I don't have a problem with it, it's their name.
Ubuntu One
Archived thread 1163493 from Ubuntu One (CLOSED). Markdown source: Ubuntu_One_(CLOSED)/thread_1163493_Ubuntu_One.md
ad_267 said: I don't have a problem with it, it's their name.
I second that, its as much as I care about politics... all about attention. Though I understand where there might be a problem
I think it was a smart move to start using Debian.
Well it is Canonicals trademark but I don't think it's a wise thing to do.
It will upset the community.
They can use the money they earn with One in Ubuntu development. Better charging for services like this than for the OS.
danielrmt said: They can use the money they earn with One in Ubuntu development. Better charging for services like this than for the OS.
Please read the links, the problem isn't the ubuntu1 project, its that they are going back on their promises!
Ubuntu One is not consistent with the Ubuntu Philosophy wherein it is stated, "Our work is driven by a philosophy on software freedom that aims to spread and bring the benefits of software to all parts of the world."
It is disrespectful to Ubuntu's contributors for Canonical to appropriate the Ubuntu trademark for projects which are not supportive of the Ubuntu Philosophy.
[SIZE="5"]The issue is not about cost! The issue is about the dilution of the meaning behind Ubuntu -- the Free/Libre OS ecosystem organized by Canonical but largely built on the foundation of Debian Linux and around the GPL and other free software licenses by countless developers and a committed community of users -- and also why the owners of Ubuntu feel increasingly compelled to keep their homegrown creations proprietary.[/SIZE]
I would like to be explained in simple and understandable terms [SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]why the web back-end of Canonical's online service (aka Ubuntu One) must remain proprietary? What is the benefit for both Canonical and the Ubuntu community in making the back-end of the service closed source??[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Blue"]The whole philosophy of Free Software is about "standing on the shoulders of giants", i.e. building software that everyone can freely use and further improve according to licenses such as GPL.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Personally I'd love to subscribe to such an Open-Source service and by doing so help finance Ubuntu's (the open OS in this case) backers, but if Canonical is choosing the slippery slope of selectively sharing and denying the fruits of their development, that does cause me to at least re-evaluate my relationship with Canonical's Ubuntu.
And that's a shame (I am still open to listening to their reasoning though) since I am not a tin-foil purist, but I do understand the technical and ethical arguments in favour of openness.
What comes to the naming of Canonical's online service, [SIZE="4"][COLOR="Blue"]of course it will be confusing when some products like Ubuntu Six-point-oh-four to Ubuntu Nine-point-ten etc. will supposedly be always Free, but Ubuntu One (and whatever Ubuntu-branded proprietary services might follow) is something different altogether[/COLOR].
[COLOR="Red"]The word and concept of UBUNTU will no longer mean "sharing, because it will be good for all of us" but "whatever enhances Canonical's ability to monetize the UBUNTU brand"??[/COLOR][/SIZE]
I'm sorry I am confused, why are poeple upset? Canonical owns Ubuntu, Ubuntu one is initially free or for more space $10 a month, and what Canonical is doing is very similar to what Google is doing. The company needs revenue to keep supporting development and this is a great way. I know I will be using it, it will be great for traveling with my limited space netbook or keeping files availible when I'm not at my desk.
misGnomer said: I would like be explained in simple and understandable terms why the web back-end of Canonical's online service (aka Ubuntu One) must remain proprietary.
The whole philosophy of Free Software is about "standing on the shoulders of giants", i.e. building software that everyone can freely use and further improve according to licenses such as GPL.
Personally I'd love to subscribe to such a service and by doing so help finance Ubuntu's (the open OS in this case) backers, but if Canonical is choosing the slippery slope of selectively sharing and denying the fruits of their development, that does cause me to at least re-evaluate my relationship with Canonical's Ubuntu.
And that's a shame (I am still open to listening to their reasoning though) since I am not a tin-foil purist, but I do understand the moral and technical arguments in favour of openness.
What comes to the naming of Canonical's online service, of course it will be confusing when some products like Ubuntu Six-point-oh-four to Ubuntu Nine-point-ten etc. will supposedly be always Free, but Ubuntu One is something different altogether.
I know what you mean. Libre.fm and identi.ca seem to be doing well by being completely open about everything. Ubuntu are reckoning that this service has lots of commercially-sensitive details. I suppose the worry is somebody will come along and make a better, cheaper version of the same thing. But balls to that: if this thing was completely open I'd gladly pay money for it.
People are so ungrateful and demanding. I'm amazed.
LowSky said: I'm sorry I am confused, why are poeple upset? Canonical owns Ubuntu, ...
Ubuntu is presented as a community developed operating system. The community consists of many volunteers who were recruited under the premise of the Ubuntu project ascribing to the philosophy of Free Software. It is a slap to those contributors if the project's name is now to be employed to promote a non-Free software project.
If Canonical wants to sell mugs, T-shirts, or singing toilet paper with the Ubuntu name and logo, that is one thing; but to market non-Free *software* under the Ubuntu brand flies in the face of the common promise that all contributors made to each other when joining the project.
LowSky said: I'm sorry I am confused, why are poeple upset? Canonical owns Ubuntu, Ubuntu one is initially free or for more space $10 a month, and what Canonical is doing is very similar to what Google is doing. The company needs revenue to keep supporting development and this is a great way.
Well I am "upset" (actually more like "confused") about the rationale of keeping the back-end proprietary and of course about the Ubuntu naming, and yet I would prefer to financially support a web service such as "Ubuntu One" if it was built upon the Free Software principles which helped Canonical to create Ubuntu (out of Debian and thousands of other Free Software projects) in the first place.
I'd still be willing to patronize Canonical's Ubuntu One (the web service) as a more trustworthy and less-evil choice than other present alternatives, but I'd just like to understand Canonical's rationale for keeping parts of the web service proprietary so that other Free projects, theoretically including Debian, can not share it for their offerings.
Okay?
PS. The title of this thread may not explain forum visitors what this discussion is actually about: Confusion within "some corners of the community" about Ubuntu One.
If Ubuntu One enabled people to use their own NAS as the store location and not have to pay a fee, it would be really useful.
monsterstack said: I know what you mean. Libre.fm and identi.ca seem to be doing well by being completely open about everything. Ubuntu are reckoning that this service has lots of commercially-sensitive details. I suppose the worry is somebody will come along and make a better, cheaper version of the same thing. But balls to that: if this thing was completely open I'd gladly pay money for it.
the problem with that argument is that it applies to all open software, second the main barrier to entry is the cost of hardware, not the software
If Ubuntu One enabled people to use their own NAS as the store location and not have to pay a fee, it would be really useful.
agreed, also if the backend server software was opened lots of other features could be added that hadn't been thought of.
gn2 said: If Ubuntu One enabled people to use their own NAS as the store location and not have to pay a fee, it would be really useful.
Cant you potentially already do this using more common network tools?
U1 gives people without a NAS a place to store files in a place that can be accessed form anywhere.
I really do think it is funny that people are mad/upset, it isn't as if some outside vendor used the name, its Canonical. And how is anything they are doing any different than say Google's efforts (ie Chrome, Android).
LowSky said: I'm sorry I am confused, why are poeple upset? Canonical owns Ubuntu, Ubuntu one is initially free or for more space $10 a month, and what Canonical is doing is very similar to what Google is doing. The company needs revenue to keep supporting development and this is a great way.
I know I will be using it, it will be great for traveling with my limited space netbook or keeping files availible when I'm not at my desk.
keeping your files synced easily definitely seems like a good app and will be a good ubuntu bonus
definitely seems a step in the right direction to me.
I don't understand the problem with the name
Can't they just implement something like roaming profiles for a lan that way you would not be limited to 2 gig?
tho a corporation usually only give users a gig on user drive's
would this slow down booting if enabled I think it would be faster to pull from a local server rather than ubuntu one.
Vadi said: People are so ungrateful and demanding. I'm amazed.
+1
Canonical brings us Ubuntu, trademarks the name, and gives us a quality product for free. Then the people who get good use out of a great OS that they were given are mad when the same company that owns the trademark integrates the name that they own and are known for into another of their products.
Haven't you guys ever heard, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"? Does it really matter that much? They're not going to stop offering you a great OS because of this.
LowSky said: Cant you potentially already do this using more common network tools?
U1 gives people without a NAS a place to store files in a place that can be accessed form anywhere.
I really do think it is funny that people are mad/upset, it isn't as if some outside vendor used the name, its Canonical. And how is anything they are doing any different than say Google's efforts (ie Chrome, Android).
the reason is that yes while canonical is the copyright holder and so can do whatever they want legally. Morally they have said they won't charge for ubuntu, and have allowed others to contribute to ubuntu, added to this they have rules on other people using their name, if i wanted to start a distro called qubuntu, i would probably get a letter from canonical. in ubuntu ones case they have themselves decided to use the ubuntu name (some thing we have all contributed to) to market a proprietary product (when they said they would not charge for ubuntu).
there wouldn't be a problem if it was canonical one, canonical is a company which is nothing to do with the community, we havent contributed to it, its the fact that they are using the ubuntu name, which alot of people have contributed to, on the basis that it would be always free and open thats the problem.
benj1 said: the reason is that yes while canonical is the copyright holder and so can do whatever they want legally. Morally they have said they won't charge for ubuntu, and have allowed others to contribute to ubuntu, added to this they have rules on other people using their name, if i wanted to start a distro called qubuntu, i would probably get a letter from canonical. in ubuntu ones case they have themselves decided to use the ubuntu name (some thing we have all contributed to) to market a proprietary product (when they said they would not charge for ubuntu).
there wouldn't be a problem if it was canonical one, canonical is a company which is nothing to do with the community, we havent contributed to it, its the fact that they are using the ubuntu name, which alot of people have contributed to, on the basis that it would be always free and open thats the problem.
if you contributed to ubuntu
ubuntu is still going to be free.
cloud server's and all the storage and maintenance don't pay for them self
If you contributed to the Ubuntu one project and want compensation if they are making a profit I understand
People really need to learn about the difference between *libre* and *gratis*.
People are upset NOT because they might have to pay for this service.
They are upset because the server side stuff is not free as in freedom.
Ubuntu could still charge users for the service if it was open-source. So naturally people are asking, "Well why don't they?"
This really isn't very confusing, you know.
forrestcupp said: +1
Canonical brings us Ubuntu, trademarks the name, and gives us a quality product for free. Then the people who get good use out of a great OS that they were given are mad when the same company that owns the trademark integrates the name that they own and are known for into another of their products.
Haven't you guys ever heard, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"? Does it really matter that much? They're not going to stop offering you a great OS because of this. You've clearly not been around much: 1) Canonical takes most of the software from other free projects they do nothing more than package and release it with a few patches along the way. 2) People are mad because they promised they wouldn't do exactly that! 3) Canonical have been very critical of hands that feed it (novell & redhat)
monsterstack said: People really need to learn about the difference between *libre* and *gratis*.
People are upset NOT because they might have to pay for this service.
They are upset because the server side stuff is not free as in freedom.
Ubuntu could still charge users for the service if it was open-source. So naturally people are asking, "Well why don't they?"
This really isn't very confusing, you know. For me it seams the issue is more that they are breaking a promise to the community to not use the ubuntu trademark. Canonical have never been keen on opening up their server-side stuff, perhaps its a combination of people realizing that the server side stuff is closed* AND breaking their promise that is causing such attention on this issue
*I actually think running closed software on your servers is fine as long as people can access it with free software.
forrestcupp said: Haven't you guys ever heard, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"? Does it really matter that much? They're not going to stop offering you a great OS because of this.
But doesn't that cut both ways? Should Canonical be biting the hands of those who've fed contributions to Ubuntu after being told that the project would be following a philosophy of software freedom?
It 'is' their right to name it Ubuntu One. Why they'd want to, I have no idea. It's too long a name to say in casual conversation, easy to confuse with ubuntu itself and really isn't a great name.
Ultimately it's a bunch of people getting their knickers in a twist over not much. The operating system is free. Free as in beer and speech. They've not broken a promise as far as I'm concerned.
Regarding them chasing down people using *buntu names, I can understand why as it's important to keep a distinction between official ubuntu products and unofficial ones, as one cannot guarantee the quality control of an unofficial one (and trust me that's important, 50 shoddy ubuntu clones would wreck the reputation of the original good OS).
Basically they've used the ubuntu name for a product that is separate. That's probably a mistake, but it's a recognised brand, and using the Ubuntu name will probably draw attention to the OS from those outside the ubuntu ecosystem who check out U1. U1 working reliably could prove to be a wonderful promotional tool.
At the end of the day, the infrastructure costs money, and has to be paid for somehow, so free as in gratis won't work there. As for free as in libre, I don't really have a problem with it. My interest is in software, services and OS that work well and meet my needs. Politics is irrelevant.
My only question is how do the 'free as in beer people' expect these servers to be paid for ? To me it's as plain and simple as that. I totally get the 'trademark' argument but this is not software, this is storage, with an interface designed to work smoothly with Ubuntu.
At some point, everything MUST be paid for by someone. it just sometimes seems like many of us are content to let big corporations and billionaires foot the bill while we indulge in ideals.
Like I said, if your argument is trademark, cool, but if you just want more stuff for free...well....
Regenweald said: My only question is how do the 'free as in beer people' expect these servers to be paid for ? To me it's as plain and simple as that. I totally get the 'trademark' argument but this is not software, this is storage, with an interface designed to work smoothly with Ubuntu.
At some point, everything MUST be paid for by someone. it just sometimes seems like many of us are content to let big corporations and billionaires foot the bill while we indulge in ideals.
Like I said, if your argument is trademark, cool, but if you just want more stuff for free...well....
Your missing the point...The point is the name. It's confusing. We don't care that it costs a few bucks.
But as i said in the post: 'If your argument is 'Trademark' I SEE YOUR POINT'. (paraphrasing, but it's all just one post above)
but unlike yourself, i do think some people want the service for free 'just 'cause'. It could have been called 'Canonical Sky Dock', it think this thread would have still existed.
i don't think anyone is complaining about charging for the service, servers cost money, thats not the issue, the issue is using the ubuntu name for a non free product.
Remember canonical != ubuntu. ubuntu == canonical + community. canonical said they wouldn't charge for ubuntu and that it would remain open. as i said in my previous post there wouldn't be a problem if it was called canonical one.
benj1 said: as i said in my previous post there wouldn't be a problem if it was called canonical one.
Which is actually a much easier to remember name as well... >.>
benj1 said: i don't think anyone is complaining about charging for the service, servers cost money, thats not the issue, the issue is using the ubuntu name for a non free product.
Remember canonical != ubuntu. ubuntu == canonical + community. canonical said they wouldn't charge for ubuntu and that it would remain open. as i said in my previous post there wouldn't be a problem if it was called canonical one. On the other hand no-one would know it existed if it was called that. As I said, it may draw more attention to the Ubuntu brand and that can only be a good thing, and hopefully attract more people to the world of free (libre) software.
I donate my time to Ubuntu to make it better, not to make the trademark a bandwagon for Canonical to launch all manners of non-free software services under. It feels like the brand that was built on openness (as stated in the Ubuntu charter) is now being violated for monitary gain. While it is their right to do so, I believe this is a case where they should be respectful and aware that Ubuntu does not belong to Canonical alone anymore.
I have no problem with them using another name, one that does not explicitedly tie the product to their community effort.
Also I will lobby them to release the source code like I and other did with Launchpad, not out of idealistic visions of software wanting to be free but because if it is freed there is increased trust in the service and there is a chance for the community to enhance the product. This however is a totally separate issue.
gnomeuser said: i donate my time to ubuntu to make it better, not to make the trademark a bandwagon for canonical to launch all manners of non-free software services under. It feels like the brand that was built on openness (as stated in the ubuntu charter) is now being violated for monitary gain. While it is their right to do so, i believe this is a case where they should be respectful and aware that ubuntu does not belong to canonical alone anymore.
I have no problem with them using another name, one that does not explicitedly tie the product to their community effort.
I will lobby them to release the source code like i and other did with launchpad, not out of idealistic visions of software wanting to be free but because if it is freed there is increased trust in the service and there is a chance for the community to enhance the product.
+1
stwschool said: On the other hand no-one would know it existed if it was called that. As I said, it may draw more attention to the Ubuntu brand and that can only be a good thing, and hopefully attract more people to the world of free (libre) software.
the only people that don't know canonical don't know ubuntu. and i don't think people are going to come flocking to ubuntu just because of an online backup thing, if they do we're knackered, microsoft skydrive offers 25gb for free.
Here is the terms of the licences. From what I'm reading Canonical might not be the only company involved in the creation of the software, which in that case means tha someone else may own it. So while Ubuntu One may actually be a free use system, the code is not because Canonical may not be the exclusive holder.
Intellectual property and software licence. The client software of Ubuntu One is released for free public use under several open source licenses, primarily the GPLv3 and Creative Commons licences. See the licence text included with the code for details. Canonical grants you a non-exclusive, personal licence to use the server software while you receive the services from Canonical. You acknowledge that all intellectual property in the server software provided as part of the services belongs to Canonical or its licensors. You will not acquire any rights to the software or the intellectual property from your use of the services, other than as set out in this agreement and in the software licensing of the distributed client code.
Elliot Murphy said on 2009-05-13, https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone :
we are using twisted, storm, a bunch of django libraries, a bunch of zope libraries, couchdb, postgres, rabbitMQ, EC2, S3, eucalyptus, apache, squid, windmill, paste (although I am considering moving to spawning), werkzeug, and more. we proudly use inkscape for the artwork and icons (check out icontool).
