Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||||||||||
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default
= Attendance = * Scott James Remnant (chair) * Colin Watson * Kees Cook * Martin Pitt * Matt Zimmerman = Apologies = * Mark Shuttleworth = Notes = == Proposal to install ubuntu-restricted-* by default == http://launchpad.net/bugs/723831 The Technical Board voted unanimously against (0 for, 5 against) including non-free software in the distribution, agreeing that checking a box in the installer by default is equivalent to simply including the software in the default installation. This would have gone against Ubuntu's long standing policy that the only concession is for hardware drivers as detailed at http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/licensing == ubuntu-devel moderation == Colin Watson agreed to follow up on the problem of slower moderation of the ubuntu-devel mailing list, either by encouraging more members or discussing with the patch pilots how to ensure changes do not get stuck. (Log in to post comments)
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 28, 2011 14:12 UTC (Mon) by mdz@debian.org (subscriber, #14112) [Link]
A summary and transcript of the meeting can be found here: http://bit.ly/eaI1uN
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 28, 2011 14:30 UTC (Mon) by sahko (guest, #54088) [Link]
The title is just a tad misleading.
Ubuntu will of course include non-free software by default, just not from ubuntu-restricted-*. I dont expect to see Ubuntu shipping an RMS approved version any time soon. :)
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 28, 2011 22:47 UTC (Mon) by keybuk (subscriber, #18473) [Link]
I'm not aware (but I could be mistaken) of any non-free software currently shipped in Ubuntu by default.
There are items of documentation, firmware, fonts, etc. that are more restricted, but I didn't think we shipped any software anymore since DKMS came along.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 2:47 UTC (Tue) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
Calling software that runs on a peripheral processor 'firmware' doesn't make it any less software, though I realise that the source code for that software is generally not as useful or interesting as that for software that runs on the CPU.
Aside from the general principle of software freedom, peripheral processors for devices on the PCI bus are often capable of initiating DMA and so may compromise the security of system. So there is a practical reason for wanting to see source code for 'firmware', regardless of whether it's loaded from disk or flash.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 14:31 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Right. Just the same as any random PCI peripheral can initiate DMA and hose the system thoroughly. To be on the safe side, you clearly need detailed schematics for each and every one of them. Plus you CPU might just act up and scribble over memory too, so that one has to be audited too. Not to mention that many processors do load update microcode on startup...
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 16:22 UTC (Tue) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link] Right. Just the same as any random PCI peripheral can initiate DMA and hose the system thoroughly. My point was not that they may misbehave (though this is a good reason to want to change firmware) but that they may be exploitable. This is particularly true for network controllers, but can also be true for GPUs and other devices which unprivileged applications can access with limited mediation by drivers. To be on the safe side, you clearly need detailed schematics for each and every one of them. RTL, surely. :-) Plus you CPU might just act up and scribble over memory too, so that one has to be audited too. Not to mention that many processors do load update microcode on startup... Yes, this applies to CPU microcode too, even more so. There have certainly been CPU bugs that can be exploited by a local user for denial of service. Some of them can be fixed in microcode; others can be worked around in the kernel. I realise we aren't likely to get source for CPU microcode any time soon, and we would have trouble updating it anyway due to the (fairly sensible) signing requirement. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful to have, or that it isn't software.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 16:55 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> due to the (fairly sensible) signing requirement
I disagree with your parenthesized remark. In what way is the signing requirement sensible there, while not being sensible for cellphones, Tivos, etc? It would be pretty awesome to be able to hack my CPU's microcode.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 17:09 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Beyond security, even. I'm an amateur radio operator and can make my own radio gear, and the wifi and amateur radio frequencies overlap. I'd like to modify the firmware in my wifi cards to do interesting things. (what precisely those interesting things might be is difficult to pin down until I know more about what the card can do). Clearly, there are limitations, but that's between me and the FCC, not me and the wifi card vendor.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 17:16 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 23:17 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] My point was not that they may misbehave (though this is a good reason to want to change firmware) but that they may be exploitable. This is particularly true for network controllers, but can also be true for GPUs and other devices which unprivileged applications can access with limited mediation by drivers. Presumably you do realize that circuitry and software are just two ways to express algorithms. Just like a firmware implemented one can be buggy/exploitable, so is the hardware one. Only difference is that firmware is easier to fix (and allows much more complex algorithms today).
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 28, 2011 14:58 UTC (Mon) by njd27 (subscriber, #5770) [Link]
The original bug was entitled "Make YouTube work right out of the box" - hopefully it won't be too long until we have an HTML5/WebM solution to this problem.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 28, 2011 18:08 UTC (Mon) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link]
> The original bug was entitled "Make YouTube work right out of the box"
Seems to me more like a YouTube bug ;-)
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 28, 2011 19:12 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Webm works fine for Youtube, unless your watching a video that is using advertisements.
