I do think the choice of terminology here is very important, both to ensure that we convey the correct message (there really IS a difference between commercial and proprietary software, as the bug reporter points out) and to ensure that people genuinely understand what's going on.
The current spec at https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/enabling- additional-components talks about "restricted-use" software, which IMO is too much of an Ubuntu-ism (we call the repo of hardware-enablement stuff that we support and might install by default "restricted"). I don't have any concrete proposals, but I do think we should work hard to make this correct. That said, I don't think we should "special-case" restricted. It's an Ubuntu policy choice to make restricted part of the base distro. We should provide a mechanism *on install* to avoid these proprietary bits, but I don't tihnk we have to continue to provide a filter for those packages in every aspect of the UI. I think it's reasonable to have only *two* checkboxes, which allow the user to turn on the display of (a) unsupported software, and (b) proprietary software. Leaving both unchecked would give you the default position (including restricted). Checking "show unsupported" would give you universe. Checking "show proprietary software" would give you commercial, and checking them both would give you multiverse as well. -- proprietary != commercial https://launchpad.net/bugs/44925 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