Xbehave said: You've clearly not been around much:
1) Canonical takes most of the software from other free projects they do nothing more than package and release it with a few patches along the way. 2) People are mad because they promised they wouldn't do exactly that! 3) Canonical have been very critical of hands that feed it (novell & redhat)
Well, I've been around a while, and I know all about this stuff. I just think it's ridiculous for people to get so worked up about things like this.
1) That's the beauty of free software. If you don't like what one distro is doing, then go to another one and get essentially the same thing. It's true that a distro is just a bunch of other people's software packaged together, but people make it sound like that is a small thing that isn't worthy of any credit. Have you ever tried to install a complete GNU/Linux system from scratch, no installers, no package managers, no anything? Do it sometime, and maybe you'll appreciate what they do with distributions more.
2) They promised they wouldn't do that with their Ubuntu operating system, they're not, and they never will. What they are doing here doesn't change or affect the promise they made with their OS named Ubuntu. Also, even though the Ubuntu project *does* belong to the community, the Ubuntu trademark does *not*. Nobody but Canonical has any right to decide how that trademark will be used. That should be evident by how quickly people jump all over other web sites and companies for using symbols that look similar to Ubuntu's.
3) Maybe, but you can't really show me any distro community that isn't critical of the others. That's one big reason that Linux will never gain a huge market share. Everybody has their own agenda, and no one is willing to unify or standardize anything. But, again, that's the beauty of Linux. If you don't like a certain distro's ethics, just go to another one and get essentially the same thing.
They've given us a stellar OS and built a name for it. Can't we be more understanding and allow them to find a way to generate revenue to keep the project going? They can't survive on Mark's money forever, and they shouldn't have to. Odds are, Ubuntu One wouldn't take off as much if it were under some other unknown name. The libre that you hold so dearly comes at a price, even though you may not be the one who has to pay it.
Something that's just occured to me is that the free as in beer version of Mandriva is called One.
Do the naysayers of Ubuntu One also believe that Canonical should desist from selling Ubuntu branded goods: sweatshirts, mugs, rucksacks, keyfobs etc. Doesn't that constitute using the Ubuntu brand commercially for profit?
gn2 said: Something that's just occured to me is that the free as in beer version of Mandriva is called One.
Do the naysayers of Ubuntu One also believe that Canonical should desist from selling Ubuntu branded goods: sweatshirts, mugs, rucksacks, keyfobs etc. Doesn't that constitute using the Ubuntu brand commercially for profit?
No one is going to confuse an ubuntu rucksack with the ubuntu operating system. ubuntu one on the other hand IS confusing. Heck, when I first heard about it I thought it was a new branch of ubuntu.
And anyway, the point isn't that they're making a profit. The point is it's a confusing name. Next time read the thread before insulting everyone. >.>
Is it just me or are we going round in circles here? Maybe this time I'll write in big red text:
The problem some users have is not that Ubuntu want to make some money. People want that. People think that Ubuntu making money from sale of its products is a good thing. Seriously. No one is debating that. It has nothing to do with whether or not they use the Ubuntu trademark for this purpose. The problem people DO have is that the product they are using is not free as in libre, and that Canonical is using the Ubuntu trademark for something that is not free as in libre. Ubuntu could still make money with UbuntuOne if it was completely libre. People don't mind paying for the service. People either want them to change the name or to open up the source code.
Can we please move on now?
Bios Element said: No one is going to confuse an ubuntu rucksack with the ubuntu operating system. ubuntu one on the other hand IS confusing. Heck, when I first heard about it I thought it was a new branch of ubuntu.
And anyway, the point isn't that they're making a profit. The point is it's a confusing name. Next time read the thread before insulting everyone. >.>
I'm not confused by the name Ubuntu One, it's really simple. Also I doubt people are insulted, more like you've just got the blowtorch going. Perhaps you have failed to realise that the thread was started in order to discuss the morality of using the Ubuntu trademark for commercial gain. If you missed that, I would refer you back to the original post:
a bug report has been filed over ubuntu one and canonicals use of the ubuntu name for a potentially profit making product
Canonical isn't even profitable yet and there is an outcry about *potential* *future* profit. Damn.:shock:
As for the confusing name, I'd contend that it is/will be a part of the ubuntu eco system. From the ars article
Murphy says that Canonical does not plan to build native Windows and Mac OS X clients for Ubuntu One
Now does that sound like a profit oriented strategy to anyone here? Restricting your customer base to 1-5% of the market?](*,)
There is also talk about it being using to sync ubuntu configs later.
what does everyone think of this?
I think its a clever & promising move as a whole. Potential benefits for the ubuntu ecosystem are huge, especially considering the back-end scalability.
Besides, it will take a lot more to make me question the motives of someone who donated millions to support FOSS.
EDIT: [COLOR="Red"]I can use red like monsterstack too.[/COLOR]
Yeah has a sniff of Mandriva about it.
They own the brand. They can do whatever they want with it. Anyone that doesn't like it, is going to have to get over it.
I watched an interview on category5.tv with Mark Shuttleworth.
One of his comments about Ubuntu included the words [COLOR="Red"]"an interesting business model"[/COLOR]. That means, it's a business with a different model to make money.
He also said (and this isn't a direct quote) I built a large company and made profit, I popped over to Russia to see about going into space, I like the challenge of taking on the proprietary OS giants. Watch it for yourself, it's right on the websites front page.
[COLOR="Red"] Ubuntu has always been designed as a money proposition.[/COLOR] Through service contracts, T shirts, other services whatever.
I myself would like to make money supporting Ubuntu, and I can.
[COLOR="Red"]I want to use red too![/COLOR]
I also think the gals and guys that develop for Ubuntu with no monetary compensation are getting screwed a little here.
monsterstack said: The problem people DO have is that the product they are using is not free as in libre, and that Canonical is using the Ubuntu trademark for something that is not free as in libre. Ubuntu could still make money with UbuntuOne if it was completely libre.If you want total libre, there are other choices, like Debian and Fedora. But if you really think that they could make just as much money if they open sourced Ubuntu One, I think you're mistaken. You can't show me one open source project that makes a lot of money from people paying for it.
Also, Launchpad has been developed and maintained by Canonical for a long time now, and they never released it under a free license. This is nothing new. Canonical never claimed that they would never use or develop anything proprietary. The only claims they made had to do with their Linux distribution, and they haven't dishonored those claims. That project belongs to the community, but the trademark does not.
monsterstack said: Can we please move on now?
Seeing how this is the whole point of this thread, the only way we can move on is to either stop posting here or shut the thread down.
forrestcupp said:
Seeing how this is the whole point of this thread, the only way we can move on is to either stop posting here or shut the thread down.
monsterstack said:
Can we please move on now?
We need to talk this out. You know, freedom, as in speech.
The issue is about the name. I wouldn't complain one second if they called it Canonical One, or even SyncWhatever for Ubuntu. But "Ubuntu One" really sounds like this is an official Ubuntu product that is blessed by the community and that meets the Ubuntu philosophy, when it doesn't. If it isn't, don't say it is. That's it.
You know, Dries Buytaer, founder of Drupal and owner of the trademark, has got this right. He knows that the Drupal trademark represents the community, and therefore has named his product "Acquia". I also agree with his his presentation where he states that TRUST=currency. Canonical is going to lose trust if they use the Ubuntu trademark this way.
I was under the impression that this is what Mark Shuttleworth thinks as well. I mean, why else has he launched both the Ubuntu Foundation and Canonical Ltd?
A counter-example to what I've been saying could be Mozilla (there exists both Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Coorporation). But Firefox has always remained open source. And they haven't repeatedly equated Mozilla or Firefox with "humanity to others" or a philosophy promoting freedom or a promise of freedom.
"LIKE A CIRCLE IN A SPIRAL LIKE A WHEEL WITHIN A WHEEL..."
Lets Make Linux/Ubuntu DOMINATE the OS market, but DON'T for one minute let anyone make money from Linux, in ANY shape or form
And people wonder why Linux users are perceived by the wider tech community and general public as uber-geeks and anti-capitalists.
If hardcore libre is what you want, there are DOZENS of distros that will fulfil your needs.
I wonder how many of the people above who want a "CLEAN" Linux community have Flash, Java, maybe even Mono or Silverlight installed? Or how many have installed codecs for this, that or DVD playback?
I seriously "doubt" the majority of those decrying UbuntuOne[SIZE="2"]©[/SIZE] will have as clean a PC as they might protest.
LowSky said:
U1 gives people without a NAS a place to store files in a place that can be accessed form anywhere.
That's not such a revolutionary idea. I've been using gspace, the firefox add-on that enables you to use a gmail account as file storage space. The only thing that worries me about it is the thought that google might be searching it like they do gmail inboxes.
LowSky said:
I really do think it is funny that people are mad/upset, it isn't as if some outside vendor used the name, its Canonical. And how is anything they are doing any different than say Google's efforts (ie Chrome, Android).
Google never made a promise that they'd stay true to the Free software ethos.
Of course, there's never been an explicit promise to only use the ubuntu name in connection with freedom. But a lot of us think a promise was implicit.
fatality_uk said: "LIKE A CIRCLE IN A SPIRAL LIKE A WHEEL WITHIN A WHEEL..."
Lets Make Linux/Ubuntu DOMINATE the OS market, but DON'T for one minute let anyone make money from Linux, in ANY shape or form
And people wonder why Linux users are perceived by the wider tech community and general public as uber-geeks and anti-capitalists.
If hardcore libre is what you want, there are DOZENS of distros that will fulfil your needs.
I wonder how many of the people above who want a "CLEAN" Linux community have Flash, Java, maybe even Mono or Silverlight installed? Or how many have installed codecs for this, that or DVD playback?
I seriously "doubt" the majority of those decrying UbuntuOne[SIZE="2"]©[/SIZE] will have as clean a PC as they might protest.
I agree with everything you said.
fatality_uk said: Lets Make Linux/Ubuntu DOMINATE the OS market, but DON'T for one minute let anyone make money from Linux, in ANY shape or form
And people wonder why Linux users are perceived by the wider tech community and general public as uber-geeks and anti-capitalists.
I just read the entire thread and nobody ever said that. Nobody has complained about Canonical making money from Ubuntu One, or from Ubuntu. I think most Ubuntu users want Canonical to make money, they know how much Canonical puts into Ubuntu. The issue is the name.
The OP did hint at it though:
benj1 said: a bug report has been filed over ubuntu one and canonicals use of the ubuntu name for a potentially profit making product here but later on he clearly states: benj1 said: i don't think anyone is complaining about charging for the service, servers cost money, thats not the issue, the issue is using the ubuntu name for a non free product.
Remember canonical != ubuntu. ubuntu == canonical + community. canonical said they wouldn't charge for ubuntu and that it would remain open. as i said in my previous post there wouldn't be a problem if it was called canonical one. So I've sent him/her a private message asking him/her to modify the original post, replacing "profit making product" with "a proprietary/closed source product that they're charging for". EDIT: The OP has edited the original post, thanks benj1!
Flimm said: So I've sent him/her a private message asking him/her to modify the original post, replacing "profit making product" with "a proprietary/closed source product that they're charging for".
Good thinking.
Unfortunately the title "what does everyone think of this?" couldn't have been any more generic... ](*,)
I saw lots of comments like *I don't care about name* or *I don't care whether Ubuntu is free or almost free (as in speech)*. Well, if you really don't care and can't provide some pros or cons, then you can't convice us.
Someone who found "Ubuntu One" name trying to tell us about this service: *There are many collaborative tools for use with Ubuntu, but this is the one*. In other word: *You can buy many spares for your Ubuntu car, but only our are original*. Pretty nice marketing move.
This reminds me "OpenSolaris" as a binary distribution of "OpenSolaris" as a source code and community. Even if you develop other OpenSolaris distribution and think of any other name fot it... well, this would not be the same.
I have only one question: is "Ubuntu One" name really essential for this new service to meet with success?
I'm very intersted what will happen with "Ubuntu One" name controversy topic :popcorn:
Rename it CanonicalOne, problem solved
fatality_uk said: "LIKE A CIRCLE IN A SPIRAL LIKE A WHEEL WITHIN A WHEEL..."
Lets Make Linux/Ubuntu DOMINATE the OS market, but DON'T for one minute let anyone make money from Linux, in ANY shape or form
And people wonder why Linux users are perceived by the wider tech community and general public as uber-geeks and anti-capitalists.
If hardcore libre is what you want, there are DOZENS of distros that will fulfil your needs.
I wonder how many of the people above who want a "CLEAN" Linux community have Flash, Java, maybe even Mono or Silverlight installed? Or how many have installed codecs for this, that or DVD playback?
I seriously "doubt" the majority of those decrying UbuntuOne[SIZE="2"]©[/SIZE] will have as clean a PC as they might protest.
Don't post until you've read the thread. ):P
benj1 said: a bug report has been filed over ubuntu one and canonicals use of the ubuntu name for a potentially profit making product here
explanation of ubuntu one here
Canonical is supposed to make money - it's a company, not a charity. Also, the Ubuntu One desktop client is GPLd, just not the website software. Likewise, this site provides the official Ubuntu support forums and does this with non-free forum software.
If any of you actually read the bug report rather than the OP, you'll realise it is "just" a naming issue.
A NAMING ISSUE.
Not the service, Not how the service is managed. "Just" a naming issue.
It is about how "Ubuntu One" - the name - is inconsistent with Ubuntu's own declared Trademark policy. LEGALLY, as Canonical are owners of their Trademark, they can violate it. However it is argued that, given the ideals of Trademark policy, whose purpose is to protect associations the use of"Ubuntu" stands for, Canonical would be acting immorally/unethical by doing so.
well if it is just a naming issue I have to say I don't care what they call it. I use the system Ubuntu because I like it. You can call it Sally and I will still use it. This cloud thing you can call Sally's mother and I still won't use it. The name of my distro has no meaning to me and I care little about the principals of the movement. I just use the system I like that lets me do what I wish.
sertse said: If any of you actually read the bug report rather than the OP, you'll realise it is "just" a naming issue.
A NAMING ISSUE.
Not the service, Not how the service is managed. "Just" a naming issue.
It is about how "Ubuntu One" - the name - is inconsistent with Ubuntu's own declared Trademark policy. LEGALLY, as Canonical are owners of their Trademark, they can violate it. However it is argued that, given the ideals of Trademark policy, whose purpose is to protect associations the use of"Ubuntu" stands for, Canonical would be acting immorally/unethical by doing so.
I read everything in the bug report. This site is an official Ubuntu service and is built using non-free software, so Ubuntu One is NOT setting a precident.
I don't mind it. A company cannot survive on 100% open-source software if it wants to be competitive. Simply not possibly. So it's ok with me if they break their own rules from time to time.
It's so funny that Canonical tries to sell Ubuntu as being all about freedom and humanity, but they are one of the less free Linux distributors. I don't have a problem with them making proprietary products, but the fact that they have this reputation of being a free community-project is a crock.
I don't mind it. A company cannot survive on 100% open-source software if it wants to be competitive. Simply not possibly. So it's ok with me if they break their own rules from time to time. Red Hat seems to do it alright. They are currently quite a bit more successful than Canonical (ie actually making money) and only release FOSS.
ubuntu-freak said: I read everything in the bug report. This site is an official Ubuntu service and is built using non-free software, so Ubuntu One is NOT setting a precident.
And that is considered a bug. I believe this forum's admins have expressed that if a free solution is available that can fulfil all the feature vbulletin has, they will consider switching to it.
There are no issue with Canonical doing non-free (beer or speech) stuff, it using the "Ubuntu" name to do it that would be inconsistent with their own policies.
Simian Man said: It's so funny that Canonical tries to sell Ubuntu as being all about freedom and humanity, but they are one of the less free Linux distributors. I don't have a problem with them making proprietary products, but the fact that they have this reputation of being a free community-project is a crock.
Red Hat seems to do it alright. They are currently quite a bit more successful than Canonical (ie actually making money) and only release FOSS.
Sure, we just have different opinions of being competitive. Merely surviving is not that to me. There aren't any open-source only companies who are #1 in their fields, at least that i know of.
sertse said: And that is considered a bug. I believe this forum's admins have expressed that if a free solution is available that can fulfil all the feature vbulletin has, they will consider switching to it.
There are no issue with Canonical doing non-free (beer or speech) stuff, it using the "Ubuntu" name to do it that would be inconsistent with their own policies.
Like I said, this site uses the Ubuntu name and is a web-based official service provided by Canonical - just like Ubuntu One.
I don't have a problem with it....;)
Oh noez, Ubuntu's generous corporate sponsor is doing something that may make this thing sustainable! Grab your pitchforks!
Having said that, Canonical's way of holding back before open sourcing their web services is rather odd, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now and assume the marketing department got involved and told them to hold back on doing so until the upcoming top secret features are fully implemented. At least they aren't claiming to have 1000 APIs or something.
I can't say I've run a service like Ubuntu One, so maybe I'm missing something really important, but isn't it more about smashing together a bunch of existing assembled systems, having a good server running and making an awesome piece of client software? That awesome client software is open source (and I'm sure would love having a version that talks to a home NAS).
