ACPI administration advocacy advocacy advocacy opinion alsa amarok apache apple apt aptitude archive audio audo authentication automount avi awk backup bash BIOS boot browser business bzip cache calendar calibre cdr cdrecord censorship commandline computerscience console convert cron cut database date debian degree design desktop development disk dpkg dvd economics education emacs email europe exim faad ffmpeg file files firefox firewall flash foss freedom ftp fun fuse git gnumeric graphics grep growisofs grub gtkpod gzip hardware hardware html icedove idiocy image imagemagick images installation ip iphone ipod iptables iso itunes ivman kde kernel keyboard knoppix lame laptop latex libreoffice linux locale lockin locking longlines lsof m4a microsoft mimetypes minitab mogrify mount mp3 mp4 mplayer multimedia music mysql network nfs nfs4 nmap openbox openfiles openoffice opinion opinion orgmode partition pdf perl php podcast politics pomodoro ports postgresql print printing privacy process programming rant remote rhythmbox rss rsync rxvt scp screengrab screenshot script scripting scsi security sed server services shell siteadmin sitenews sitesoftware skype skype slackware sound sox spam spreadsheet ssh statistics subversion sudo svk swap t23 t43 tar terminal tex text thinkpad thunderbird time timer timezone ubuntu udev upgrade usb usbmount users uuid versioncontrol vfat video vnc windows wine wordpress wordprocessing X40 xwindows xwindows youtube
I care about the licensing of the software I use, not because of some philosophical principle, but because I got sick and tired of having the thumbscrews put on me by proprietary software companies.
The latest row over at Ubuntu about licensing shows that plenty of other people feel the same way. End users aren't licence agnostic; they know that the licensing of the products they use is important.
Concerns over licensing are not the preserve of a few whacko freetards, but of ordinary users. Ubuntu is, after all, one of the most popular and least techie Linux distributions.
Many years ago, I switched from Apple to Suse Linux after having been shafted by Steve Jobs. I was also not sure whether Apple would survive as a company and therefore not sure whether I'd soon have access to my data if I switched platforms. I felt then that Linux would offer me protection as even if SuSE went bust, free software would mean I wouldn't be trapped.
I found that, at the time, SuSE had an upgrade cycle worse than Microsoft's. I quickly got sick of this and researched other distributions. I moved to Debian for a number of reasons, but the clincher was the social contract, which I regarded then and still regard now as a guarantee of freedom - freedom to access my data and freedom to do what I want with my computer. I have never regretted the move to Debian.
Other reasons to like Debian are:
I understand how some people can get frustrated when Debian refuses to include useful proprietary software. I think, however, that this modus operandi is right. It means that I, the computer user, decide when I want to cross the line from free to non-free. It means that I decide when I want to risk having my data tied up in a closed proprietary format, because I know when I've installed non-free software.
This knowledge is important. The current argument over the Firefox EULA shows that it's important to others too. Incidentally, Debian has already solved this by rebranding Firefox as Iceweasel.
I don't think enough people understand the importance of licensing. I think a lot of ordinary people are frustrated with proprietary software and closed licenses, but they can't articulate why and they don't understand the alternatives.
For instance, I hear a lot of people (like my mother) griping about having to upgrade MS Office to read the files people send them, only to find out they have to upgrade Windows as well which means upgrading they computer. That's frustrating. I try to explain that this is what Free software and Open source is all about.
I think somehow FOSS advocates need to find a good, succinct way to bring the argument down to this level.
Who cares. . . freedom includes using the program that works best for you--regardless of the license or what other people think! --BL
When I wrote the social contract referred to in this article, I'd been burned by any number of proprietary software companies. Although I was able to get "programs that worked best for me", the companies that made them tended to not keep them working for very long unless I paid for the same program over and over again. Often the programs I bought were never updated, bugs weren't fixed, and they stopped being useful as new hardware and new OS releases that they couldn't operate with came out.
Of course I use Debian too, for more than 10 years now. And everything works better with each release.