So far it's mostly a problem that solves itself. :P
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 6:32 UTC (Tue) by rilder (guest, #59804) [Link]
People behind Ubuntu must understand that their distro is meant to be the first hop for people from Windows/OSX world. To ease the transition, they should be making amends to allow these. This also includes the other non-free stuff like the drivers. These can easily turn off people who are using Linux for the first time.
OTOH, if this non-shipping is because of any patent/legal/copyright issues, then the decision is good I guess, which can/may be resolved in future.
People who are strictly pro-FOSS would be much more technical who would either use one of the custom distros built around debian/ubuntu or other distros.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 7:21 UTC (Tue) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]
Ubuntu by its own words (http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy) is meant to be consisting of software that is free to copy, distribute, study, share and improve, in person's language of choice and despite any possible disabilities. For licensing, this means only free software, but there is an exception for drivers.
That said, many of the closed source components are also illegal or possibly illegal to redistribute or be pre-installed (especially without showing EULAs), which also means many of the Ubuntu derivatives that ship "everything" are breaching some terms of contract in at least some of the countries like US. Ubuntu (or its backer Canonical) cannot take such actions like these smaller community distributions that do not care about legal issues, even if Ubuntu wouldn't be so keen on free software.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 30, 2011 15:01 UTC (Wed) by JEDIDIAH (guest, #14504) [Link]
The "redistribution" issue is easy enough to get around by fetching the relevant bits from the original vendor and managing things from there. This is how the standard flash packages on Ubuntu already operate.
For the "introductory distribution", the number of unusual hurdles should be kept to a bare minimum. This includes Flash. Ubuntu generally has been pretty good about dealing with these things. They certainly should not see to take a step backwards here unless there is some compelling reason to do so (like the DMCA).
Ubuntu has never been the "purity" distro. They should get over themselves.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 31, 2011 13:19 UTC (Thu) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]
> Ubuntu has never been the "purity" distro. They should get over themselves.
They have always been about shipping only free software applications in the default install, and promoting free software and standards. They make it easy to install also non-free or encumbered software for those people who need it (and it can be argued that Adobe Flash is needed by majority of ordinary users).
Similar to eg. Fedora, Ubuntu intentionally also does its part to inform the user about benefits of free software, for example when offering to install codecs for proprietary formats or proprietary hardware drivers. That's basically best of both worlds - make it easy, but do not stop caring and aiming for a more free world.
Someone could probably to an Ubuntu derivative with all allowed proprietary stuff included, but it seems that those that do not care about free software aspects at all, often do not care that much about legality either. Therefore I think (I'm not sure on details) most of the "Ubuntu, but all included" distributions are illegal in at least parts of the world, but since they are minor non-commercial players they don't get sued.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Apr 2, 2011 10:56 UTC (Sat) by markshuttle (subscriber, #22379) [Link]
We've always been pragmatic, but proprietary blobs in user space fall on the wrong side of the line for us. Being pragmatic, we get criticized by folks on both sides of the debate :-) Nevertheless, the position of sticking to free (open source) in user space, and willingness to include binary drivers and firmware so users can actually experience that free software, is the right one for our community.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Apr 7, 2011 7:28 UTC (Thu) by misc (guest, #73730) [Link]
Being pragmatic mean to consider the practical aspects, and free software is a movement based on very practical concerns ( such as "impossibility to do some work caused by lack of source" "impossibility to do research" ). So the rhetoric about "pragmatism" is slightly misleading, as it make the opposite camp appear as being disconnected from the reality. For example, boycott is something pragmatic, as it has practical consequences and effects ( mostly around communication if it work ) even if it make thing harder for some days operations. So yes Ubuntu is pragmatic, but so does most of the people that would disagree with some of Ubuntu choices, IMHO.
Ubuntu is based on compromises and consensus, and that's why it is criticized by both ends of the debate, as a compromise is a middle ground by nature.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 9:45 UTC (Tue) by sitaram (subscriber, #5959) [Link]
I suppose it'd be too much to hope that, while debating software to "Make YouTube work right out of the box", (viz., Flash) they wouldn't also a spare a thought to software that does not fill any such specific and urgent need, and even if it did, was mostly used by people who are perfectly able to install it manually if needed (any of the Mono apps that apparently are so important).
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 11:25 UTC (Tue) by ean5533 (subscriber, #69480) [Link]
The Mono-based apps are not non-free. That is a different discussion.
Ubuntu technical board: no non-free software by default Posted Mar 29, 2011 12:24 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]
How is this related to non-free software in any way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||