I'm pretty interested in Ubuntu One as a service, if they get it working nicely with Conduit for example and give it some super easy setup for stuff like synchronizing .evolution (or having a caldav service that Evolution knowingly syncs with). This really could showcase the coolness of having the same general components shared between the desktop, server and mobile spaces in that event, since those components would stay in sync as if they were all on the same kind of hardware! (In theory. Until the PIM software starts vomiting all over your keyboard).
As long as this service isn't installed by default I don't care what they call it. Though the name is rather dumb as it doesn't really seem to even hint at what the service does.
Simian Man said: It's so funny that Canonical tries to sell Ubuntu as being all about freedom and humanity, but they are one of the less free Linux distributors. I don't have a problem with them making proprietary products, but the fact that they have this reputation of being a free community-project is a crock.
Launchpad, Ubuntu One and Ubuntu Forums are web-based, they don't infect ones OS with non-free software. I guess you could say Canonical does appear to send mixed messages, though - especially to those who are new to free software.
Honestly guys, Canonical is a corporation, and like any other corperation, they want to make money.
For all the millions that Canonical has invested, they have not turned a profit as of yet.
Therefore, Canonical has two choices:
- Stop contributing to Ubuntu and get out of the Linux business.
- Change their business model in a way that they can make a profit. (Like Red Hat)
If Ubuntu becomes profitable, more money can be reinvested into Ubuntu; thus, make Linux better.
sertse said: If any of you actually read the bug report rather than the OP, you'll realise it is "just" a naming issue.
A NAMING ISSUE.
Not the service, Not how the service is managed. "Just" a naming issue.
It is about how "Ubuntu One" - the name - is inconsistent with Ubuntu's own declared Trademark policy. LEGALLY, as Canonical are owners of their Trademark, they can violate it. However it is argued that, given the ideals of Trademark policy, whose purpose is to protect associations the use of"Ubuntu" stands for, Canonical would be acting immorally/unethical by doing so.
So using a forum with ubuntu branding thats using proprietary software doesn't bother you? And does canonical's for profit ubuntu support service bother you too?
First to set some things straight. Am not saying that canonical should not make proprietary software i have never complained about launchpad or Landscape
And my issue with ubuntu-one has nothing to do with the fact its not been free of cost.
I am a bit concerned about this ubuntu one issue. When I first heard about it, I was very excited to contribute to yet another open source project. Then I found out that it was proprietary, I got confused. Ubuntu is a name that by its very meaning symbolises the virtue of free and open source software. The name is a brand that with the help of millions of community members has come to be associated with quality. The ubuntu Goodwill is known around the world has one of the best product open source as to offer. By using this same name to brand a project that is Proprietary and hence against everything that ubuntu stands for is a huge betrayal of the community .
The use of that name “Ubuntu One” alone will make the product appeal to people who have a soft spot for ubuntu (the OS) and free software in general, which is kinda misleading since dropbox and ubuntu1 are essentially the same proprietary software. its like Redhat building a similar proprietary product and calling it Fedora-connect, or Linus Torvalds setting up a proprietary product and calling it Cloud-Linux. Ubuntu One bears no association or closeness to anything that ubuntu stands for which is openness, collaboration, community and sharing. Using the name Ubuntu in UbuntuOne is just very lame. and am Afraid Canonical got it wrong this time around.
copied word for word from my blog post on the issue
days_of_ruin said: So using a forum with ubuntu branding thats using proprietary software doesn't bother you? And does canonical's for profit ubuntu support service bother you too?
Re: Forum. It has an expressed that UF would switch to a free software forum service it it is a technically feasible. Furthurmore and more importantly, UF *is* run by the community, Canonical "owns" these forums, but it for the most part has let the users manage how it is run. So, no it doesn't brother me.
Actally, it doesn't matter at all...re-reading the trademark policy, please explain to me how the forums violates the policy in the first place? Proprietary software alone doesn't violate it, commercial use does, and UF isn't commercial at all.
Re: Support services. You mean this? http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid Look closely, it is called "Canonical Global Support Services" . That's the distinction - it is presented "Canonical" thing, not an "Ubuntu" thing, though it services are provided to Ubuntu using computers. That actually is a good example of how things *should* be. :)
I've always maintained this is naming issue, and their policy on what get branded under "Ubuntu", under their own trademark guidelines, which UbuntuOne is inconsistent with. I have no issue with with what "Canonical" actually does.
File Sharing isn't my cup of tea in the first place. Won't be using that feature.
Flimm said: I just read the entire thread and nobody ever said that. Nobody has complained about Canonical making money from Ubuntu One, or from Ubuntu. I think most Ubuntu users want Canonical to make money, they know how much Canonical puts into Ubuntu. The issue is the name.
The OP did hint at it though: but later on he clearly states:
So I've sent him/her a private message asking him/her to modify the original post, replacing "profit making product" with "a proprietary/closed source product that they're charging for".
Perhaps the marketing department felt that if they don't use the Ubuntu name, they won't be able to make a money off of this new service. Seriously, people should let this go.
saulgoode said: Ubuntu One is not consistent with the Ubuntu Philosophy wherein it is stated, "Our work is driven by a philosophy on software freedom that aims to spread and bring the benefits of software to all parts of the world."
It is disrespectful to Ubuntu's contributors for Canonical to appropriate the Ubuntu trademark for projects which are not supportive of the Ubuntu Philosophy.
it does not at all violate that, if it was "pay only" i might have to agree. but, there is a free version. also, this is not the only thing they are doing with ubuntu one(witch is named that because they are services for ubuntu). there planning on using this as a frame work for expanding our options in ubuntu, and most likely this will help fuel the growth of this community.
dspari1 said: Perhaps the marketing department felt that if they don't use the Ubuntu name, they won't be able to make a money off of this new service.
That, I think, is what's at the heart of the matter. Canonical wants to make use of the Ubuntu brand. While there's no question that they own the brand, the fact is that they did not build it on their own. The Ubuntu brand owes a lot to the efforts of the Ubuntu community, who not only contributed by writing code, but by extolling the virtues of Ubuntu on blogs, discussion boards, and in real life to friends, family members, coworkers, bosses and complete strangers. These efforts were made with the understanding that while Canonical might look to make money with Ubuntu-related services and closed-source projects, Ubuntu itself would always be free and open source.
The problem we now face is ultimately a question of what Ubuntu is. If you feel that Ubuntu is merely an operating system, then Ubuntu One does not compromise Ubuntu's status as free and open source. I, however, feel that Ubuntu is more than that, and if it isn't than it shouldn't have taken the name "Ubuntu" to begin with. It is, after all, a word which means "humanity towards others," and is a concept espoused by no less of a man than Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The Ubuntu community was formed to apply that principle to the software world. To turn around and co-opt that name for a closed-source project after so many have invested so much time and effort into it is crass and antithetical to the ideal of Ubuntu.
I understand that Canonical needs to make money, and I honestly want them to. Indeed, I think one of the most important things that Ubuntu and Canonical can do is show that altruism and profit are not mutually exclusive ideas, and can actually be mutually beneficial. Compromising the ideal of Ubuntu, however, is a detriment to that goal, and in the end, to Canonical as well.
Rainstride said: it does not at all violate that, if it was "pay only" i might have to agree. but, there is a free version. also, this is not the only thing they are doing with ubuntu one(witch is named that because they are services for ubuntu). there planning on using this as a frame work for expanding our options in ubuntu, and most likely this will help fuel the growth of this community.
Free, in this context, does not mean "for no money", but "open source". As the man said "Think free as in free speech, not free beer."
I personally am not all that keen on the name, however, I don't have a problem with it and I can see why they chose to associate the service with the product it is designed to be used with.
I understand that some contributors feel they have the right to dictate to Cannonical about how they use their trademark, but ask yourself this, if you did the same with another distribution, you'd contribut and in return you get a free OS. With Ubuntu, you contribute and you get a free OS. Only difference is the financial supporter of the Ubuntu project is trying to make a return on their investment by selling services using the Ubuntu name. But at the end of the day, your contribution to the community is not devalued and you still get free software.
With regards to the free as in libre argument, does anyone actually know if the server side software is actually completely free from non-open source software? Perhaps the reason the server software isn't free (as in libre) is because it uses non-free software?
sertse said:
It is about how "Ubuntu One" - the name - is inconsistent with Ubuntu's own declared Trademark policy.
If you only read half the policy then yeah it is. But if your read the part where you can license the trademark for commercial usage then no it's not.
Simian Man said: Red Hat seems to do it alright. They are currently quite a bit more successful than Canonical (ie actually making money) and only release FOSS.
Last ime I checked you needed to have a paid subscription to use their enterprise Linux software.
michaeldt said: I personally am not all that keen on the name, however, I don't have a problem with it and I can see why they chose to associate the service with the product it is designed to be used with.
I understand that some contributors feel they have the right to dictate to Cannonical about how they use their trademark, but ask yourself this, if you did the same with another distribution, you'd contribut and in return you get a free OS. With Ubuntu, you contribute and you get a free OS. Only difference is the financial supporter of the Ubuntu project is trying to make a return on their investment by selling services using the Ubuntu name. But at the end of the day, your contribution to the community is not devalued and you still get free software.
With regards to the free as in libre argument, does anyone actually know if the server side software is actually completely free from non-open source software? Perhaps the reason the server software isn't free (as in libre) is because it uses non-free software?
If you only read half the policy then yeah it is. But if your read the part where you can license the trademark for commercial usage then no it's not.
Last ime I checked you needed to have a paid subscription to use their enterprise Linux software.
=D>
I agree, the volunteers are still getting a great OS in return for their hard work, and letting Canonical make money will allow them to keep contributing back to Ubuntu.
Lots of people volunteer to the Fedora project, and Red Hat uses their hard work to make money by selling their subscription based operating system. In return, Red Hat uses that money to contribute back to the community and make Linux even better.
Moreover, if you feel that Red Hat has done you any wrong by making their Enterprise Linux subscription only, revenge is only one click away at www.centos.org as CentOS is merely a re-branded version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This is only possible because the GPL license protects Linux users.
BSD users on the other hand got to see Apple use their hard work to make millions and got nothing back for it in return. I would be mad if I've even written one line of code for BSD.
This whole thing has absolutely nothing to with charging users for a service. You are actually aware that you can charge people for GPL'd software and services, right?
You are aware that Red Hat charges its users for services that are completely free as in libre right? This doesn't come as a shock or surprise to any of you, I hope, right?
You do realise that UbuntuOne is proprietary software, right?
Now take all of that information and think about it for a while and now try to understand why some people might have a problem with Canonical using Ubuntu's trademark for this service.
Is any of this getting through to anybody yet?
My guess is no. Therefore I predict the next five posts will be something along the lines of,
I don't think it's a problem if Ubuntu want to make some money i don't see what the problem is
[COLOR="DarkOrange"]Below are some links and quotes related to the question whether [SIZE="4"]Ubuntu-branded[/SIZE] software or service ought to be Open Source, or whether it is acceptable and not confusing to keep some key developments proprietary (for competitive advantage?).
Note 1: Issue has nothing to do with cost, only with the "secret sauce" aspect being integrated with the idea of Ubuntu. Software and services built upon shared Free Software and the Ubuntu Philosophy can be sold/leased/billed just fine without abandoning the sharing philosophy.
Note 2: Canonical Ltd., not the Ubuntu_Foundation, owns the Ubuntu trademark (at least in the field of computing) and they are legally entitled to coopt the concept of Ubuntu for any purpose they wish. The Ubuntu Community does have the right to voice opinions though.[/COLOR]
**Original African Ubuntu definition:** "We are what we are because of everyone else."
**From our long-time forum moderator Ubuntu Demon's blog:**
We chose the name Ubuntu for this distribution because we think it captures perfectly the spirit of sharing and cooperation that is at the heart of the open source movement. In the Free Software world, we collaborate freely on a volunteer basis to build software for everyone’s benefit. We improve on the work of others, which we have been given freely, and then share our improvements on the same basis.
**The definition of Ubuntu Philosophy at ubuntu.com**
Our Philosophy
Our work is driven by a philosophy on software freedom that aims to spread and bring the benefits of software to all parts of the world. At the core of the Ubuntu Philosophy are these core philosophical ideals:
1. Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees. 2. Every computer user should be able to use their software in the language of their choice. 3. Every computer user should be given every opportunity to use software, even if they work under a disability.
Our philosophy is reflected in the software we produce and included in our distribution. As a result, the licensing terms of the software we distribute are measured against our philosophy, using the Ubuntu License Policy.
When you install Ubuntu almost all of the software installed already meets these ideals, and we are working to ensure that every single piece of software you need is available under a license that gives you those freedoms.
Free software
For Ubuntu, the 'free' in 'free software' is used primarily in reference to freedom, and not to price - although we are committed to not charging for Ubuntu. The most important thing about Ubuntu is that it confers rights of software freedom on the people who install and use it. It is these freedoms that enable the Ubuntu community to grow, continue to share its collective experience and expertise to improve Ubuntu and make it suitable for use in new countries and new industries.
Quoting the Free Software Foundation's 'What is Free Software', the freedoms at the core of free software are defined as:
* The freedom to run the programme, for any purpose. * The freedom to study how the programme works and adapt it to your needs. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. * The freedom to improve the programme and release your improvements to the public, so that everyone benefits.
At the top of the Ubuntu Philosophy page is a banner for Ubuntu Cloud Computing; it's FAQ says:
What is Canonical doing about the cloud?
When looking at cloud computing, we decided to start with the infrastructure layer of the computing stack and instance-based environments. We believe that an open source cloud environment will drive innovation and benefits for users that take advantage of it.
We believe that there is a need for standardisation around an API and that enterprise users should be able to create private clouds that match that API. This is a stepping stone towards creating virtual infrastructure portability between your own infrastructure and multiple cloud providers. Portability should overcome some of the major adoption concerns around cloud computing such as second-sourcing options, lack of pricing competition and vendor lock-in.
It is key for the future of cloud computing that users have the choice and freedom to run cloud services on their own infrastructure, the freedom to choose which management tools they wish to use, and also the freedom to choose between different service providers.
An open source cloud option is the best way to develop a future for the cloud that benefits users the most.
michaeldt said:
If you only read half the policy then yeah it is. But if your read the part where you can license the trademark for commercial usage then no it's not.
Read my entire post. I stated that it was legal for Canonical to do it, because they own the trademark. Commerical usage of the trademark is generally not allowed by the trademark policy themselves created unless an exception given by the owners of the trademark. Following your train of thought, I agree, it's legal only because they gave themselves an exception to the trademark. There is no justification within the policy otherwise.
This doesn't change that it is doing that inconsistent with what the trademark stands for though, we're asking them to justify that. "We can ignore our own rules" isn't excatly a good answer on Canonicial's part , even if it is legal.
michaeldt said: If you only read half the policy then yeah it is. But if your read the part where you can license the trademark for commercial usage then no it's not.
The problem here is not that Canonical is breaking the law, or violating the word of the Ubuntu trademark policy - that would be impossible, as it states that Canonical can license the trademark for uses not automatically permitted under the policy. It is the spirit of the policy that appears to have been violated. The issue arises from the fact that Canonical is granting usage of the trademark to... Canonical. It doesn't seem likely that they would deny themselves use of it - however nefarious that use is - so many feel Canonical should be unable to permit such usage without approval from an appropriate non-Canonical community governance body.
The critical thing is that Canonical doesn't own Ubuntu, the project (nobody does). They own Ubuntu, the trademark. This has worked fine, as they have generally acted for the project to protect the brand. But now we have a conflict of interest.
Should Canonical act impartially, assessing their own uses as they would those of any other company? Or can they do whatever they want? If the former, it makes sense that they should run things past other community members first. If the latter, this is a gravely concerning development.
misGnomer said: [B]At the top of the Ubuntu Philosophy page is a banner for [URL="http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/serveredition/cloud/faq"]Ubuntu Cloud Computing; it's FAQ says:
[snip] [/URL][/B]
That is very interesting - I hadn't seen it before. In particular, this bit is relevant:
It is key for the future of cloud computing that users have the choice and freedom to run cloud services on their own infrastructure [...]
Interesting, then, that they produce a cloud service that cannot be run on anybody else's infrastructure.
Note, however, that the comments on that page about "open source cloud options" appear to be referring to open source alternatives to the cloud infrastructure itself (eg. Eucalyptus), and not products run on top of the cloud (eg. Ubuntu One).
Interesting quote: Mark Shuttleworth says: No, a brand is a set of values that you stick to, and which people can expect from you. You have a brand whether you like it or not. Your blog, for example, is a very clear statement of your values - it’s your brand - and it will define what people expect from you when they interact with you.
monsterstack said:
You do realise that UbuntuOne is proprietary software, right?
Yes, I do. And I really don't see a problem with that. However, since you bring it up, do you have any proof to suggest that the software doesn't include proprietary software from other developers? (This is a genuine question, because I'd like to know.) Because if it did then Canonical couldn't open source it. So why not contact Canonical or the Ubuntu One developers and pose them the question before getting out your pitchforks.
sertse said: This doesn't change that it is doing that inconsistent with what the trademark stands for though, we're asking them to justify that. "We can ignore our own rules" isn't excatly a good answer on Canonicial's part , even if it is legal.
But their rules don't prohibit Commercial use of the trademark, just that usage in a commercial sense requires permission. And yes, I understand that you probably don't think they should have the right to give themselves a license to use their own trademark....something which we'll have to agree to disagree on.
wgrant said: The problem here is not that Canonical is breaking the law, or violating the word of the Ubuntu trademark policy - that would be impossible, as it states that Canonical can license the trademark for uses not automatically permitted under the policy. It is the spirit of the policy that appears to have been violated. The issue arises from the fact that Canonical is granting usage of the trademark to... Canonical. It doesn't seem likely that they would deny themselves use of it - however nefarious that use is - so many feel Canonical should be unable to permit such usage without approval from an appropriate non-Canonical community governance body.
