[GNUz] How does GLU/GNUz differ from CLUG?

[Timothy Musson]

Okay, here's the post I promised over on the CLUG mailing list :^)

I'm not so much interested in discussing binary blobs, as figuring out
what GLU/GNUz is all about... and that kind of discussion belongs on
_this_ list. So here goes.


Let's start with the CLUG.

The CLUG isn't a Free Software user group. Most of the people there
don't have ethical problems promoting and supporting proprietary
software, even when Free alternatives exist. Now, I'm not complaining -
I happen to think that CLUG is a fantastic resource. I'm just saying
that CLUG has no interest in Free Software philosophy.


Now to GLU/GNUz.

Unless I'm mistaken, the GNUz list got started as a place for people
interested in Free Software (regardless of Operating System) and the
philosophy behind it.  Actually, I vaguely remember Jim saying the list
would become whatever we made it. There was no "mission statement" or
anything like that. So we're not _necessarily_ a Free Software
interest/support group ;^)

But assuming we are a Free Software group, rather than an alternative
CLUG:

How can it be appropriate for us to recommend, distribute and support
proprietary software in any way?

We recommend and support Ubuntu[1], which includes non-Free software.
We help folks install binary-only drivers (wireless, video, ...)
We help folks set up win32 codecs, flash, etc.

If we can find excuses to do those things, what differentiates us from
the CLUG?

Instead, why don't we...

Consider Free alternatives to Ubuntu (gNewSense, Fedora, others?)
Help folks select and track-down decent hardware.
Come up with a constitution, so that I'm no longer confused :^)


[1] Rik, there's no doubt that Ubuntu includes non-Free software, and
    intends to include more in future. To "opt out", you need to pick a
    GNU/Linux distro that does gymnastics to compile a truly free Linux
    kernel. Ubuntu doesn't do that.

   From RMS:
   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html

   "The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem
    with non-free software: they actually contain some. Quite a few
    device drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware
    programs to be installed in the device. These programs are not
    free software."

   "Linux, the kernel, is often thought of as the flagship of free
    software, yet its current version is partially non-free. How did
    this happen? This problem, like the decision to use Bitkeeper,
    reflects the attitude of the original developer of Linux, a person
    who thinks that “technically better” is more important than
    freedom."

   From Mark Shuttleworth, about Ubuntu:
   http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/95

   "During the discussion, we re-affirmed the Ubuntu policy of including
    proprietary drivers where these are required to enable essential
    hardware functionality. [...] We have always shipped those, and
    intend to continue to do so."


Regards,

Tim
-- 
trmusson@ihug.co.nz