> I don't care if it is common sense or reasonable to you, to have the
> four freedoms for every software I use (remotely or localy). I want
> the four freedoms for every software I use, no matter if it runs on
> my computer or the computer of someone else. I just matters that I
> am a user and don't have the four freedoms.

If it's not running in your computer, and it's not distributed. I see no reason
for demmanding access to someone else private software.
In this context Free Software is important for your freedom to control your
computer, and to be independent from other people. If you've choosed to run
software in someone else computer, you don't want to be very independent from
him and there's no loss of control for your computer. There maybe other freedom
needs related to data, and some specifications for data formats, but litle
more.


> Either the European patents which are listed by the MPEG LA are illegal
> (which I suspect) or they don't deal with software. In Europe some
> companies have been sued because of these patents. At the moment
> one of Germany's biggest discounters is being sued for not having
> an MPEG licence, so I suspect that the MPEG LA would do this if they
> had illegal or invalid patents.

My opinion, is that any software patent in any country that is signatary of
this convention is illegal, and any aptempt to withold those patents is also
illegal even if performed with the legal system.


> It depends on the country and person. I buy online very frequently
> and I hardly remember when I bought electronic devices in a store.

I hardly remenber buying electronic devices. But due to costumer support
questions I prefer to buy off-line.


> Or maybe they just need to sell a lot music in patented formats. Just
> because some users demand something, a company like 7digital won't
> change something in their business model, if it already works and
> there no great expectations for profit.

I don't think Canonical would go for this under those conditions (I'm
optimistic about this). And canonical as recommended to not buy music under
those formats in the store.



> I agree with you in a lot of places. But Canonical would just ignore
> proprietary software and wouldn't include it, they would neither make
> it hard or easy to install proprietary software. People who want
> it, could still get it (the same as with Fedora). People who would
> choose it, because they didn't think about something else to use,
> would choose Free Software.

I disagree that not putting it in repositorys, is not making it easy. Not doing
nothing is not user-friendly (because for most users this centralized
distribution method should be the only that they should need).

I don't know if I have understood your last frase. But with Ubuntu the only
proprietary software that guets installed by default is driver firmware (if it
is required), and drivers. I've never seen a proprietary driver running by
default (they were installed, but not loaded), no other proprietary software is
installed by default so it's in no way imposed.



> My problem is not that there are proprietary software repositories,
> but merely that they are official and are accepted and intended
> by Canonical.

I don't have problems with that because the partners repository is not
activated by default, and restrited will only be used if needed to run the
computer. So I find this compromise not desirable, far from ideal, but
acceptable.



With my cumpliments
Diogo
-- 