The critical thing is that Canonical doesn't own Ubuntu, the project (nobody does). They own Ubuntu, the trademark. This has worked fine, as they have generally acted for the project to protect the brand. But now we have a conflict of interest.
Should Canonical act impartially, assessing their own uses as they would those of any other company? Or can they do whatever they want? If the former, it makes sense that they should run things past other community members first. If the latter, this is a gravely concerning development.
I completely understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it. When it comes to, "in the spirit", it's all down to interpretation and people will have different opinions.
And whilst I agree that Canonical does not own the Ubuntu community or Ubuntu itself, if it were not for the financial backing of Canonical, we would not be discussing this issue on the Ubuntu forums right now because this community would not exist in its present form. So from my point of view, I see a lot of people who want this wonderful free software community with all these wonderful people giving up their free time and contributing in some blissful nirvana, whilst in reality someone else is paying the bills so that the community exists.
No matter how much free time people can give to the project, somebody has to pay the bills, and that requires cold hard cash. So unless everyone wants to start paying money towards the project so that it can exist without being propped up by a commercial financial supporter, then, in my opinion, maybe people should take a time out, step back and appreciate that someone else is paying for their community and their project and that perhaps they should afford just a little bit of leeway to that supporter. And perhaps throw in a little respect and gratitude while they're at it.
You know what, with respect to Mr. Wgrant as he is an Ubuntu developer who is clearly upset, I take back what I said earlier. I was under the impression that the developers were okay with this and knew what was up beforehand, but I was wrong.
I truly want Canonical to make a profit off Ubuntu for contributing a lot to the project, but not at the cost of upsetting the devs that support it.
This is starting to smell as bad as when Clem politicized Mint. I hope it gets resolved soon, and I don't want to see this great community get torn apart over this.
dspari1 said: You know what, with respect to Mr. Wgrant as he is an Ubuntu developer who is clearly upset, I take back what I said earlier. I was under the impression that the developers were okay with this and knew what was up beforehand, but I was wrong.
No, Canonical kept this very quiet until the public release. I knew the project existed, but only under its codename Ubunet, and didn't know exactly what it did. Most non-Canonical developers probably knew that much or less.
I truly want Canonical to make a profit off Ubuntu for contributing a lot to the project, but not at the cost of upsetting the devs that supports it.
I don't think anybody is likely to object to Canonical making money from Ubuntu; I certainly don't. But this isn't the way to do it.
As an aside, lets discuss what would probably happen if the server software running Ubuntu One (and future additions to Canonicals cloud initiative) were made open source. What I foresee, is that someone else would come along, grab the code and produce a competing service at reduced price and cost. They could do this because someone else was developing the code. All they would need was the hardware to run it. So whilst the idea of open sourcing the code might sound noble, it wouldn't make commercial sense. Canonical make money by offering services. And the only way to ensure they can compete through offering a superior service is through superior features and functionality. That edge dissapperas as soon as you open source the whole project. Just a thought.
michaeldt said: And the only way to ensure they can compete through offering a superior service is through superior features and functionality. That edge dissapperas as soon as you open source the whole project.
Well, the whole wider Open Source community which enables us to develop and use all these shared tools and services might then just as well pack it in if going proprietary (aka not sharing your achievements) is the only way to success, excellence and indeed the only way "they" can compete.
Btw. there are already "competing proprietary cloud services" offering more and/or cheaper, many by Mega-Corps which can afford to develop and subsidize their closed-source offerings until the end of time.
When I recently learned about Ubuntu's (in fact Canonical's) plans for a cloud space integrated with the Ubuntu desktop - and before I learned that the backend would be closed source - I was truly excited about the opportunities; both for increased online usability and as a natural source of revenue from the Ubuntu user community to the Ubuntu developer community.
For me Ubuntu meant something altruistic and I'd gladly pay some premium for useful and trustworty (!) services in order to help the developer community carry on improving the Open Computing Ecosystem.
I would never have expected the cloud service (now known as Ubuntu One) to become a huge moneyspinner with adoptation far beyond Ubuntu's (the OS) or even Linux' marketshare. Yet it would be an easy choice for most because 1) it was integrated and easily available, and 2) it was supporting, as an extention of one's desktop, the same principles of freedom and sharing as the Ubuntu desktop.
Frankly I don't see any threats or dangers in allowing the Gentoo or Debian communities use the same web backend for their cloud offerings, should they choose to try that. They'd probably fix bugs and further improve the service, thus helping all users and providers. As a subscriber to "Ubuntu One" I'd be extremely happy that the "public tide" lifts my boat as well. There might be more plug-ins and security issues would also be tracked by many more eyeballs.
In comparison, what if Ubuntu/Canonical is all for sharing and extending stuff that others (the wider community) have helped build, but when they themselves come up with perceived sources of gold nuggets they insist on keeping them a secret...?
Therefore I would still like be explained the full rationale for keeping the backend of Ubuntu's Cloud closed-source...
michaeldt said: As an aside, lets discuss what would probably happen if the server software running Ubuntu One (and future additions to Canonicals cloud initiative) were made open source. What I foresee, is that someone else would come along, grab the code and produce a competing service at reduced price and cost. They could do this because someone else was developing the code. All they would need was the hardware to run it. So whilst the idea of open sourcing the code might sound noble, it wouldn't make commercial sense. Canonical make money by offering services. And the only way to ensure they can compete through offering a superior service is through superior features and functionality. That edge dissapperas as soon as you open source the whole project. Just a thought.
Then centOS should have put Redhat out of Business, FYI most of the tools and applications that people rave about on ubuntu and which has been very critical to its success were in fact developed by people whose salaries are paid by red-hat, Novel, Mandriva, to say least. This companies have OS which they are charge premium for. yet they release this tool as open source which then allowed canonical to including them in ubuntu which is not only given out for free but which also compete directly with Redhat, Novel and Mandriva offerings yet this people still release their product in an Open source license which allows others to use the the result of their sweat and blood.
also FYI Redhat built its business model on a 100% open source software yet its one of the richest Tech companies in the world.
Lets not lose focus of the issue at hand which is that Ubuntu is a name that should not be used to brand a proprietary product.
Whether its good that canonical develops closed source applications while still putting up a front as an open source company is a topic for another debate.
Bios Element said: Which is actually a much easier to remember name as well... >.>
Please read the thread from the start, your responses are not helping the cause, at all
jrg_dnn said: Please read the thread from the start, your responses are not helping the cause, at all
If you don't have the courage to insult me in public, Don't send me a PM doing so. Now stop derailing the thread.
bigbrovar said: Then centOS should have put Redhat out of Business, FYI most of the tools and applications that people rave about on ubuntu and which has been very critical to its success were in fact developed by people whose salaries are paid by red-hat, Novel, Mandriva, to say least. This companies have OS which they are charge premium for. yet they release this tool as open source which then allowed canonical to including them in ubuntu which is not only given out for free but which also compete directly with Redhat, Novel and Mandriva offerings yet this people still release their product in an Open source license which allows others to use the the result of their sweat and blood.
also FYI Redhat built its business model on a 100% open source software yet its one of the richest Tech companies in the world.
Lets not lose focus of the issue at hand which is that Ubuntu is a name that should not be used to brand a proprietary product.
Whether its good that canonical develops closed source applications while still putting up a front as an open source company is a topic for another debate.
But that's the key difference between an open source OS and a service provided using open source software. Red Hat, Canonical and others sell support. Support provided by people. Online storage is essentially just a server running software with someone to answer emails if something goes wrong.
If your business model is built around selling software prodcuts, then you don't give away the source code for free, which is why proprietary applications are closed source. Giving away the code would enable anyone to duplicate the same product for free (as in beer). Which is the same case here. Giving away all of their code (assuming it is all theirs to give away) would enable anybody to put the same code onto a server and offer a competing product without having spent money developing the software.
forrestcupp said: Canonical brings us Ubuntu
Definitly not. Canonical fed no one, Open Source Community and other projects fed it (as they feed one another continuously)
michaeldt said: ...
seems like you don't have a clue about Open-source. you claim about "risking competition" is quite awesome. This sounds like "security by obscurity". You don't help Canonical's defense by spreading claims that have been beaten to a pulp during the last millenium by any other open-source projects back then. You sound like Windows advocacies.
I think they should use another name. Less confusing and without the "Ubuntu" trademark.
The Comunity should authorize the use of such trademark:
"Building on Ubuntu or for Ubuntu. If you are producing new software which is intended for use with or on Ubuntu, you may use the Trademark in a way which indicates the intent of your product. For example, if you are developing a system management tool for Ubuntu, acceptable project titles would be "System Management for Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu Based Systems Management". We would strongly discourage, and likely would consider to be problematic, a name such as UbuntuMan, Ubuntu Management, ManBuntu, etc. Furthermore, you may not use the Trademarks in a way which implies an endorsement where that doesn't exist, or which attempts to unfairly or confusingly capitalise on the goodwill or brand of the project."
martinarg said: The Comunity should authorize the use of such trademark:
And how many members of the "community" are providing funding and/or making donations?
Freedom for Canonical, as in speech, but only on the terms laid out by a number of self-appointed, ethical guardians! For those not wanting to sully their Linux distro with closed source, proprietary, and "naming" issues! :( :shock:
Dear fatality_uk,
Instead of attacking the messenger(s) using a single cherry-picked point... Oh nevermind. ](*,)
wgrant said: No, Canonical kept this very quiet until the public release. I knew the project existed, but only under its codename Ubunet, and didn't know exactly what it did. Most non-Canonical developers probably knew that much or less.
Why am I not surprised to read the above?
I don't think anybody is likely to object to Canonical making money from Ubuntu; I certainly don't. But this isn't the way to do it.To me, it looks like Canonical freely gives back all of the great things they have gathered. *The projects created from other developers.* But once they come up with something they believe is great and worth while, instead of following what others have done to allow Canonical to exist in the first place, they keep it to themselves.
It's like a little kid that wants to play with everyone's toys, but refuses to share their own.
disturbed1 said: Why am I not surprised to read the above?
To me, it looks like Canonical freely gives back all of the great things they have gathered. *The projects created from other developers.* But once they come up with something they believe is great and worth while, instead of following what others have done to allow Canonical to exist in the first place, they keep it to themselves.
It's like a little kid that wants to play with everyone's toys, but refuses to share their own. Could not have said it better. i have started to see canonical in a different light most of the trust and respect i have for the company now is gone.
Um, Wow people. Quit with the bashing. While I think the name is absolutely stupid and needs to be changed, I don't really think Canonical is running some massive plot to rake in the millions. Dare I say that their idea is nothing original? And that even if it was, Canonical runs in the red every year? At least breaking even would be nice...But I guess it's more fun to bash Canonical.
most of the trust and respect i have for the company now is gone.
I am actually very certain that "the company" continues to be worthy of the community's trust — even if they go ahead with the "Proprietary Ubuntu One" plan! — but that they are simply underestimating the confusion and harm to the Ubuntu Brand caused by using it for something not based on the Ubuntu Philosophy.
Over the last few years I've personally promoted or installed Ubuntu in dozens of mostly public places, exposing hundreds, possibly thousands of people to Ubuntu. Explaining what Ubuntu stood for was both simple and enjoyable, even with the humanistic African roots and Canonical in the mix! Now how do I pitch the new concept of "mixed code" Ubuntu?
This is business opportunism rather than deliberate back-stabbing, but for many of us who've become endeared with the myth and reality behind the Ubuntu message it does feel unfortunate and inconsiderate.
Also the dismissive reactions by some "pro-Canonical" (of whom I am usually one!) fans and also developers are a bit unsettling, since it would indicate that the sharing philosophy is at some level just marketing chatter.
Wrt. the proprietary code in "Ubuntu One's" server end, I still wish and half expect them to explain why it cannot be done using freely licensed code.
Bios Element said: Um, Wow people. Quit with the bashing. While I think the name is absolutely stupid and needs to be changed, I don't really think Canonical is running some massive plot to rake in the millions. Dare I say that their idea is nothing original? And that even if it was, Canonical runs in the red every year? At least breaking even would be nice...But I guess it's more fun to bash Canonical.
I agree with what you say - That has nothing to do with the issue at hand though. That's what is sad about this whole entire ordeal. Many people just don't get it.
Ubuntu is seen as free, as in free speach, free software, GNU $OPENSOURCE-SLOGAN-HERE.
Canonical is taking advantage of Ubuntu's good name, meaning, intention, and over all image, to promote something that is the exact opposite of what the name stands for.
If Canonical did not own the Ubuntu trade mark, this would be considered slander. They are taking the name and associating it with the exact thing Ubuntu tries to go against.
They (Canonical) did the same thing with Launchpad. Here - we've created this great thing for open-source, host your open-source projects with us. It's the backend for Ubuntu. Cool can we see the source? No, sorry it holds valuable company secrets that we don't want to let you have it. By the way, I'm going to attempt to make money from all of the other open source projects other people have created, change that source code to suit my purpose, no you can not have the source to the products I have created. This is just wrong.
Before there's another post about Red Hat or Novell, you need to look at not just the monetary donations, but the shear amount of code contributions these 2 companies make to any open source project. Not only that, but neither market, trade mark, nor sloganize a brand name such as the meaning of Ubuntu. They do have openSuse and Fedora, plus you do not need to pay to use their products, you only have to pay for the support and update service. Their sources are still available. <--- and that strays to far from the topic at hand.
I am actually very certain that "the company" continues to be worthy of the community's trust — even if they go ahead with the "Proprietary Ubuntu One" plan! — but that they are simply underestimating the confusion and harm to the Ubuntu Brand caused by using it for something not based on the Ubuntu Philosophy.Give them an inch and they will take a foot. I hate to speculate (where's my tin foil hat ;) ), but this doesn't look good at all. If Canonical goes through with this plan, what's next.
Will they say. "Fine, you don't like it, I'm taking my toys and going home"?
It could get ugly, let's hope not. I can think of 3 other companies (all based from Debian) that have ventured down this exact same path. 2 no longer exist, and the other is virtually unknown to most. Funny, all 3 started as popular as Ubuntu (percentage wise), with the same goals. Anyone care to take a guess?
Lindows (Linspire), Corel (Xandros), Libranet and Mepis are four that spring to mind.
Corel was bought out by Xandros. Lindows was forced to rename to Linspire, then was bought out by Xandros. Libranet is defunct. Mepis continues.
gn2 said: Lindows (Linspire), Corel (Xandros), Libranet and Mepis are four that spring to mind.
Corel was bought out by Xandros. Lindows was forced to rename to Linspire, then was bought out by Xandros. Libranet is defunct. Mepis continues.
Mepis wasn't one I was thinking of ;)
Lindows/Linspire had a large community following, many fans, was even sold on PCs in Walmart at one time - gone. Click 'N Run I think even a few of the somewhat newer people know what Click 'N Run is. Depending on who you ask, you'll get a different excuse to the reasons behind this failure. I see alot of the same Ubuntu bashing that Linspire was put through as well.
Libranet, I'm sure there's still quite a few fans out there. This distro was going to be the one!!! Gone now. But I believe there was an unfortunate circumstance behind this. So I won't say anything that might upset those that were involved. Good distro, nice ideas.
Corel - big name, nice commercial offering, honestly they just gave up. Spent way more money and resources than they brought in. HP was a partner with Corel Linux. Were absorbed by -->
Xandros, another large community, many fans and an OSE edition. When they debuted on the scene - this was (*now*) the one. They backed free software, had a free edition, open source all the way. They got a little greedy, their proprietary offerings at first were small additions to the OSE. Then the closed source offerings received more and more updates, more features, the OSE laid there motionless. If it wasn't for that little netbook, they might have disappeared altogether. I completely forgot about Xandros until the netbook came out. I remember my girlfriend stating "I thought they (Xandros) went belly up a few years back"
Canonical needs to make money to survive. If they alienate the community, it will lead to their demise. It's hard to make money on open source. Red Hat and Novell are lucky they have such strong brand names, and have been at the game for a couple of decades. Had it not been for Novell, Suse might have gone the way of many other Linux offerings that used to be here.
Bios Element said: Um, Wow people. Quit with the bashing. While I think the name is absolutely stupid and needs to be changed, I don't really think Canonical is running some massive plot to rake in the millions. Dare I say that their idea is nothing original? And that even if it was, Canonical runs in the red every year? At least breaking even would be nice...But I guess it's more fun to bash Canonical.
I dont think anybody is bashing canonical, or saying that they shouldnt make money. In case you dont know that is not what the issue is about. rather people are just upset that canonical decided to use ubuntu name and logo to brand a proprietary product that bears no relation to ubuntu or anything ubuntu stand for.
And how many members of the "community" are providing funding and/or making donations?
I don't think that is the point. The community collaborates in other ways: time, resources, hosting, giving support, closing bugs, etc.
It's not about money but principles.
[B] Trademark rules should be for everyone, just because you are the owner of the ball it doesn't mean you can change the rules of the game.[/B]
martinarg said: And how many members of the "community" are providing funding and/or making donations?
I don't think that is the point. The community collaborates in other ways: time, resources, hosting, giving support, closing bugs, etc.
