> 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
-- 



