[synchronise]

A contributor license agreement is commonplace in several projects including those that are open source. To find an issue with Canonical's use of one would also imply that you take issue with other organisations using the same agreements, such as Owncloud, Diaspora, the Apache Foundation and even the Free Software Foundation.

Secondly, the consumer would rather software with stability and functionality rather than visible source code. The prevalence of users using binary drivers on Linux demonstrates that. Users seeking a completely FOSS experience are free to use those distros that offer that, however the overall experience will be worse than those which allow the easy installation of binary drivers.

And just because you say Ubuntu isn't GNU/Linux, by definition you are wrong as they fulfil all the requirements of a GNU/Linux distribution.

The amount of misinformation and bias in your post is actually quite intriguing.

[rogerbinns]

LWN covered contributor license agreements several times. The FSF at least says the code will always remain free software.

http://lwn.net/Articles/529522/

> Secondly, the consumer would rather software with stability and functionality rather than visible source code

Err, you are agreeing with one of my points. However this is not good for consumers in the long term since they will be restricted by whatever the producers of binary blobs and closed drivers decide to do. For example if the vendor decides not to support particular architectures, or update with kernel changes then tough luck.

> And just because you say Ubuntu isn't GNU/Linux

I was responding to the OP equating Ubuntu with Linux - ie supporting the Edge is supporting Linux. If for example Canonical said they would make sure the hardware was open/free, or at the very least that any rights Canonical negotiates for binary blobs and drivers would apply equally to the whole Linux community then that would be a good start. Heck many argue that binary blobs are drivers are violations of the GPL.

> The amount of misinformation

I would love to correct factual errors. What are they?

> .. bias in your post ..

I was responding to OPs claims that supporting the Edge is supporting Linux, and implied that we all should do so. Supporting the Edge is supporting Canonical and only indirectly Linux. The reasons I gave are why I don't support Edge, and implicitly what Canonical could do to get my support. Everyone is free to make their own mind up, and hopefully I've provided some reasons from the dissenters.