It's not about money but principles.
[B] Trademark rules should be for everyone, just because you are the owner of the ball it doesn't mean you can change the rules of the game.[/B]
What's the point in a trademark rule if it is allowed to be breached by anyone and everyone? A ball game is very different from business.
How many people are objecting to this item?: http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=512
It uses the Ubuntu name and logo and is overpriced for an Ogio bag, but I don't see a lot of complaints about it. I am at a loss as to the difference between the bag and UbuntuOne?
fatality_uk said: It uses the Ubuntu name and logo and is overpriced for an Ogio bag, but I don't see a lot of complaints about it. I am at a loss as to the difference between the bag and UbuntuOne?
A backpack is not software. The Ubuntu Philosophy isn't about promoting free backpacks, its about Free *Software*.
fatality_uk said:
What's the point in a trademark rule if it is allowed to be breached by anyone and everyone? A ball game is very different from business.
How many people are objecting to this item?: http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=512
It uses the Ubuntu name and logo and is overpriced for an Ogio bag, but I don't see a lot of complaints about it. I am at a loss as to the difference between the bag and UbuntuOne?
Lets not get things mixed up .. while some people are upset with the fact that canonical is charging for the use of ubuntuone. majority of the concern centres on using the name ubuntu to brand something that is proprietary .. the fact that people aren't complaining about the canonical shop (beside the fact that its called canonical shop) is because people are actually quite happy to support ubuntu and see to it that canonical makes profit from their support of ubuntu. many of us just feel its wrong to brand a proprietary closed source product which as is contrary to everything that ubuntu stand for.
fatality_uk said:
What's the point in a trademark rule if it is allowed to be breached by anyone and everyone? A ball game is very different from business.
How many people are objecting to this item?: http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=512
It uses the Ubuntu name and logo and is overpriced for an Ogio bag, but I don't see a lot of complaints about it. I am at a loss as to the difference between the bag and UbuntuOne?
Do you REALLY need an answer to this?
The bag is a *promotional* item, not a service. I don't see a lot of people buying the bag thinking is a piece of software, do you?
Trademark quotation: [I] When a user downloads something called Ubuntu, they should know it comes from the Ubuntu project.[/I]
The question is: Is Canonical THE Ubuntu Project itself? or just (as stated on their website) *the commercial sponsor of Ubuntu*?
Principles are just that, in games or business. If you set a rule you should follow it, otherwise you are just like a bad government, setting regulations for everyone else but yourself.
People seem to be forgetting that it's gonna be totally free to use. The only thing you'd pay for is additional storage space and it WILL be tied into the Ubuntu distro itself, so its branding makes perfect sense to me. It's helping to build a community around the distro. It doesn't go against its ideals at all in my eyes as long as it contributes to Ubuntu's main goal.
About the backend being closed-source: Who ******* cares? The backend of this forum is closed source and it has the Ubuntu name on it -- oh noes!!! We better not use it anymore.
Not that it wouldn't be *nice* to see the guts of their server, but I think open source / free software stuff loses its purpose when it hits "the cloud" anyway. First of all, the definition of "the user" is not really the same. The server interprets some kind of script into an HTML file, which is then passed on to the client. Technically, "the user" is the web site's developer. All the client sees, knows about or cares about is the HTML file. How could he be a user of the code if he neither posesses it, executes it or knows it is there? The code is just being used in real time by the server to generate an HTML page in place of a human being doing so manually, no different from how countless people here mockups together with Adobe Flash.
A web server is not really like your typical application, but a *service*, and services are quite a different story here with completely different "freedom" issues that have so far gone untouched.
mr. Picklesworth said: not that it wouldn't be *nice* to see the guts of their server, but i think open source / free software stuff loses its purpose when it hits "the cloud" anyway. First of all, the definition of "the user" is not really the same. The server interprets some kind of script into an html file, which is then passed on to the client. Technically, "the user" is the web site's developer.
All the client sees, knows about or cares about is the html file. How could he be a user of the code if he neither posesses it, executes it or knows it is there? The code is just being used in real time by the server to generate an html page in place of a human being doing so manually, no different from how countless people here mockups together with adobe flash.
A web server is not really like your typical application, but a *service*, and services are quite a different story here with completely different "freedom" issues that have so far gone untouched.
+1.
Mr. Picklesworth said: Not that it wouldn't be *nice* to see the guts of their server, but I think open source / free software stuff loses its purpose when it hits "the cloud" anyway. First of all, the definition of "the user" is not really the same. The server interprets some kind of script into an HTML file, which is then passed on to the client. Technically, "the user" is the web site's developer.
All the client sees, knows about or cares about is the HTML file. How could he be a user of the code if he neither posesses it, executes it or knows it is there? The code is just being used in real time by the server to generate an HTML page in place of a human being doing so manually, no different from how countless people here mockups together with Adobe Flash.
A web server is not really like your typical application, but a *service*, and services are quite a different story here with completely different "freedom" issues that have so far gone untouched. which means there is no difference between lastfm and libre.fm, identica and twitter, drupal, wordpress and blogspot ? .. proprietary is proprietary whether it be on your desktop or in the cloud. as long as the source code of the cloud application can not be downloaded and installed or used, freely shared, modified elsewhere then its proprietary
I see no problem with ubuntu one, taking into consideration that 2gb will b free, except that ubuntu has provided us with the best os For free. This wont kill
bigbrovar said: which means there is no difference between lastfm and libre.fm, identica and twitter, drupal, wordpress and blogspot ? .. proprietary is proprietary whether it be on your desktop or in the cloud. as long as the source code of the cloud application can not be downloaded and installed or used, freely shared, modified elsewhere then its proprietary
But here's the kicker: How do we know that the folks at identi.ca are actually running the same software as that source code we can download? (I'm not saying they aren't, of course; identi.ca is awesome!). ...And so on... The ideal solution (and the only thing that matters for freedom issues) is something decentralized that talks *between* servers, like XMPP.
This? Well... it does, at least so far as online file storage goes at the present time. You can get that client talking to anything, albeit with some work. The interface is there for you to implement; you can provide that service if you wish.
(Okay, I'm applying lots of wishful thinking here, but it's time this thread got some kind of a direction).
The interesting **"Ubuntu One" name creates confusion** bug report thread now has a lengthy response by the Canonical chief Mark Shuttleworth himself. Well-written as usual, but without conceding any (ethical) problems with Canonical Ltd. using the much-publicized concept of Ubuntu for their proprietary business plans or explaining why their "Ubuntu One" cloud offering requires proprietary backend in the first place.
Meanwhile another Ubuntu developer, Jim Campbell, has written his insightful analysis in Ubuntu Planet blog entry "Notes on UbuntuOne.
I can imagine a few raised eyebrows and rolled eyes inside the Debian mothership about this latest young one which keeps running further away... :-\"
I like it. Simple and to the point. How long would Ubuntu last without the Spine of Canonical providing much needed stability and direction. Many developers may disagree often times with the direction of Ubuntu in some cases, but at least there is leadership and direction being provided to disagree with. Other projects without the infrastructure that Canonical provides often see periods of floundering, Gentoo for example. Gentoo keeps going because it is a stellar product but many others fail under the weight of the oh so powerful community. It is a symbiotic relationship, I'll always be for the Ubuntu brand, it's talented devs, and Canonical.
bigbrovar said: I dont think anybody is bashing canonical, or saying that they shouldnt make money. In case you dont know that is not what the issue is about. rather people are just upset that canonical decided to use ubuntu name and logo to brand a proprietary product that bears no relation to ubuntu or anything ubuntu stand for.
Somewhat late response: Re-read what I said. I stated the name was stupid and should be changed. Thus I was agreeing with you.
ad_267 said: I don't have a problem with it, it's their name.
+1 They have a right as far as I'm concerned to use their name anyway they see fit. Just my .02
Picklesworth: web services are, in fact, an area the FSF has considered carefully. They came up with a license specifically for that situation, the AGPL:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
back to lurk mode...
Did a search but must have missed it.
Rich
The commercial sponsor and originator of the Ubuntu project, Canonical, has stepped into new territory with the launch of a storage and sync service called Ubuntu One. In the tradition of open source marketing, this has been a "quiet product launch", and appears to have come from nowhere in the last week or two.
It's essentially an online storage service for desktop users that's like the online storage/backup solution Dropbox. Although presently in invitation-only beta, once signed-up each user gets 2GB of online storage free of charge, and can buy 10GB for $10 per month.
Once signed-up, you need only install a small applet program on each Ubuntu computer you have. You'll then get what appears to be a network drive that files can be saved to. By installing the client applet on each of your Ubuntu computers (only Ubuntu at present!), you can sync files between your computers. It seems the plan is to tightly integrate Ubuntu One into many of Ubuntu's applications, so that storing files online will be seamless.
I use Dropbox on all my computers and I have to say that it's extremely useful, although the chief feature for me is cross-platform support. This is presently lacking from Ubuntu One.
Details about Ubuntu One are a little scant right now, at least outside of developer circles, but presumably the storage is secure, and nothing is sent or retrieved from the server without being encrypted by a private key. Dropbox adopts a similar policy.
It's a neat idea, and kudos to Canonical for thinking it up. In the world of open source people are extremely hesitant to open their wallets to pay for software. But nobody minds paying for a service that's actually useful. Indeed, it's long been said that services and support are the future of commercial open source. Cloud computing offers a method of doing this. Canonical has millions of users worldwide, and if even a fraction of them sign-up, Canonical could be achieving the pipe-dream of many an open-source company: actually making money.
Unfortunately there's a stinky little issue, and it's related to a blog posting I made last week: Trademarks. Although it seems the Ubuntu One client is open source, the Web server side of things are still secret. This is probably for reasons of data security, or maybe plain old competitive advantage, but few people in the community are happy about attaching the Ubuntu name to what is essentially a proprietary project.
The problem is bigger than this, however. Canonical, and not the community, owns the "Ubuntu" trademark. And they can do what they want with it, including launching commercial projects featuring it. Unfortunately, the Ubuntu trademark guidelines prohibit anybody else from doing this without permission. Do you think a competitor would get permission if they started a similar service, called something like Ubuntu Online? Or any project involving proprietary software? I doubt it.
A lot of the strength of the Ubuntu project comes from its community. And communities are by their nature egalitarian. For Canonical to single itself out for special treatment is going to draw significant criticism. Yes, they have to make money. But they can't bend the rules to make this happen. See this bug report to see a long and detailed community discussion of this issue.
Trademarks can be prickly things when it comes to open source, and can often run counter to the ethics, philosophy and demands of open source. This is perhaps a perfect example.
That's what the article says, for any one too lazy to click the link.
Storm in a teacup. Ubuntu One is cool, but it's sadly predictable that some people have thrown their toys out of the cot just because the server side isn't open source. The thing is, if you think it's important to use a 100% FOSS software environment, Ubuntu probably isn't such a good distro for you. Ubuntu has always been happy to strike a balance between open source and proprietary.
Yeah, once again, Ubuntu has always had proprietary bits and pieces. I don't see what the big deal is. It's probably a better idea to keep the server-side of things under wraps.
You know what really annoys me? That so many posters STRAWMAN those not siding with Canonical into being against the "Ubuntu One" service itself. There is no argument to answer whether "Canonical" can do stuff that is non-free ( beer and speech sense) . That is not what's being argued.
What the supporters can't accept is they can't counter, are defeated, on the actual issue being raised. Thus they always make strawmans or change the topic. Just accept it. Ubuntu One has used of "Ubuntu" the name, on services that doesn't abide thier trademark policy, and is only valid because "we are exempt from our rules" being the trademark owners. Yes it is legally valid, but there is no argument that they violated thier policy, and Canonical is using a cop out otherwise until they gained an exception the proper way, like a non-canonical company would do in the same situation.
And a quick note; Ubuntu tech support doesn't violate because it's sctually canonical tech support (doesn't use the name). Ubuntu forums doesn't violate has it isn't commerical (even though the name is used on properity forum software). Ubuntu bags, t-shirt and stuff would probably be given an exception if the proper procedures are followed, given the lack of outcry about it. Ubuntu One however, demostrated by the outcry here and elsewhere, shows we can't assume that with this, and hence the proper procedures need to be done.
Any other "contradictions"? Or are we done.
Ubuntu != Canonical. Created by Canonical yes, main developmetn being Canonical yes, but Ubuntu != Canonical.
We are going around in circles...
It is also worrying that some, possibly more recent Ubuntu fans don't seem to have understood the concept of Free Software at all and for them the Ubuntu brand is simply something cool and financially free (with this seamlessly desktop-integrated proprietary cloud service helping pay the bills of their behalf!?)
Also, Canonical Ltd. may be the big bosses behind the Ubuntu-branded collection of free software, but "main developers..."? If I had to guess I'd say more than 98% of the (almost completely open-source) software making up the Ubuntu distro has been written by developers who aren't in Canonical's payroll.
If Canonical insists on using the Ubuntu-brand for their commercial closed-source ventures I'm afraid that the percentage of Free Software enthusiasts (whose persistent efforts over couple of decades have enabled open-source projects such as Linux and the GNU environment in the first place) within the Ubuntu community will diminish.
Also, the tone of some "pro-Canonical fans" and even Ubuntu Members can be hostile and divisive, witness "A few less whiners would do the \”community\” good".... "I'll just stick with \”loser\” or \”big fat tard\”"
This is in contrast to other free software (incl. Ubuntu) developers who seem to know why they are part of the free software community in the first place.
What comes to Canonical's proprietary Ubuntu One cloud service with seamless Ubuntu desktop integration, I believe the greater OSS community will simply work around this closed-source "damage" and build similar service -- that is both inter-operable and usable by any distro or person -- using open-source code and license such as the AGPL (mentioned earlier).
Eventually the major components of Free Software (such as the Gnome project) will integrate open-source Cloud functionality, both the client and server ends, and Canonical/Ubuntu will need to evaluate if it is worth it to continue stripping it out of their shipping distros and replacing that open-source functionality with the closed bits tying it to Canonical's Ubuntu One service.
And in closing I must again emphasize that I was keenly waiting for this cloud integration and would have chosen to support Canonical's cloud efforts, if 1) the service had been built upon the shared principles of Free Software, or 2) if Canonical hadn't chosen to co-opt the Ubuntu brand (with its painstakingly built and publicized Ubuntu Philosophy) for Canonical's own commercial closed-source venture.
If some Ubuntu fans (or even Ubuntu Members such as the first linked example above) feel that I am an enemy of Ubuntu for feeling this way, maybe they have fewer friends in the wider Open Source community than they think.
@misGnomer well said.
bigbrovar said: @misGnomer well said.
I concure, I am disappointed that more respect was not shown to the ideals fostered in the Ubuntu Community. It would have been easy to name the service something else.
Instead Mark fails to acknowledge that he caused grave offence and instead continues to rub it in the community face as an ownership issue. Yes, we are aware that he owns the trademark and that he can legally do what he pleases with it, this doesn't mean that he should or that it is right thing to do.
The community helped built that brand and got it to where it is today. The community has always been leveraged and put up as an example of excellence in Ubuntu. I had expected more respect for that effort towards all of us.
I have personally ceased contributing to Ubuntu due to this, I don't want to continue building a brand whose keeper doesn't respect the values it, itself is supposedly built on.
If Canonical wishes to offer non-free services to compliment Ubuntu and other OSes then I am fine with that, it is their right to develop whatever they please. It is though not respectful to plaster the carefully nutured brand and ideals that are Ubuntu on them.
misGnomer said:
Also, the tone of some "pro-Canonical fans" and even Ubuntu Members can be hostile and divisive, witness "A few less whiners would do the \”community\” good".... "I'll just stick with \”loser\” or \”big fat tard\”"
Same guy 4 weeks ago .....
Thankfully, since *packagekit sucks so bad, Debian is picking up Adept development. http://www.milliways.fr/ Hopefully we'll see it again soon <3
Before that on March 11th, 2009
Adept is history in Jaunty. KPackagekit is turning out to be an excellent package manager.
Same guy again.
As you can tell by reading this blog, i am not a very smart fella.
Shameful no one has to say anything, only quote what has already been said.
I think the above examples, which all come from a single Ubuntu Member, is an isolated case -- hopefully --
Please stop claiming that I and everyone else was offended. Most people are sane and realize the point of this, thanks.
Maybe a poll should be created so we can see in numbers what community thinks about this. It seems that Ubuntu One can be an issue with very severe consequences :(
"The problem is bigger than this, however. Canonical, and not the community, owns the "Ubuntu" trademark. And they can do what they want with it, including launching commercial projects featuring it. Unfortunately, the Ubuntu trademark guidelines prohibit anybody else from doing this without permission. Do you think a competitor would get permission if they started a similar service, called something like Ubuntu Online? Or any project involving proprietary software? I doubt it."
*sheesh!!*
In the same way I can't build and sell my own PC's and call them DELL PC's!!!
I may ask again as nobody really answered.
To those who have a problem with UbuntuOne and feel that Canonical has let you down by introducing proprietary, do you have ANY of the following installed into your Ubuntu system
Adobe Flash Nvidia Graphics driver ATI Graphics Driver Java libdvdcss2 Ubuntu Restricted Extras Medibuntu repository
misGnomer said:
Also, the tone of some "pro-Canonical fans" and even Ubuntu Members can be hostile and divisive, witness "A few less whiners would do the \”community\” good".... "I'll just stick with \”loser\” or \”big fat tard\”"
I resemble those comments ):P
It is quite silly to see the anti UbuntuOne stuff.
forrestcupp said: +1
Canonical brings us Ubuntu, trademarks the name, and gives us a quality product for free. Then the people who get good use out of a great OS that they were given are mad when the same company that owns the trademark integrates the name that they own and are known for into another of their products.
