[ubuntu-in] Canonical kills free Ubuntu CD program

[Manish Sinha]

On 04/07/2011 01:59 PM, Kingsly John wrote:
> You should probably read things again with an open mind.  Just because this
> is the Ubuntu-IN list doesn't mean we don't have the right to criticize
> things we don't agree with.

I never said you cannot criticize. Even FUD can be disguised to be
"personal opinion".

Did he explain how it would "slowly compromise with the ideals of Debian 
and GNU" ?
He did not!

> And while FSF says it is okay to pay for "libre" software, they don't
> advocate paying/using propreitary software.

Did I claim this? They just don't have problems. They have clearly said
that Free means libre to them and not gratis.

> Ubuntu has allowed installing all kinds of non-libre drivers. So they have
> always been divergent from the philosophy of the FSF.

You taking away the freedom of installing non-libre driver makes a
distro more free?
Before Squeeze Debian too had non-free bits in their kernel which was
fine. FSF's ideals are too tough to follow and be relevant at the same
time (at this age)

Same goes with Debian. Zach has clearly said that they disagree with
RMS's stand on contrib repo.

> And Canonical have stated their objective of moving towards "open core" with
> Unity being a first step, which means more proprietary extensions are to be
> expected.
>
> And from http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html

Did you read this post 10 times? It is a SHITLOAD of LIES and FUD.
Qt was not an open-core model but a dual-licensing model. Even RMS said
somewhere that selling exceptions is OK.

Mark had praised (in the IRC session) Trolltech for their model in
which they provide Qt for FOSS community and sell exceptions and 
sustain themselves. This was a good way of making sure that Qt
development continues.

Later I learnt from Kuhn supporters that he has apologized for his
mistake. I cannot find his apology anywhere.

>
> "Canonical, Ltd. refuses to promise to keep the software copylefted and never
> proprietarize it"
>
> It doesn't matter if they haven't gone/never go proprietary, the very fact
> that they want copyright assignments without giving up their rights to ship
> proprietary/non-libre versions of the software speaks volumes about where
> they stand in terms of their commitment to "libre" software.

I am not a Canonical employee. Catch one and talk to him on this matter.