Why Ubuntu distribute non-free software?
There has already been some negative comment about Ubuntu bundling non-free drivers, like nVidia, ATI and some wireless device firmware. For example, Pascal Terjan has written something about that, and surely Richard Stallman’s annotation on Ubuntu CD cover shouldn’t be forgotten as well.
I’m not going to discuss the ethics behind the matter, as no conclusion would never exist. My point is that, Ubuntu has been quite clever about getting the support of mass Joe users. What users care is not how free the drivers are, they just want to use it. Plain and simple. And by downplaying the discussion and claiming they only include free software, they managed to catch the attention of mass users that it just works.
This is quite similar to what Mandriva Linux has done to multimedia application in contrast to Red Hat/Fedora. By (in)famously disabling MP3 support in XMMS and other similar applications, Red Hat has the reputation of unable to satisfy home entertainment need, and thus alienated users from that particular market. Bite the bullet and go ahead negotiating the distribution, that is one way to gain advantage for Linux distributions.
I think Ubuntu developers make this decision because some of the binary drivers are in fact redistributable. (I never remember there is any formal discussion so far.) For example, here is an excerpt of nVidia license:
Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that
the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).
I haven’t checked if all of the drivers are equally redistributable, but you see the point. Some of you may still remember Theo de Raadt has done some effort on making some wireless drivers redistributable. The point is redistribution, not free vs. non-free.