Should there be a US version of Ubuntu be available and the only one possible to download from within the US?

In the future it might be possible that Ubuntu for example could be sued to provide software which is illegal in the US like mp3 support, some fonts, video codecs etc.

Should people in the US blocked to download such software with a firewall set up to block some ip ranges?

If you're not allowed to use this software anyway would it harm the users?

That would be prohibitively difficult to enforce.

Quick example: Ubuntu versions are available for download as a torrent. All that would need to be done for an American to get an MP3-containing Ubuntu version (technically illegal in the US) would be to obtain the torrent file and then download.

It would be a waste of resources to recreate a U.S. version. I don't even think it would be possible because right now by default, there's none of the "controversial" stuff included. And since Conical isn't even located in the U.S. it would be difficult to bring a case against them. Don't listen to Microsoft's FUD.

I think you did not understand what I meant.

Ubuntu does not plan to include these codecs in the default installation, what I was suggesting was that the access to the repositories would be restricted by firewall for users in the US or other countries where this stuff is illegal.

Would this be appropriate if Ubuntu would be in danger of getting sued because of some stupid new law?

You could still download the packages by using proxies located in England for example, but it would be much harder for the common pc noob.

I really wouldn't like the idea. It goes against everything that open source is for. It's your choice if you want to install those codecs and stuff.

Microsoft isn't located in the EU but nonetheless the European Union is suing them every couple of months because of some monopoly stuff, like non removable or rather software which you can't disable.

This was the reason for example you could disable wmp, ie and msnmsg with xp sp2.

open source doesn't grant you the right to break laws, does it?

No it doesn't give you the right to break the law, but I guess you could say it gives you the choice?

This is the point I want to discuss:

should it give you the choice to break the law or should canonical block US access to these packages, even if it could be held responsible in the future?

If you can't use the software legally should you be allowed to download it?

Right now you have two choices:

to don't download the software and obey the law

or

to download the software and break the law

Good idea. Perhaps you should get in contact with Canonical and put them in touch with the Chinese government?

What would you suggest?

P.S.: it's not my idea it was discussed for a short while at the recent lugradio pod cast of which one of the hosts is jono bacon, canonicals community manager.

You never made any reference to the repos in your opening post. Your first sentence quite clearly said:

That, to me at least, suggests the possibility of an Ubuntu distro for US users without any proprietary software available. My first post addressed the feasibility of that idea.

I apologise for not being clear, I just thought of the CDs as a snap shot of the current repositories.

The US CD would filter the packages in question.

If you Download a EU edition you would still be blocked because of your ip.

That's what I meant.

I'd suggest leaving it up to the person who's using the OS to decide whether to download something which is illegal in their country or not.

Canonical have nothing to worry about. Any law enforcing OS makers to restrict people from downloading certain things would be quickly shot down as an irrationally stupid idea. It would be an extremely expensive and draconian measure to try to curb illegal software distribution.

Not a problem.

Do you think the EU restricting Microsoft is so different from that?

What are the restrictions the EU has placed on Microsoft?

That the internet explorer is no longer the same as the filebrowser explorer, that you can deactivate the access to the messenger, to the wmp and ie, that you are able to give your copy of the OS back to the retailer for a refund.

And the probably most important for this is that you don't have to pay for the licenses you don't need within the EU.

which is kind of the exact opposite of this topic.

I was just saying this that people know it in fact is possible to use laws against software companies and it's not fiction.

That sounds more like choice. You don't have to do that do you? It seems the same as the codecs issue. You don't have to install them.

Then yes, the restrictions they've placed on Microsoft are very different, despite still being restrictions.

I hardly think laws to restrict the adverse effects on the market of a company with a strong monopoly is the same as passing laws which mean its (at least partially) an OS companies/creators responsibility to try to stop their users breaking the law.

Of course it's possible to use laws against software companies and it's always possible a completely mind-blowingly stupid law could pass, but hopefully in that case common-sense would prevail.

A user has their own mind to make choices with.