"Including Adobe Air and Flash in their repository is really disheartening, but so is UbuntuOne."

I have never tried UbuntuOne...but if you want to reach more than geeks you have to have an easy way for Joe and Jane Public to get at those. Otherwise, you have lost.

Correct, but we also must have ethics. If we throw those out with the trash, then we've lost a helluva lot more than money. I'm not against someone installing Adobe Air on their Ubuntu machine (that's their business.) But when we start encouraging people, and go out of our way to encourage people to use proprietary software, then that's not just a free boost for the company that owns the software, but it's also a step backwards to the days of no alternatives or free software.

And this is exactly one of the main problems of 'free software' as an ideology. It is black & white, as if people who advocate some proprietary software are unethical. Many people in society will agree that programmers should be compensated for their work, and for many types of programs it is nearly impossible to get compensation via support. So, even if you do like free software, it is entirely reasonable to buy proprietary software.

Then there is the issue of practicality. I would love to do all my workflows using free software, but for some workflows it is just not possible. E.g. I tried using Digikam, The Gimp, and Scribus a lot. But for me, they just don't match up against Lightroom/Aperture, Photoshop, or InDesign. Am I acting unethical for using tools to get my work done?

Nowadays, I use the Apache License when possible, because I have got pretty sick of all the preaching, and claims for moral higher ground.

I don't think they are encouraging it, they simply make it obviously available to those new (often not tech savvy) Linux users.

The adamant promotion of strict adherence to FSF beliefs is fine, but it's not going to help the platform grow to anyone but geeks.

And in the same token, promotion (or helping, making available, whatever) of proprietary software can turn people away from free software. Either way, however, it's a matter of opinion.

BTW, it's not about making sure rms doesn't get pissed off. Instead, it's about how we can make sure big software companies don't try and "buy" (I use that word very loosely) us, or our users, out

If GNU ever finishes Hurd, it'll really be humorous to MS, Apple, et al., since 90% of our time will be spent arguing "No! Linux is better!" "No! GNU!" and so on. I hope in-fighting won't be free software's demise.

I completely understand where you're coming from on this. I think the fight for free software is important but in this argument I take the realistic side. I feel like spreading a "free" environment where the backbone and majority of what you use is free/libre we can bring it to the masses. Without popularity for GNU/Linux, the libre versions of the tools in question (most often graphics drivers and media codecs) are not likely to ever make ample ground on the proprietary version.

Sad, but so true. Perhaps one day those companies will listen to the free software movement and take it seriously. In the meantime, we need to take care that FOSS doesn't kill itself with in-fighting. We've got to find a middle-ground of agreement.

It doesn't even work for geeks. I want a platform that just works. I have the exact same issue with iOS. The first time I watched a vimeo link from facebook on my Android phone it was eye-opening. Finally everything 'just worked'.

That's odd - Vimeo "just works" perfectly on my iPhone.

Canonical seem to be doing what pretty much every other company which has been involved with linux has done, which is to add a few of their own proprietary bits.

Having stuff like Ubuntu One isn't necessarily a problem provided that the user of the OS isn't required to use it as part of the essential or normal usage of the system. As long as these things remain optional, that's ok.

What is, in essence, the real difference between free and open source?

Methodology (open source) vs. ideology (the morals and ethics of software freedom).

Although some see them as opposing forces within a similar frame of interest, I see them as two sides of the same coin, and am deeply passionate about both.

Open-source is free as in beer?

I think Free Software requires any changes to be provided under the original license, while open source just means the source code is available for modification and optional distribution.

Open source (or should I say, the catchphrase open-source) lets you "see" the source code, but not use it. It's more loose than:

Free software (some call it "libre") lets you see and use the source code.

Proprietary does not let you do either.

Some software makers call their software "open-source" when it's really free, and some call their software "free" when it's really just "open".

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

I wouldn't agree with "but not use it".

I tend to explain the difference as being that Open Source places the freedom of people first (e.g. with a BSD licence, developers have freedom to do anything with a piece of code) and Free Software places the freedom of software first.

(I don't project any moral judgement of either of these goals, I think they both have their place. Also hi! ;)

That's nonsense. Open source is defined by the Open Source Definition as published by the OSI. http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Read section 3, Derived Works. Putting a source tarball online with a license that says "you can read this source but you can't do anything else with it" doesn't make it open source.

I was talking about the catchphrase "open-source", not what the OSI talks about.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

By that definition SAP is open source! Since you get all the ABAP code and can do whatever you want with it, if you buy SAP first...

Indeed, when I saw that not only had zero-cost proprietary software come into Ubuntu, but they had actively invested in adding the infrastructure to allow people to pay for it I started to consider Debian for my next install.