Haven't you guys ever heard, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"? Does it really matter that much? They're not going to stop offering you a great OS because of this.
canonical has probably done less than 0.1% of the work necessary to develop ubuntu.
So the marketing they do doesn't help with the development of ubuntu? The work they did for the deal with Dell to preinstall ubuntu on Dell hardware? Ubuntu and Canonical are mutually dependent.
I hate marketing myself, but it has been necessary for ubuntu to become 'linux's poster boy'
howlingmadhowie said: canonical has probably done less than 0.1% of the work necessary to develop ubuntu.
Really? Wow, that's quite a statement and one which I am suggesting you could never substantiate!
Mr. Picklesworth said: Not that it wouldn't be *nice* to see the guts of their server, but I think open source / free software stuff loses its purpose when it hits "the cloud" anyway. First of all, the definition of "the user" is not really the same. The server interprets some kind of script into an HTML file, which is then passed on to the client. Technically, "the user" is the web site's developer.
All the client sees, knows about or cares about is the HTML file. How could he be a user of the code if he neither posesses it, executes it or knows it is there? The code is just being used in real time by the server to generate an HTML page in place of a human being doing so manually, no different from how countless people here mockups together with Adobe Flash.
A web server is not really like your typical application, but a *service*, and services are quite a different story here with completely different "freedom" issues that have so far gone untouched.
untouched? just because you haven't heard of the debates up till now don't assume that no one's been thinking about it. eben moglen and richard stallman were both working on solving this particular problem in the early 90s. have a look here.
fatality_uk said: Really? Wow, that's quite a statement and one which I am suggesting you could never substantiate!
an example: google for commits to the linux kernel. canonical does very little here. i imagine however that canonical does more to support gnome.
Vorian said: I resemble those comments ):P
It is quite silly to see the anti UbuntuOne stuff.
Its so sad to see community member descend so low as to call people whose view they disagree with cry babies. And to think you call yourself an Ubuntu Developer.
Besides the bug report “"Ubuntu One" name creates confusion” which has already been mentioned in this thread, there is also another bug report titled “Server software is closed source” which obviously takes on the second, or parallel, issue of Ubuntu One's server side being non-free.
While addressing either of these two "bug" issues in some way would remove the confusion over Ubuntu's status, the feedback to the latter offers some added insight into the thinking at Canonical.
Just FYI.
And a related thought: If the OSS/Ubuntu community came up with an alternative fully open-sourced service similar to "Ubuntu One" (like iFolder), would Canonical have or use a veto right to keep it from being included...?
And a related thought: If the OSS/Ubuntu community came up with an alternative fully open-sourced service similar to "Ubuntu One" (like iFolder), would Canonical have or use a veto right to keep it from being included...?
Also, the protocol is opensource. So you can create (read: code) a server that is compatible with all the Ubuntu One clients.
Out of interest, are there any open-source software applications out there which effectively do the same thing a Ubuntu One?
vadi said: people are so ungrateful and demanding. I'm amazed.
forrestcupp said: +1
canonical brings us ubuntu, trademarks the name, and gives us a quality product for free. Then the people who get good use out of a great os that they were given are mad when the same company that owns the trademark integrates the name that they own and are known for into another of their products.
Haven't you guys ever heard, "don't bite the hand that feeds you"? Does it really matter that much? They're not going to stop offering you a great os because of this.
+2
michaeldt said: Out of interest, are there any open-source software applications out there which effectively do the same thing a Ubuntu One?
iFolder is very similiar (and with planned p2p system it wouldn't even have to rely on a centralized server), it is however just similiar and only with what has been released now. We already know that more extensive sharing of "things" (as Stuart put it in the Ubuntu UK Podcast interview) is coming and likely soon.
There is not one project that does this, there are likely several small projects that will do at least somne of the things that are coming but not one big framework.
Since this product is still in beta and this issue has caused a ripple in the community, how hard would it be to change the name to Canonical One?
Vorian said: I resemble those comments ):P
It is quite silly to see the anti UbuntuOne stuff.
If anything, it's even more so to lump together every sentiment against *or questioning* a notion and call them "silly" and call those who voice them "crybabies" without bothering to offer a single word's worth of argument or substantiation yourself.
LowSky said: I'm sorry I am confused, why are poeple upset? Canonical owns Ubuntu, Ubuntu one is initially free or for more space $10 a month, and what Canonical is doing is very similar to what Google is doing. The company needs revenue to keep supporting development and this is a great way.
I know I will be using it, it will be great for traveling with my limited space netbook or keeping files availible when I'm not at my desk.
I agree , I don't see what the stink is. They will get over it either way.
gnomeuser said: iFolder is very similiar (and with planned p2p system it wouldn't even have to rely on a centralized server), it is however just similiar and only with what has been released now. We already know that more extensive sharing of "things" (as Stuart put it in the Ubuntu UK Podcast interview) is coming and likely soon.
There is not one project that does this, there are likely several small projects that will do at least somne of the things that are coming but not one big framework.
Well, I don't speak for Canonical and I don't know the exact reason why they chose to keep the server software closed-source. However, given that the product which they developed doesn't really have a free alternative out there, then I can certainly understand why they would be cautious in releasing the server code as open-source. Quite simply, if Canonical are hoping the service will generate significant revenue, then releasing the source code would enable someone who to replicate their service and compete directly with them without having paid anything to develop the software, which Canonical has. So I understand their reluctance.
I also understand why people are unhappy with the association of the Ubuntu name with a closed-source service (although it's not all closed since the client is open). However, whilst free and open source software is a great idea, I accept that sometimes there are necessary "evils". In this case, I don't have any objection to the name because if Canonical can use the name to promote a service which provides it income and thus provides support to the Ubuntu community, then for me, I'm happy to accept that. At the end of the day, there needs to be a balance.
But I think it's far too easy to stand on the sidelines and tell Canonical what they should do. It's quite another to take the risk and put millions of your own money into a project hoping to make a return on it (somehow!!). I wonder how many critics would be willing to put their own cash on the line and do what Canonical are trying to do. Just a thought ;)
In all honesty, the only reason I can see for keeping the source closed, is to protect their investment in the development of the code, to allow them to actually get the service up and running and generating income. I really do believe, that if they felt that making the code open would in no way harm their ability to get a return on that investment then the project would have been open source, but that's just my opinion!
Measuring @canonical.com to linux kernel commits is a laughable way to show any point whatsoever.
canonical brings us ubuntu, trademarks the name, Not from the scratch Ubuntu is a product of development of free software from various communities from debian,redhat, Novell, etc. 98% technologies and tools that Ubuntu uses are from these communities .. what canonical + the ubuntu developer communities do is pply the glue that makes it all gel and gives it polish. All this makes Ubuntu A free software model that anybody who wants can identify with.
and gives us a quality product for free. Then the people who get good use out of a great os that they were given are mad when the same company that owns the trademark integrates the name that they own and are known for into another of their products.
I dont think anybody ever challanged the legality of canonocal's ownership of ubuntu. we all accept that even if its wants it can make a p0rn movie and call it ubuntu .. the question being rised is whether its the right thing to do.. Ubuntu has a strong goodwill that identifies it with free software .. people have come to identify it with community,openness,sharing it is in this light that Using this same ubuntu name to brand a a purely proprietary software a software which has no relationship with the core values that ubuntu stands for.
Its like the Founder of a Church .. making a P0rno movie and with the same title as his church. surely he has the right to. but is that the right thing to do?
Haven't you guys ever heard, "don't bite the hand that feeds you"? Does it really matter that much? They're not going to stop offering you a great os because of this.
tell canonical not to bite the hands of the community that makes Ubuntu what it is today. am a relatively new convert to ubuntu. but i have read the short history of linux. at a time Mandrake, Linspire and suse were the Leading Linux .. At one time they took decisions which went against the principles of the community and got the backlash
What the community giveth it can also Taketh
Distributions come and go... But the community will always remain
bigbrovar said:
Linspire and suse were the Leading Linux
Linspire was never a leading Linux trust me I was there from pretty much the beginning. They did make som horrible decesions which cost them what little credibility they once had, but were never even close to a top 5 distro.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Canonical is a corporate entity that needs revenue to survive and pay it's employees. The current state of the economy really doesn't help much for a company supporting a negative income product like Ubuntu.
disturbed1 said: Excuse me? When have I ever PM'd and emailed you .
Is that slander? In in the state of OHIO WE have laws against that.
Sir you really are not that bright are you.
Sorry, I've been informed it is in fact Libel.
Please take this off line
I have moved Off topic posts to the jail. Please stay on topic
ad_267 said: i don't have a problem with it, it's their name.
+1
i dont see why people are getting so upset about this?
all money from this can be put in to devs.
Me too I'm a bit disturbed by the use of the name,I think we can only stand by and wait for future actions by Canonical for what conceirns UbuntuOne.
carml
Re: Ubuntu One Me too I'm a bit disturbed by the use of the name,I think we can only stand by and wait for future actions by Canonical for what conceirns UbuntuOne. I doubt they would do anything about it :(
According to a message in the"Ubuntu One" name creates confusion bug report, the Ubuntu Community Council's latest IRC debate log has been posted.
The "Ubuntu One" debate takes place between 12:01 and 14:14.
I donate to the FSF occasionally and fully am in to the principles and philosophy of FOSS.
While I'm sad that the backend isn't FOSS I don't understand this row about the name. What is in a name? I personally see this all as an argument about something pretty petty. While I don't claim to myself, many people don't seem to fully comprehend what they are talking about. By all means though, the course of this debacle will certainly set an interesting precedent for the future.
frup said: While I'm sad that the backend isn't FOSS I don't understand this row about the name. What is in a name?
The bug report linked above has some good explanations about that issue.
You can also think of it this way: There would be no Free/Libre open-source software (FLOSS) platform (like Linux plus the Free ecosystem around it) for us, or Canonical, to use if it wasn't for great many people and organizations which followed certain guidelines for common benefit.
Imagine if the early Linux distros had taken the Free parts but all added their proprietary pieces to complete the system. Luckily they all shared and worked together.
Also, even though Linus Torvalds is a pragmatist he supports the open-source way because it is pragmatic, and the (non-profit) Linux trademark reflects that philosophy. We know what the term Linux stands for.
For quite some time Canonical has somewhat downplayed the *Linux* branding in connection with Ubuntu [tm], but the well-publicized and respected Ubuntu Philosophy has so far been in lockstep with the FLOSS philosophy.
Many Ubuntu developers and early adopters have been through years of relative struggle as the FLOSS platform kept evolving. We kept supporting hardware vendors who open-sourced their drivers so that they could be included in the Linux kernel etc.
Ubuntu (Linux) arrived at the scene at an opportune time when the mighty Red Hat (who AFAIK open-source all their code) had openly downplayed Linux on the desktop and both SUSE and Mandrake/Mandriva had dabbled with unpopular (semi-)proprietary developments!
Mark Shuttleworth's Canonical provided - besides the welcome emphasis on the desktop experience - organization, funding and support. Yet the Ubuntu Philosophy was also an important key reason why a lively community quickly developed around "Warty Warthog" (4.10) and subsequent releases.
The Ubuntu branding came to mean something for great many people. Now that Ubuntu [tm] has gained major momentum, it feels somewhat ackward that the well-known Ubuntu branding (with the Linux connection downplayed) is being used to promote a proprietary feature/service. It is no longer easy to explain what Ubuntu [tm] actually stands for.
The issue is not about *Canonical's* right to develop and sell commercial and/or proprietary services. *It is about what Ubuntu is associated with*, and also about the community and Canonical defining the meaning of Ubuntu in unequivocal terms.
But I really do wish that the relative Linux and Ubuntu newcomers would also be able to understand and appreciate how the whole Ubuntu/Linux/FLOSS ecosystem became possible in the first place.
[Canonical, the commercial sponsor of Ubuntu, [...]]("http://www.canonical.com/")
I keep seeing that characterization, straight out of Canonical Ltd.'s own front page, in often PR-like news articles.
Of course, Mark Shuttleworth's Canonical Ltd. has long been much more than a mere "commercial sponsor", but in the past Canonical's driving role didn't really conflict with the established and much-publicized concept of Ubuntu.
However now that Canonical Ltd. has began utilizing their owning role of Ubuntu by tying the Ubuntu platform to a growing set of "Ubuntu One"-branded online/cloud services that are going to be highly integrated with the desktop/OS but which will at least partially be proprietary closed-source services managed and sold by Canonical, wouldn't it be proper for both Canonical and Ubuntu to update the public characterization of their actual relationship.
Clearly Canonical Ltd. are not simply *"commercial sponsors"* of the Ubuntu project but owners of it, with unchallenged right to redefine both the meaning and practice of "Ubuntu".
bigbrovar said: I doubt they would do anything about it :(
The log of the Tuesday's "Community Council" debate was quite interesting. It should be noted that the participant "sabdfl" in the discussion is no other than the Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life aka. Mark Shuttleworth.
Yes, it doesn't appear that the SABDFL is too worried about reactions to tying the Ubuntu brand/concept to Canonical's *proprietary Ubuntu-branded services*, witness *"some members of the community may be surprised by this, and choose to leave"* (13:40/sabdfl).
Apparently fixing the famous Bug #1 now means downplaying the explicit free software aspect of the solution while adapting a more microsoftian (proprietary advantage?) approach deemed more suitable to attracting more potential Ubuntu[tm] consumers?
misGnomer said: [SIZE="1"][Canonical, the commercial sponsor of Ubuntu, [...]]("http://www.canonical.com/")
I keep seeing that characterization, straight out of Canonical Ltd.'s own front page, in often PR-like news articles.
Of course, Mark Shuttleworth's Canonical Ltd. has long been much more than a mere "commercial sponsor", but in the past Canonical's driving role didn't really conflict with the established and much-publicized concept of Ubuntu.
However now that Canonical Ltd. has began utilizing their owning role of Ubuntu by tying the Ubuntu platform to a growing set of "Ubuntu One"-branded online/cloud services that are going to be highly integrated with the desktop/OS but which will at least partially be proprietary closed-source services managed and sold by Canonical, wouldn't it be proper for both Canonical and Ubuntu to update the public characterization of their actual relationship.
Clearly Canonical Ltd. are not simply *"commercial sponsors"* of the Ubuntu project but owners of it, with unchallenged right to redefine both the meaning and practice of "Ubuntu".
The log of the Tuesday's "Community Council" debate was quite interesting. It should be noted that the participant "sabdfl" in the discussion is no other than the Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life aka. Mark Shuttleworth.
Yes, it doesn't appear that the SABDFL is too worried about reactions to tying the Ubuntu brand/concept to Canonical's *proprietary Ubuntu-branded services*, witness *"some members of the community may be surprised by this, and choose to leave"* (13:40/sabdfl).
Apparently fixing the famous Bug #1 now means downplaying the explicit free software aspect of the solution while adapting a more microsoftian (proprietary advantage?) approach deemed more suitable to attracting more potential Ubuntu[tm] consumers?[/SIZE]
The thing that has been really bugging me about this whole issue is that I feel the whole naming controversy is a complete red-herring. I have no problems with Canonical using the Ubuntu brand to make some money. As it happens, they already do (t-shirts, mugs etc). What I really want to know is why the server-side software isn't libre. A few people bring it up in the IRC conversation:
*Tuesday's "Community Council" debate*:
13:27 sabdfl sladen: in due course, i hope there will be a broad Ubuntu One ecosystem, just as we have a broad Ubuntu ecosystem 13:27 wgrant sabdfl: Not a Free server, though. 13:27 wgrant sabdfl: A Free client is only part of the way. 13:27 sabdfl some of those players will have free servers (identi.ca is a good example) and some won't ... 13:28 mako sabdfl: identi.ca is a great example 13:29 mako sabdfl: because the identi.ca software has a different name 13:29 mako identi.ca is the company/instance. laconi.ca is the software ... 13:30 sabdfl if someone (or Canonical) builds an identi.ca infrastructure into Ubuntu One, that would be an example of the place some folks would like us to go 13:31 mako the reason i think this is important is because that i think a sense of community ownership is basically essential to elicit contributions 13:31 sabdfl to be clear, if anyone has a really good plan as to how we could drive Ubuntu One to being in line with the Franklin Street statement, sustainably, Canonical would listen 13:31 sabdfl at the moment, we don't see that being the case
What I'm left wondering is why Canonical *wouldn't* be able to make money if the server-side gubbins were libre. It just isn't adequately explained in the logs, despite people complaining about the proprietariness of it throughout.
For those people reading this thread who are slow to catch up, please remember there is nothing in the GPL that prohibits you from selling software as a service, or from selling any software for that matter.
So to sum up, what gives? Canonical could avoid alienating some hardcore freedom-types *and* still make lots of money. I'd really love someone to give me an answer on this, because it's been bugging me for ages now.
Does anyone understand the "Franklin Street" euphemism that Mark uses for free/libre in the log?
Anzan said: Does anyone understand the "Franklin Street" euphemism that Mark uses for free/libre in the log?
Here you go [opensourcebridge.org].
