Improper categorization of Free Software

Feedback Content
1

Someone sent me this by email. See if we can address this issue:

You deemed Linux a free software, and this is simply not true. A snapshot of the Ubuntu distro of Linux was included with the statement. Ubuntu has certian compenents in it that are proprietary, thus they deem the software not free. I would like to see this changed, please.

2

That applies to all free BSDs and all GNU distributions which aren’t certified by the FSF except Debian (main) and distributions based on Debian main with no added proprietary software. That means all popular GNU distributions are proprietary software. In my opinion restrictions on distribution like it’s applied with Firefox also renders software as proprietary. I expect to be able to sell a free software distribution under a new name and not get sued by anyone for it.

1 Like
3

In my pull request I removed Ubuntu and inserted Debian instead as an example for a major distribution with expert commercial support. I think Canonical is too bad. Red Hat on the other hand I left in as the second and last example because they offer world class support. There surely are many more companies which would benefit from Red Hat. The resulting operating system that they get is unfortunately still proprietary. Also Red Hat doesn’t mention GNU or free software at all and only retell the story of student Linus Torvalds with lots of “open source”.

1 Like
4

We should write the article Linux is NOT Windows ourselves. Dominic Humphries’ writing is lenghty and he calls GNU/Linux Linux, which apparantly was founded by Torvalds in 1991 etc. Also he repeatedly hammers the point home that free software is not commercial and not professional. Which is just not true.

When I tried my first GNU/Linux distribution I bought professional support. Why not? Free software is a multi million Dollar industry.

In general we should make the best version of every writing on any topic we cover and any list. Others should point to us!

1 Like
5

Yes, I think that is an excellent idea! It would be a nice addition to our content. Feel free to start on a draft if you like.

6

Is this still an issue with Firefox? According to Wikipedia the source code is actually free software:

Firefox source code is free software, with most of it being released under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) version 2.0.[23] This license permits anyone to view, modify, or redistribute the source code. As a result, several publicly released applications have been built from it, such as Netscape, Flock, Miro, GNU IceCat, Iceweasel, Songbird, Pale Moon, Waterfox, and Comodo IceDragon.[citation needed]

In the past, Firefox was licensed solely under the MPL, then version 1.1,[229] which the Free Software Foundation criticized for being weak copyleft, as the license permitted, in limited ways, proprietary derivative works. Additionally, code only licensed under MPL 1.1 could not legally be linked with code under the GPL.[230][231] To address these concerns, Mozilla re-licensed most of Firefox under the tri-license scheme of MPL 1.1, GPL 2.0, or LGPL 2.1. Since the re-licensing, developers were free to choose the license under which they received most of the code, to suit their intended use: GPL or LGPL linking and derivative works when one of those licenses is chosen, or MPL use (including the possibility of proprietary derivative works) if they chose the MPL.[229] However, on January 3, 2012, Mozilla released the GPL-compatible MPL 2.0,[232] and with the release of Firefox 13 on June 5, 2012, Mozilla used it to replace the tri-licensing scheme.[233]

Source: Firefox - Wikipedia

7

See the next section “Trademark and logo”. It’s illegal to distribute anything other than the official binaries as Firefox. That’s why we had Debian Iceweasel and we still have GNU Icecat.

1 Like
8

I created a pull request which replaces Trisquel by Debian. Could you have a look?

9

Done. I modified the article slightly for our website:

https://www.getgnulinux.org/linux/linux_is_not_windows

I also took this opportunity to include the well-written “Linux virus” essay by Rick Moen:

https://www.getgnulinux.org/linux/faq/virus

Let me know if you see room for improvement!