Shuttleworth Answers FSF Call for Free Software Drivers on Edge 112
WebMink writes "In an interview at OSCON, Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical spoke about the vision behind the Ubuntu Edge phone as a concept device to test features the mobile industry is too conservative to try. Notably, he agreed with the Free Software Foundation's demands that the device should carry no proprietary software and have Free drivers (transcript): '... we'll ship this with Android and Ubuntu, no plans to put proprietary applications on it. We haven't finalized the silicon selection so we're looking at the next generation silicon from all major vendors. I would like to ship it with all Free drivers.'"
Although not a hard promise, it is a promising development.
Re:LET US DO EVERYTHING - FOR FREE !! (Score:2, Insightful)
Only because they can't be. Don't confuse what a license doesn't do with with what it can't do.
RMS's motivation was always to get access to other people's work. It angered him that he was denied source to software that wasn't his but was free to use on a device he didn't pay for. The GPL IS about forcing others to "share", there are simply limits to its reach.
Now, it would seem that "user freedom" is somehow nicer that "forcing developers" but it is not. GPLv3 came about not because GPLv2 software isn't free but because RMS wanted to further leverage the license to restrict what hardware vendors do with their property. You can play games with the terms as you like, and FSF does, but it is what it is...further restrictions on freedom. What you can't do with GPL software is anything that RMS doesn't like.
If the GPL could also give RMS the right to take a bite out of your donut it would do that too and if you think RMS isn't that petty then you've forgotten his boycott of organizations that refuse his demand to ad hoc rename every linux product to honor GNU. Remember, RMS has never had to work for a salary. He is stuck in ivory-tower thinking and is on a crusade to deliver justice to those who'd take advantage of other people's collective work. He doesn't care about freedom so much as denying it to those who deny him. It's about his interests, not yours.
FSF is Animal Farm and RMS is the head pig. Sure, we are all equal but RMS is "more equal". Other open source licenses focus on what's really important and other groups put egos where they belong. The FSF is about the "freedom" agenda and is willing to sacrifice actual freedom to further it.
Re:LET US DO EVERYTHING - FOR FREE !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Again the tired old debate about "which is more free", GPL2 vs GPL3, GPL vs MIT etc. I'm amazed at how people keep falling for linguistic traps. "Freedom" isn't subject to gradation on a linear scale, necessarily marred by increased regulation nor evenly distributed. As a concept, it's as ill-defined as "love", so arguing about what license is "more free" doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you also fall for the cultural trap that "freedom" is the main moral goal in everything and a necessary attribute/buzzword for garnering support regardless of the issue at hand.
Having said that, I believe the GPL is better because it guarantees the possibility of forking.
Re:LET US DO EVERYTHING - FOR FREE !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't believe this anti-GPL flamebait/troll has been modded up.
It's simple: If you don't like GPL (2 or 3 or whatever), don't use/modify/distribute the software, fuck off and write your own.
Those of us who think that GPL (2 and 3) is a guarantee of the freedoms we are interested in will use/modify/distribute GPL software.
Basically, you think the freedom to restrict others freedoms is essential. And that's fine. But don't try to pretend your view is more pro-freedom.