The Franklin Street Statement, put together by a loose group of hackers and activists from the FSF, Creative Commons, Open Knowledge Foundation, Software Freedom Law Center and elsewhere, sets parameters for how future Free Network Services could work. How can we make the Web service experience as free and open as using Open Source software on a computer you control yourself?
Thanks.
I've found a few others:
http://p2pfoundation.net/Franklin_Street_Statement_on_Freedom_and_Network_Services
Benjamin Mako Hill:
"The current generation of network services or Software as a Service can provide advantages over traditional, locally installed software in ease of deployment, collaboration, and data aggregation. Many users have begun to rely on such services in preference to software provisioned by themselves or their organizations. This move toward centralization has powerful effects on software freedom and user autonomy.
On March 16, 2008, a workgroup convened at the Free Software Foundation, to discuss issues of freedom for users given the rise of network services. We considered a number of issues, among them what impacts these services have on user freedom, and how implementers of network services can help or harm users. We believe this will be an ongoing conversation, potentially spanning many years. Our hope is that free software and open source communities will embrace and adopt these values when thinking about user freedom and network services. We hope to work with organizations including the FSF to provide moral and technical leadership on this issue." (http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/)
I dont see anything wrong with this.
Its not like anyone here is actually going to use cloud computing anyway.
The more money canonical brings in, the better the real ubuntu will be.
monsterstack said: The thing that has been really bugging me about this whole issue is that I feel the whole naming controversy is a complete red-herring. I have no problems with Canonical using the Ubuntu brand to make some money. As it happens, they already do (t-shirts, mugs etc). What I really want to know is why the server-side software isn't libre. For a lot of people, Ubuntu means freedom. So naming a proprietary service after Ubuntu *does* create a problem.
However, as was pointed out in the chatroom, not all of Ubuntu is free as in freedom at the moment, even without Ubuntu One. Exceptions include some drivers. The restricted and multiverse repositories are also not strictly free as in freedom. And the freedom promise was always client side, too. It seems like the brand Ubuntu is being redefined to include closed source server side software, which in the past was clearly seperated from Ubuntu from their name (eg: launchpad).
For those people reading this thread who are slow to catch up, please remember there is nothing in the GPL that prohibits you from selling software as a service, or from selling any software for that matter.There is in the Ubuntu promise though:
"Ubuntu will always be free of charge, including enterprise releases and security updates." I guess they think that Ubuntu One is not included in this promise, which leads us to the misleading name again. Or else they think having a limited version of the service that is gratis meets the promise.
When I see official Ubuntu t-shirts, I don't feel that they are a part of Ubuntu, so I'm not in the least disturbed by the fact that selling them is breaking the Ubuntu promise. Ubuntu One does feel like it's part of the Ubuntu project, when it's not. I think. I wish SABDFL would answer the question: "Do you consider Ubuntu One a part of Ubuntu?". I read the IRC logs and I couldn't tell whether he did.
Flimm said: For a lot of people, Ubuntu means freedom. So naming a proprietary service after Ubuntu *does* create a problem.
However, as was pointed out in the chatroom, not all of Ubuntu is free as in freedom at the moment, even without Ubuntu One. Exceptions include some drivers. The restricted and multiverse repositories are also not strictly free as in freedom. And the freedom promise was always client side, too. It seems like the brand Ubuntu is being redefined to include closed source server side software, which in the past was clearly seperated from Ubuntu from their name (eg: launchpad).
There is in the Ubuntu promise though: "Ubuntu will always be free of charge, including enterprise releases and security updates." I guess they think that Ubuntu One is not included in this promise, which leads us to the misleading name again. Or else they think having a limited version of the service that is gratis meets the promise.
When I see official Ubuntu t-shirts, I don't feel that they are a part of Ubuntu, so I'm not in the least disturbed by the fact that selling them is breaking the Ubuntu promise. Ubuntu One does feel like it's part of the Ubuntu project, when it's not. I think. I wish SABDFL would answer the question: "Do you consider Ubuntu One a part of Ubuntu?". I read the IRC logs and I couldn't tell whether he did.
I understand your reasoning, I think. The thing about the non-free driver stuff is that none of those are actually made by Ubuntu. The Launchpad being non-free annoys me too, though. I just don't understand the reason *why* it has to be closed. The IRC logs indicate that Canonical do plan to make the Launchpad free at some point, though.
The stuff about whether or not the gratis version protects Canonical from breaking the Ubuntu promise interests me, now that you bring it up. I mean you could try and argue that, seeing as even the free-beer version is going to cost lots money to maintain. In any event, the "free beer" promise doesn't really feel that important to me that much (and honestly, I hadn't even considered it; thanks for bringing it up!). I'd much rather Canonical focused on the libre aspect of things. Yes free-beer is important, but nowhere near as fundamental as the code being libre. Having closed-source free-beer projects is a move that achieves nothing and satisfies nobody.
All a big fuss over nothing.
Ubuntu One will be a paid for service which no-one is compelled to use in the same way that no-one is compelled to buy Ubuntu CDs or DVDs from the Canonical shop.
Canonical owns the Ubuntu trademark and MS owns Canonical, so it's up to MS what he wants to do with it, ultimately he doesn't have to answer to anyone for his commercial decisions.
For those William Wallace's amongst you, FREEEEDOMMMM, how many of you have "truly" FREE, as in Richard Stallman FREE, system?
Got Flash? Err that's a no no!!! Got an nVidia or ATI card and updated to their driver? Ohhh bad!!! Play MP3's? Play DVD's?
Answer YES to any of the above questions?
fatality_uk said: For those William Wallace's amongst you, FREEEEDOMMMM, how many of you have "truly" FREE, as in Richard Stallman FREE, system?
Got Flash? Err that's a no no!!! Got an nVidia or ATI card and updated to their driver? Ohhh bad!!! Play MP3's? Play DVD's?
Answer YES to any of the above questions? Anyone posting on these forums is using non-free software, because the forums operate on VBulletin, which is not GPL'ed.
fatality_uk said: For those William Wallace's amongst you, FREEEEDOMMMM, how many of you have "truly" FREE, as in Richard Stallman FREE, system?
Got Flash? Err that's a no no!!! Got an nVidia or ATI card and updated to their driver? Ohhh bad!!! Play MP3's? Play DVD's?
Answer YES to any of the above questions?
- Ubuntu didn't make Flash;
- Ubuntu didn't make nVidia or ATI graphics cards;
- Ubuntu didn't make the mpeg codec family;
- Ubuntu didn't make the CSS DVD encryption system.
aysiu said: anyone posting on these forums is using non-free software, because the forums operate on vbulletin, which is not gpl'ed.
qed!
aysiu said: Anyone posting on these forums is using non-free software, because the forums operate on VBulletin, which is not GPL'ed.
Ubuntu didn't make that, either.
monsterstack said:
- Ubuntu didn't make Flash;
- Ubuntu didn't make nVidia or ATI graphics cards;
- Ubuntu didn't make the mpeg codec family;
- Ubuntu didn't make the CSS DVD encryption system.
But Canonical DID make, fund, distribute, support and publicise one of the most popular distros ever made, Ubuntu. And as the legal trademark holder of the Ubuntu name, they are free to do with it as they wish.
I *can* understand people's beef with using the Ubuntu name in some respects, but when people start making suggestions about the fact the server code is closed source, which I have read, then I think, hang on, if these people are using the software I mentioned, what makes the software on offer from Canonical different?
fatality_uk said: But Canonical DID make, fund, distribute, support and publicise one of the most popular distros ever made, Ubuntu. And as the legal trademark holder of the Ubuntu name, they are free to do with it as they wish.
I *can* understand people's beef with using the Ubuntu name in some respects, but when people start making suggestions about the fact the server code is closed source, which I have read, then I think, hang on, if these people are using the software I mentioned, what makes the software on offer from Canonical different?
As someone who makes use of proprietary stuff out of necessity, I can tell you that it doesn't mean I want things to be different. I don't want to have to use closed apps, and I will not give them my support. If Canonical filled Ubuntu with proprietary applications I would not use it. The difference between Canonical supporting proprietary applications and actually developing them is integrity. Linux has been built on the hard work of hundreds of thousands of contributors, and its development has been influenced by millions of users for almost twenty years. To use something that is inherently free as in freedom as a base to go ahead and make proprietary applications is tantamount to punching those developers in the face. Seriously.
monsterstack said:
- Ubuntu didn't make Flash;
- Ubuntu didn't make nVidia or ATI graphics cards;
- Ubuntu didn't make the mpeg codec family;
- Ubuntu didn't make the CSS DVD encryption system.
You don't really want to go down that road because Ubuntu made precious little of what's actually on an Ubuntu CD.
gn2 said: You don't really want to go down that road because Ubuntu made precious little of what's actually on an Ubuntu CD.
That's right. Ubuntu uses free software made by a great many people who wanted their work to be shared. To make a proprietary stuff on the back of their efforts is a slap in the face to everyone who has ever made free software.
fatality_uk said: But Canonical DID make, fund, distribute, support and publicise one of the most popular distros ever made, Ubuntu. And as the legal trademark holder of the Ubuntu name, they are free to do with it as they wish.
I *can* understand people's beef with using the Ubuntu name in some respects, but when people start making suggestions about the fact the server code is closed source, which I have read, then I think, hang on, if these people are using the software I mentioned, what makes the software on offer from Canonical different?
The software carries the Ubuntu brand.
aysiu said: Anyone posting on these forums is using non-free software, because the forums operate on VBulletin, which is not GPL'ed.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7305550&postcount=131
Or: How I explained how all existing service could be "justified" in some way by current guidelines, and thus why UbuntuOne is different.
monsterstack said: That's right. Ubuntu uses free software made by a great many people who wanted their work to be shared.
And Canonical take that work, bundle it all up as Ubuntu, then promote Ubuntu to various businesses, government bodies etc. and make money from support contracts.
If Canonical can indirectly make money from free stuff (created by others), why not from closed stuff....?
It just doesn't make sense to object.
glotz said: I think it was a smart move to start using Debian.
Probably going to be Chakra/Arch for me.
Seriously ... this is the epitome of bad marketing on Canonical's part — kind of like Microsoft introducing a Widget Maker product and calling it Microsoft Word Widget Maker. Poorly thought-out and should be sent back to the originator with a lime-green sticky note that says, "NO! STOP BEING STUPID!" on top.
Ubuntu is a Linux distribution. Canonical needs to find another name for their cloud computing product to avoid confusing the consumer community at large. When ^H^H^H^H If it fails, it could taint the Ubuntu brand. That would be a tremendous mistake.
gn2 said: And Canonical take that work, bundle it all up as Ubuntu, then promote Ubuntu to various businesses, government bodies etc. and make money from support contracts.
If Canonical can indirectly make money from free stuff (created by others), why not from closed stuff....?
It just doesn't make sense to object.
Why? Because it cannot be shared. By making closed applications they have taken the hard work of others and given them *nothing* in return. That is not the way free software is supposed to work. The freedom part has to be absolute, or it isn't worth a damn.
monsterstack said: That's right. Ubuntu uses free software made by a great many people who wanted their work to be shared. To make a proprietary stuff on the back of their efforts is a slap in the face to everyone who has ever made free software.
It's only a slap if somebody used your software in a way that is different to the license you have provided said software.
zekopeko said: It's only a slap if somebody used your software in a way that is different to the license you have provided said software.
No, that's the only time it's *illegal*. It can feel like a slap in the face in many more situations.
So who has worked on the development of the closed source part of One, and were thay duped into believing that it would be gpl'd?
gn2 said: So who has worked on the development of the closed source part of One, and were thay duped into believing that it would be gpl'd?
The Canonical Online Services team was well aware that the server code would remain proprietary.
gn2 said: So who has worked on the development of the closed source part of One, and were thay duped into believing that it would be gpl'd?
That's not the point and you know it. Ubuntu would not exist if it weren't for free software developers. Ubuntu have taken something that is free, and always has been free, and they have extended it with something that is not free. How does that contribute to free software?
monsterstack said:
Ubuntu have taken something that is free, and always has been free, and they have extended it with something that is not free. What do you mean by "extended" it? So any distro that connects to something non-free has no right to use any free software? Out goes Linux Mint, Mepis, PCLinuxOS. > How does that contribute to free software? By helping to fund its development. In fact, a lot of this free software development has been funded by major corporations. "Free" software owes a lot to "non-free" just as non-free owes to free.
Good luck living in a vacuum.
aysiu said: What do you mean by "extended" it? So any distro that connects to something non-free has no right to use any free software? Out goes Linux Mint, Mepis, PCLinuxOS. By helping to fund its development. In fact, a lot of this free software development has been funded by major corporations. "Free" software owes a lot to "non-free" just as non-free owes to free.
Good luck living in a vacuum.
Making a distribution of Linux work with non-free components, as an act of necessity or even merely as a convenience, is perfectly acceptable. Making money from free software, either by selling your wares, or by providing a service, is perfectly acceptable. I have never said anything contrary to that in this thread.
I don't disagree that a lot of Linux development depends on the actions of megacorporations these days, either. Of course that's true. The biggest contributor of them all, however, is Red Hat, who do not deal in closed-source applications at all. Linux has a lot to lose if we start letting people fill its vaults with non-free software. The excuse that allowing closed-source stuff into Linux helps fund it is not enough: Canonical could still make money selling libre services. They could stand to make money more efficiently selling their services if those services themselves were libre, due to the way free software works. A closed-source commercial application made by Canonical benefits no-one but Canonical. A libre commercial application benefits everybody.
To me, the whole thing is about the branding.
Yes, I use non-free Sun Java - But I know, and Ubuntu takes pains to inform me, that this is non-free, proprietary software and is not a part of Ubuntu.
Same thing with non-free-Flash, non-free codecs , proprietary drivers, etc.
So to me, that isn't a valid argument, it's circular reasoning that has no bearing on the main point.
Calling it Ubuntu One makes it a part of Ubuntu in a way that selling keychains, t-shirts, etc. does not.
Even worse, I can see it coming that Ubuntu One will be packaged with Ubuntu, and probably in such a way that removing it will cripple the system, much like trying to remove Evolution does now.
Microsoft building Internet Explorer into the o/s in such a way that it's removal crippled a signicant part of the o/s was one of the defining moments in my break with Microsoft - and Microsoft has never tried to market itself as anything other than a for-profit enterprise.
Sure, they have every legal right to do whatever they want with the name, since they own it. But I'm not talking about legalities. Once you start confusing the legal with the moral, the ethical or even the just plain right-thing-to-do, you've already fallen down that slippery slope.
Many things are, or have been, legal that are definitely immoral and/or unethical.
Ubuntu One feels, to me, like a breach of trust. Once lost, trust is hard, and sometimes impossible, to regain. Fool me once, etc....
Ubuntu One=New Coke. It isn't new, and it sure isn't Coke. I, for one, just hope that the powers that be realize their mistake and correct it...
Didius Falco said: To me, the whole thing is about the branding.
Yes, I use non-free Sun Java - But I know, and Ubuntu takes pains to inform me, that this is non-free, proprietary software and is not a part of Ubuntu.
Same thing with non-free-Flash, non-free codecs , proprietary drivers, etc.
So to me, that isn't a valid argument, it's circular reasoning that has no bearing on the main point.
Calling it Ubuntu One makes it a part of Ubuntu in a way that selling keychains, t-shirts, etc. does not.
Even worse, I can see it coming that Ubuntu One will be packaged with Ubuntu, and probably in such a way that removing it will cripple the system, much like trying to remove Evolution does now.
Microsoft building Internet Explorer into the o/s in such a way that it's removal crippled a signicant part of the o/s was one of the defining moments in my break with Microsoft - and Microsoft has never tried to market itself as anything other than a for-profit enterprise.
Sure, they have every legal right to do whatever they want with the name, since they own it. But I'm not talking about legalities. Once you start confusing the legal with the moral, the ethical or even the just plain right-thing-to-do, you've already fallen down that slippery slope.
Many things are, or have been, legal that are definitely immoral and/or unethical.
Ubuntu One feels, to me, like a breach of trust. Once lost, trust is hard, and sometimes impossible, to regain. Fool me once, etc....
Ubuntu One=New Coke. It isn't new, and it sure isn't Coke. I, for one, just hope that the powers that be realize their mistake and correct it...
You spoke my mind .. i could not have said it better .. never knew i could be this disappointed in canonical. to go as far as to create a support section for ubuntuone on ubuntuforum is a slap on the face of what ubuntu is said to stand for.
bigbrovar said: You spoke my mind .. i could not have said it better .. never knew i could be this disappointed in canonical. to go as far as to create a support section for ubuntuone on ubuntuforum is a slap on the face of what ubuntu is said to stand for.
I've always liked and respected your posts mate , But I honestly and vehemently disagree.
wgrant said: The Canonical Online Services team was well aware that the server code would remain proprietary.
In my job we are always required to reach a "clear understanding", so here goes:
As I understand it, there are two distinct parts to the Ubuntu One service.
1) The Client part, installed on local computer and bundled in the Ubuntu distribution CD.
2) The Server part, installed on the remote server, not bundled in the Ubuntu distribution CD and not FOSS.
Is the above correct and is 1) FOSS?
gn2 said: In my job we are always required to reach a "clear understanding", so here goes:
As I understand it, there are two distinct parts to the Ubuntu One service.
1) The Client part, installed on local computer and bundled in the Ubuntu distribution CD.
2) The Server part, installed on the remote server, not bundled in the Ubuntu distribution CD and not FOSS.
Is the above correct and is 1) FOSS?
