true_blue

The paid option would require a CLA, wouldn't it?

I agree that it's better than the "open core" model because it limits by time rather than space, as they say, but it kinda misses the point of open-source software. The conflict of interest is that they effectively want to be the only ones who can profit off the software, while still benefiting from the free work of others, but commercial-use is within the open-source definition.

My real issue is that it seems like they're trying to spin it as a kind of "open-source", but it's not. If they were more up-front about that, I probably wouldn't care as much.

Also saying that it's less restrictive than copyleft is just outright false.

free-riding

If you're gonna have that kind of attitude, then you don't really care about user freedom.

I was going to do the unbranded build option but from what I could find, unbranded builds don't get updates.

I forgot where I heard this, but at one point around the same time, Microsoft was trying to get BASIC embedded into webpages for Internet Explorer as a competitor to JavaScript.

Would the internet really be better with BASIC?

Yes but the advantage of Linux over windows is obvious. It's open source. Where's the advantage of FreeBSD? Companies can make their own proprietary fork and give nothing back?

For something as important as your web browser, that's a pretty good reason to me.

I use Nvidia's proprietary driver because the open-source Nouveau driver won't work with my display. Will this update break the driver, or just make it slower?

I'd love to stop using Nvidia, but I don't have much choice about using their proprietary driver until I get my next video card.

after 90 days, they just send the BAT back to you. They don't keep it.

For a 100% libre kernel, I feel like this is the more sensible option than Hurd, just to take advantage of all the effort that goes into the Linux kernel. I'm not knowledgeable on kernels in the first place though, so maybe a micro-kernel really is the best way to go once you figure out the proper architecture.

Number 3 is by far the most important, because most people just don't think about what web browser they're using. A lot of people don't even think about web browsers at all. They just think of the web browser app as "the internet", and that's it.

If you want to be nitpicky about it, you could consider it to not be an "ad" because its not a company paying to put that text there. It's Ubuntu promoting their own product. But I don't think it makes much of a difference in this case, since it's a big annoyance either way.