This is ridiculous. There's nothing "open-minded" about this. To quote the bug description:
> What should happen: A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software.
This does not happen, so marking this bug as fixed is bullshit.
The Ubuntu project used to have as its goal that the majority of PCs for sale should include only free software. This attracted people to the project who were motivated to contribute because they shared that same goal. I don't think Ubuntu would be anywhere as successful as it is today were it not for its community at the beginning. The "leaders" of the Ubuntu project have now shown that they don't really give a shit about free software, but they're still benefitting from the work of those who do and who did that work with an understanding that Ubuntu did give a shit about that stuff.
This is like a leftist political party presenting itself as a movement for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a fully classless, stateless, communist society; this attracts many dedicated people who make huge sacrifices to achieve this goal (or at least they think so). Then, as soon as the leftist political party takes power (e.g., by winning an election or whatever), the "leaders" of the party talk as if that was the entire revolution rather than a first step on the road to it. And then the "leaders" of the party start using their newly obtained power to actively eliminate the elements within the party who are still seeking a genuine revolution, labelling them "counter-revolutionary" or whatever.
To the extent that this analogy holds, this is what Ubuntu is doing and has done. A few years ago at least, it seemed like Ubuntu was the vanguard of the free software movement. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was the best we had and it seemed like there might just be a small chance it could succeed (and it really did aim to). But let's make no mistake about it, let's not have any illusions about this: Ubuntu has betrayed the revolution. Fuck it, let's not use it, let's not promote it, let's have nothing to do with it. If "flexible thinking" means betraying the revolution then there's nothing virtuous about it and I hope we don't see more of it from the "leaders" of free software projects. And I hope we in the free software community learn a lesson from this about the power dynamics within communities and how it's important for our communities to have structures that prevents these kinds of co-options by individuals and companies with vested interests. In retrospect, it should have been obvious from the start (at least for me, as an anarchist) that the Ubuntu project was doomed to fail. You can't have a "'benevolent' dictator for life"; a dictator for life is dictator for life, and power corrupts. But you especially can't have a benevolent dictator for life who is/was the CEO of a corporation, whose sole purpose, by definition, is to maximise shareholder value. Now I accept that there are cases where the short-term goals of a corporation maximising its shareholder value can converge with the goals of wider communities, and I'll even admit that there are times when communities can benefit from the actions of corporations, but it must be recognised that ultimately their goals diverge. It should have been obvious that Ubuntu/Canonical's relationship with the wider free software community was doomed to end in this kind of betrayal. I just hope that people in the free software community learn from this and that it doesn't happen again.