses me, then. Because I know it was a problem at one point, at least with SuSE. I had to get different packages from plf in order to play them. - Travis. On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 19:25 -0400, Martin Owens wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 16:59 -0500, Travis Beaty wrote: Now then. Having been involved in the Linux society and culture, I understand why closed-source software is shunned. However, I also see that, at this juncture, it is often necessary to make things work. Right now, I've got a wireless driver and a graphics driver that are proprietary. I know this because the Device Manager told me. I also have the restricted extras package installed. But Mp3 playback isn't closed source, it's not a problem because it's licensed under the LGPL. You can play back MP3s and still be completely free as in speech... patents aren't copyright, the owners of the code actually want you to use these things as open source. Martin, -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 18:30 -0500, Travis Beaty wrote: Hmm. This confuses me, then. Because I know it was a problem at one point, at least with SuSE. I had to get different packages from plf in order to play them. The problem is patents, i.e. people who didn't write the code, who have nothing to do with it telling the people who did write the code that they can't use it, distribute it etc. It's pretty silly and needs to go away, but that's a legal thing. Anyway, if you see a patent problem it's got nothing to do with closed sourceness. Martin, -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 16:37, David Schlesinger le...@access- company.comwrote: On 6/9/10 1:21 PM, Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: Upstream linux is not free. That is why LinuxLibre was created. http://libresoft.es/Members/herraiz/blog/linux-is-not-free-software I have doubts that this was unintentional. Here's a list of nonfree stuff in Linux: http://manulix.wikidot.com/kernel-blobs Danny, if you or anyone else has an issue with the governance of the kernel project, attempting to address it via an end-run through a litmus test of Ubuntu's support for software freedom seems a rather passive-aggressive way to go about it. I don't see much productive coming out of this discussion. If you're not happy with the way the kernel project is being run, I suggest you'd do better to go talk to Linus and Andrew Morton about it. If Ubuntu's governance is not to your liking, there are plenty of other distros. If none of those is to your liking, you can roll your own. The fact is that Linux is not entirely free, and there is a project which is the Linux kernel without the nonfree bits. Talking about linux governance is out of the scope of this discussion. Ubuntu's philosophy says it is free, but even the free software only option has nonfree bits. Why shouldn't i expect the mere option to have a fully free system using Ubuntu? Non-free software in Main is a bug. So fix the bug. Your would appear to confirm the that criteria for non-free on that list includes things that are free, but can be used to load non-free firmware, so the list doesn't impress me. Since iwl 4965 is on your list and that's what one of my laptops runs, I decided to have a look at drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c. /** * * Copyright(c) 2003 - 2009 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as * published by the Free Software Foundation. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for * more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with * this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., * 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA * * The full GNU General Public License is included in this distribution in the * file called LICENSE. * * Contact Information: * Intel Linux Wireless i...@linux.intel.com * Intel Corporation, 5200 N.E. Elam Young Parkway, Hillsboro, OR 97124-6497 * */ License seems OK. I read through the code and it appears to load some microcode, but I didn't see anything in the source that looked like anything other than the preferred form of modification. I'm not a kernel hacker so I might have miss understood what I was looking at. Also that list mentions version 2.6.30 and I used the current Ubuntu 2.6.32 source for Lucid and it may have changed. So I'm curious what's non-free in that file to get it on the list? Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
