> I find it hard to believe that it is a licensing issue
I'm certain that's not!
> I'm not aware of any good reason for Ubuntu hiding the fact that its
based on GNU/Linux.
I'm certain that they aren't hidding. If they're they do a very poor job.
Ubuntu comes with proprietary software, but it doesn't come with any flash
implementation that's not Free Software (someone refered to proprietary
flash in this thread), and many of those drivers and firmwares are what
makes people able to use the rest of the sistem and applications as Free
Software only.
Let me give you my example:
I need to use wifi network and a proprietary version of Java in order to
use my work network and work VPN. In some locations of my clients I only
have wifi (and the free driver needs de proprietary firmware), and I
haven't been able to use the Juniper Networks VPN client with free
implementations of Java (I've no choive about using that VPN client). I
don't use any other proprietary software in the computer. I'm not happy
about using this trash, but it's an forced compromise I need to not use a
lot more proprietary software.
In the past even RMS, made some compromises like this and I only make them
when the rules aren't set by me, and when I can't have any influence. But I
allways let people aware of this problems and periodicaly try, to set me
free, of this proprietary problem.
When I buy a computer I allways test it to make shure I can use it with
Free Software only, but there're times I don't have a word in hardware
choice (it's imposed by the employer).
Although Ubuntu is not a Free Software only distribution I don't think we
should not recomend it just because of that, what we should do is recommend
people to avoid using proprietary software, and only use under extreme
situations (and under protest).
Ubuntu enables a lot of people and organizations to use a lot more Free
Software. And they've allways prefered to provide Free Software
(proprietary drivers are only used if the free driver for that device
fails) and proprietary software is on specific repositories (restrited
repository and thir party repositories), so users won't install if they
don't want so.
I allways mention GNU/Linux when I want to refer to the GNU/Linux
distribution and I think it's very important that users are aware of Free
Software and the need (their and ours) to use it I can accept that not
every body feels the need to say that something is GNU/Linux in order to
make people aware of software related freedom. I admit the possibility of
using other strategies. Some strategies don't mention software freedom, I'm
certain that those will fail. Others inspired in the carrot and stick
principle might fare better (comparing with not talk about software
freedom).
I admit that not every user/programer/whatever of Free Software cares about
software freedom and they're free todo so (even if I would prefer and ask
them otherwise). In such cases, our victory will be that they've their
freedom and that some provide it to others. Some day, and somehow they will
learn better, and we will reach their users, because we won't fail.
I would prefer that they would explicit mention GNU/Linux, or even better
Free Software everywhere, and I might tell them that it's better for
everybody to do so. But I won't "go to war", or even be hostile with them
because of it, because it's useless to our software freedom goal.
with my best cumpliments to all
Diogo
--