Ubuntu, another choice

The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how decisions about its use should be made. For example, suppose one individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a copy. It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party, called the “owner”? Software developers typically consider these questions on the assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers' profits. The political power of business has led to the government adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation associated with its development. I would like to consider the same question using a different criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general. This answer cannot be decided by current law—the law should conform to ethics, not the other way around. Nor does current practice decide this...

You would think that a GNU/Linux distribution dedicated to shipping only free software would be uncontroversial. After all, isn't free software what GNU/Linux is all about? Yet, when the latest version of GNewSense was announced recently, Slashdot readers were divided in their reactions. Some thought the distribution would have too limited appeal, and argued that what was needed was a distribution so popular that hardware and software vendors would have to support it. Others suggested that GNewSense had two uses: As an indicator of what the free software community has done so far, and as a summary of what still needs to be done before the goal of a completely free operating system is realized. GNewSense began at a conference in Tunis in 2005 when Paul O'Malley heard Mark Shuttleworth and Richard Stallman talking about the possibility of a politically free version of Ubuntu, whose various incarnations include proprietary wireless drivers and access to non-free video dr...