There has been this argument in the community for a while that using some non-free software to further the Free Software advocacy might be a useful thing. As an example say you have a graphics card that there is no Free Software driver for. Then using a proprietary driver and therefore being able to use a mostly free software OS becomes justifiable.

Foggy slant from Novell staff at the event which promotes Linux (LinuxCon) but not necessarily software freedom

Neelie Kroes is IT Chief for Europe and a staunch proponent of Open Source Software. A previous Linux Journal article made mention of her recent comments on OSS vs. proprietary software:

Neelie Kroes is no lightweight when it comes to open v. closed software. She spent six years as Europe's head trust-buster, and in that time, collected billions from proprietary software makers who sought to corner the market with their closed-source wares. When she spoke, big software — and everybody else — listened. In February, Ms.

We free software advocates surely know that, no matter what we say or how we say it, some people have to or (if you prefer) simply want to use proprietary software for one reason or another - and that's even when they've heard and understood everything we have to say on the matter.

Linux hasn't been Free Software since 1996, when Mr Torvalds accepted the first pieces of non-Free Software in the distributions of Linux he has published since 1991. Over these years, while this kernel grew by a factor of 14, the amount of non-Free firmware required by Linux drivers grew by an alarming factor of 83.

Insights into the ongoing debate about Canonical (or Ubuntu) and the proprietary software it considers offering

Cloud computing, virtualization and mobile devices take the "proprietary" out of computing...at least for the consumer. Just think of the possibilities.