Yes, that's right.
monsterstack said: Yes, that's right.
So if the part that's distributed is FOSS, what's all the fuss about?
If anyone objects to using closed source software on a remote server, maybe it's time for them to stop accessing all manner of websites and web services?
gn2 said: So if the part that's distributed is FOSS, what's all the fuss about?
If anyone objects to using closed source software on a remote server, maybe it's time for them to stop accessing all manner of websites and web services?
For about the millionth time, I don't have a problem with using closed-source stuff out of necessity or convenience. I'd rather not; I'd much rather everything was free and open source online and off, but that's not the point. Canonical are developing and promoting stuff that isn't libre. And I don't think they should. The difference between having support for closed-source applications and actually developing them is huge, and it's important. If Red Hat, Debian or Novell want to incorporate similar features into their operating systems and servers, they cannot benefit from Canonical's efforts. Similarly, Canonical receives zero help from them, or any of the hundreds of thousands of freelance programmers in the world. You end up with duplication and fragmentation where it just isn't necessary at all. Why encourage more fragmentation in the Linux community? Good old-fashioned capitalist competition is not what free software is about. We're supposed to be working together.
It is quite obvious that you all have been foolishly naive! it is plain to see Mark Shuttleworth's master plan was simply to harvest free "volunteer" labor to further advance his product to package into a nice proprietary system to sell and profit from (Steve Jobs and Bill Gates could learn a lot from Mark Shuttleworth).
I believe they say in the Navy: "Never volunteer for anything" also there is another saying "nothing in this world is free"
I brought up the question once, about how is free good for the world?...it isn't! and this is 100% proof positive! I support mark Shuttleworth 100% and believe that each and everyone should pay for Ubuntu One...if you don't like it start Ubuntu Two...it could be exactly the same, but instead of volunteering your developer time and knowledge for free with NO return you could have it instead owned and operated by the community, meaning that like a Co-Op each one of you have ownership and get dividends and returns on your investment of time, development and testing. It is just that simple, if you don't like something, don't whine about it, make a change and make it happen...
Of course you couldn't use the word Ubuntu but you don't need it, call it Community One Co-Op (Cloud system based on Ubuntu, owned and operated by the community it serves).
Simple solution and beats whining any day.
(by the way Ubuntu One is far from original they are simple replicating what Zonbu has already done (hopefully with more success)
monsterstack said: ~ Canonical are developing and promoting stuff that isn't libre. And I don't think they should. ~
Are you a Canonical shareholder? If not, it's none of your business what Canonical do.
As for promoting, the closed source server side software just allows them to offer a service, the server side software is not part of the distribution.
Don't like the new service provided by Canonical or the software it uses? Then don't use it.
gn2 said: Are you a Canonical shareholder?
If not, it's none of your business what Canonical do.
As for promoting, the closed source server side software just allows them to offer a service, the server side software is not part of the distribution.
Don't like the new service provided by Canonical or the software it uses? Then don't use it.or just refer to this post.
gn2 said: Are you a Canonical shareholder?
If not, it's none of your business what Canonical do.
As for promoting, the closed source server side software just allows them to offer a service, the server side software is not part of the distribution.
Don't like the new service provided by Canonical or the software it uses? Then don't use it.
My reasons for not thinking they should are not entirely ideological, you know. I'm not getting through here, so how about this:
Reasons why Canonical needs a closed-source service for its users.
Name one.
gn2 said: So if the part that's distributed is FOSS, what's all the fuss about?
If anyone objects to using closed source software on a remote server, maybe it's time for them to stop accessing all manner of websites and web services?
You sir , are correct.
Thank you.
gn2 said: 1) The Client part, installed on local computer and bundled in the Ubuntu distribution CD.
2) The Server part, installed on the remote server, not bundled in the Ubuntu distribution CD and not FOSS.The client part is GPL, and is free as in freedom and gratis. The server side software is not though, and the client side software is useless without the server side software. This is true for a lot of FLOSS out there, like aMSN, but they don't label the closed source part Ubuntu like Canonical is doing. In the past, they've been smart enough not to name their closed source software after Ubuntu, even if it was specifically designed for it (eg: Landscape).
monsterstack said: My reasons for not thinking they should are not entirely ideological, you know. I'm not getting through here, so how about this:
Reasons why Canonical needs a closed-source service for its users.
Name one.
To make money , [COLOR="Red"]real money by providing a service other than support[/COLOR] , Which I hope they do more of. I'm so loyal in fact that I will buy! for one reason to support them and for another to gain more storage and if it can be used in-conjunction with Dropbox I will have the best seamless online cross platform back up system I could have ever imagined. I already do monetarily support them in my own little way and now I have another way of doing so and you should to.
Just to say thanks if nothing else.
Wiebelhaus said: To make money , [COLOR=Red]real money by providing a service other than support[/COLOR] , Which I hope they do more of. I'm so loyal in fact that I will buy! for one reason to support them and for another to gain more storage and if it can be used in-conjunction with Dropbox I will have the best seamless online cross platform back up system I could have ever imagined. I already do monetarily support them in my own little way and now I have another way of doing so and you should to.
Just to say thanks if nothing else.
I am overjoyed to Pay for Ubuntu! and I am glad to hear you are too!...Ubuntu One honestly is a good thing!
monsterstack said: ~ how about this:
Reasons why Canonical needs a closed-source service for its users.
Name one.
As I understand it, the Ubuntu One service will not distribute, supply or sell closed source software.
Name any reason why Canonical as a business should be dictated to over their server side software choice by people who are not shareholders in the business?
Should they not be free to decide what they want to use based on what suits the needs of the business?
If there is an open source solution, name it, and describe in detail how it will meet Canonical's business needs. While you're at it you can outline Canonical's business needs if you know what they are.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the One server side software will be closed source in an attempt to stop competitors undercutting Canonical with an alternative service.
As it stands there are already cheaper options which people can use....
gn2 said: As I understand it, the Ubuntu One service will not distribute, supply or sell closed source software.
Name any reason why Canonical as a business should be dictated to over their server side software choice by people who are not shareholders in the business?
Should they not be free to decide what they want to use based on what suits the needs of the business?
If there is an open source solution, name it, and describe in detail how it will meet Canonical's business needs. While you're at it you can outline Canonical's business needs if you know what they are.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the One server side software will be closed source in an attempt to stop competitors undercutting Canonical with an alternative sevice.
As it stands there are already cheaper options which people can use....
Amazon, rPath/rBuilder, Zonbu, etc. etc. Canonical owns nothing unique!...simple a re-introduction of all the same...it's called "catch-up", a basic necessity Ubuntu/Canonical needs to survive!
Couple of points:
gn2 said: Are you a Canonical shareholder?
If not, it's none of your business what Canonical do.
Nobody is a shareholder. Canonical are not publicly listed, and probably never will be.
Flimm said: The client part is GPL, and is free as in freedom and gratis. The server side software is not though, and the client side software is useless without the server side software.
It's my understanding that both the client and the protocol are open source. That means that anybody can set up a service using Ubuntu One. In fact, that's the whole point. They want people to start using it to make cool new (open source!) apps and services. That's why they created it!
Anybody who thinks this will somehow be bad for the community hasn't looked into it. Ubuntu One has huge potential to be a springboard for some great new open source stuff.
Paqman said: Nobody is a shareholder. Canonical are not publicly listed, and probably never will be.
Precisely, it's nothing to do with anyone other than MS what software Canonical uses.
Paqman said: It's my understanding that both the client and the protocol are open source. That means that anybody can set up a service using Ubuntu One. In fact, that's the whole point. They want people to start using it to make cool new (open source!) apps and services. That's why they created it!
Anybody who thinks this will somehow be bad for the community hasn't looked into it. Ubuntu One has huge potential to be a springboard for some great new open source stuff.
It would seem that could well be the case, from page 2 of the ars technica article linked from the OP in this thread:
Murphy says that complete protocol documentation will be available, potentially enabling third-parties to create and self-host their own server software that is compatible with the Ubuntu One client components.
and
The client software implementation is solid, the platform integration is well-executed, and the underlying vision is broad and intriguing. If the developers can expand its functionality and deliver a wider range of useful services—particularly support for syncing application data—it could be very significant.
First off, I'm hearing too much protests along the lines of "it's not about money, it's about proprietary software." I know some of it is because the pro-"who cares what the name is" crowd is harping on that too, but IMHO I see more protests than can be justified by just that. To be fair, it's the combination "proprietary/profit from Ubuntu's name" thing that has people up in arms, but it's still there.
Secondly, Canonical One just isn't the same. The name "Ubuntu" is more recognized outside the community than "Canonical". Maybe not much more so, but it is, and Canonical is out to make a profit. We want that, because Canonical supports us. So we should want Canonical to do whatever it can to increase it's visibility.
Thirdly, I refuse to listen to any numbers about who has done what share of the work, Canonical vs. the developers. How does one measure that? Which steps are more important? Without Canonical, Ubuntu wouldn't be as popular as it is, and thus there would be fewer developers working on it.
Fourthly, it seems to be established that at present there is no suitable FOSS code that can do what Ubuntu One is designed to do (correct me if I'm wrong here). There's some work that was mentioned, but with disclaimers. In theory Canonical could wait until the FOSS community finished their work, but that's just silly. If they did that across the board, they wouldn't be allowing proprietary drivers in the repositories. Arguments that "Canonical doesn't make flash" simply don't hold water when Canonical is still instrumental in its distribution.
Finally, proprietary software isn't the end of the world. Yes, I enjoy FOSS software when it works, but sometimes it just doesn't. Take GIMP for example: I personally hate it. The only reason I use it is because I don't do enough photo editing to justify buying Photoshop. But I know people who do, and I would never encourage them to use GIMP.
Really, this is mountain out of a molehill.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
ParanoidMetroid said: First off, I'm hearing too much protests along the lines of "it's not about money, it's about proprietary software." I know some of it is because the pro-"who cares what the name is" crowd is harping on that too, but IMHO I see more protests than can be justified by just that. To be fair, it's the combination "proprietary/profit from Ubuntu's name" thing that has people up in arms, but it's still there.
Yes, those are the two main objections. Personally, I don't care if Canonical wants to make it proprietary, so long as they don't call it Ubuntu, and they don't make it a required part of the Ubuntu package. They can include it if they want to, so long as I can remove it without harming my system.
Secondly, Canonical One just isn't the same. The name "Ubuntu" is more recognized outside the community than "Canonical".
Yes, it is. That is a large part of the point. What Ubuntu is recognized AS will change because of the monetization of software labeled Ubuntu.
Maybe not much more so, but it is, and Canonical is out to make a profit. We want that, because Canonical supports us. So we should want Canonical to do whatever it can to increase it's visibility.
Canonical will not increase it's visibility. Clark Kent doesn't get any of the credit when he's in his Superman cape.
Thirdly, I refuse to listen to any numbers about who has done what share of the work, Canonical vs. the developers. How does one measure that? Which steps are more important? Without Canonical, Ubuntu wouldn't be as popular as it is, and thus there would be fewer developers working on it.
Here, you are trying to have your cake, and eat it too. You just can't have it both ways - refuse to listen to any numbers, and then place an importance value on who did what.
Without Canonical, most of those developers would probably be working on other distros, and those distros would then have the advantages that Ubuntu currently enjoys.
Fourthly, it seems to be established that at present there is no suitable FOSS code that can do what Ubuntu One is designed to do (correct me if I'm wrong here). There's some work that was mentioned, but with disclaimers. In theory Canonical could wait until the FOSS community finished their work, but that's just silly.
They don't have to wait - they just have to not call it Ubuntu if it's going to be proprietary and monetized.
> If they did that across the board, they wouldn't be allowing proprietary drivers in the repositories.
Sure they would, they'd just be doing like they have been - making it clear that this is not their software, that it isn't Open Source and that it represents a possible danger to your system - and that they do not support it.
Arguments that "Canonical doesn't make flash" simply don't hold water when Canonical is still instrumental in its distribution.
When I download Flash, it isn't labeled FlashBuntu, or Ubuntu Flash. That's a huge difference to me - YMMV.
Finally, proprietary software isn't the end of the world. <snip>
I agree. That's why I use non-free Flash and ATI drivers. The difference in performance is worth the trade-off to me. As far as the ATI drivers go, I paid for the video card and the drivers that make it function properly. That's also why I've been on their back to give much better support to the Linux side of the equation.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining. <G>
It should be obvious already - this will cause a schism of some sort. The sad part is that it could all be so easily avoided.
I'm under no illusion that I'm any kind of powerplayer in all this. I have 25-30 people that look to me as the computer geek in my circle, and listen to what I have to say about all things technical. I try to pitch in and help newcomers to the forum when and where I can. I burn Ubuntu CDs and hand them out to those that are interested after listening to me talk about it. That's nothing in the power scheme.
But in the Ubuntu scheme, I'm as important as Mark Shuttleworth, and so is everyone else...
Regards,
Didius
Moved to the Ubuntu One forum.
I have been waiting for a service like this for some time so I am not all surprised, just 'what took them so long'.
I am full in favour of Ubuntu One. It has great potential and I hope it will be source of revenue for them.
Didius Falco said:
First off, I'm hearing too much protests along the lines of "it's not about money, it's about proprietary software." I know some of it is because the pro-"who cares what the name is" crowd is harping on that too, but IMHO I see more protests than can be justified by just that. To be fair, it's the combination "proprietary/profit from Ubuntu's name" thing that has people up in arms, but it's still there. Yes, those are the two main objections. Personally, I don't care if Canonical wants to make it proprietary, so long as they don't call it Ubuntu, and they don't make it a required part of the Ubuntu package. They can include it if they want to, so long as I can remove it without harming my system. Would this be a good time to remind people that Canonical owns the Ubuntu trademark, not the Ubuntu community? Canonical put it's money where it's mouth is, what more do we want?
Didius Falco said:
Secondly, Canonical One just isn't the same. The name "Ubuntu" is more recognized outside the community than "Canonical". Yes, it is. That is a large part of the point. What Ubuntu is recognized AS will change because of the monetization of software labeled Ubuntu. Ubuntu is already monetized. T-shirts, mugs, etc. This is nothing new. Why are we now concerned because suddenly software is involved? All things considered, it always has been.
Didius Falco said:
Maybe not much more so, but it is, and Canonical is out to make a profit. We want that, because Canonical supports us. So we should want Canonical to do whatever it can to increase it's visibility. Canonical will not increase it's visibility. Clark Kent doesn't get any of the credit when he's in his Superman cape. I don't know how to respond to this one. Are you saying Ubuntu is Canonical's alter-ego? Shouldn't Canonical decided what to do as Ubuntu then?
Didius Falco said:
Thirdly, I refuse to listen to any numbers about who has done what share of the work, Canonical vs. the developers. How does one measure that? Which steps are more important? Without Canonical, Ubuntu wouldn't be as popular as it is, and thus there would be fewer developers working on it. Here, you are trying to have your cake, and eat it too. You just can't have it both ways - refuse to listen to any numbers, and then place an importance value on who did what. Please note that I never said that Canonical was *more* important than the developers, just that it was important. This is something that many people are overlooking. We need *both*.
Didius Falco said:
Without Canonical, most of those developers would probably be working on other distros, and those distros would then have the advantages that Ubuntu currently enjoys. Maybe, maybe not. Every Linux distribution has it's own "flavor" so to speak. Odds are, the developers that are currently working on Ubuntu's advantages would be making different advantages in other distributions. Not saying that that's better or worse, but it will be different.
Didius Falco said:
Fourthly, it seems to be established that at present there is no suitable FOSS code that can do what Ubuntu One is designed to do (correct me if I'm wrong here). There's some work that was mentioned, but with disclaimers. In theory Canonical could wait until the FOSS community finished their work, but that's just silly. They don't have to wait - they just have to not call it Ubuntu if it's going to be proprietary and monetized. Again with the money thing. Canonical is out to make a profit, always has been.
Didius Falco said:
If they did that across the board, they wouldn't be allowing proprietary drivers in the repositories. Sure they would, they'd just be doing like they have been - making it clear that this is not their software, that it isn't Open Source and that it represents a possible danger to your system - and that they do not support it. Huh? Danger? What danger? Personally I think you're overreacting here. And I thought it was made clear that *none* of this is Canonical's software. It's the Ubuntu Community's, remember? Like you say later on, "But in the Ubuntu scheme, I'm as important as Mark Shuttleworth, and so is everyone else..."
(sorry for the sarcasm, but this one gets to me. don't falsely accuse me of having my cake and eating it too only to turn around and do the same thing.)
Didius Falco said:
Arguments that "Canonical doesn't make flash" simply don't hold water when Canonical is still instrumental in its distribution. When I download Flash, it isn't labeled FlashBuntu, or Ubuntu Flash. That's a huge difference to me - YMMV. But Canonical is running the servers behind Ubuntu One, and they own the Ubuntu trademark. They have every right to do so.
Didius Falco said: It should be obvious already - this will cause a schism of some sort. The sad part is that it could all be so easily avoided.
No it couldn't. Canonical One would have been just as controversial, because in the Ubuntu Community, many of us do instinctively equate the two. You know this, otherwise you wouldn't have compared the two to Superman and Clark Kent. The only way to prevent this would have been for Canonical to abandon the project, and that simply doesn't make sense.
I'll surely be using the service and will happily pay Canonical for it.
gn2 said: So if the part that's distributed is FOSS, what's all the fuss about?
If anyone objects to using closed source software on a remote server, maybe it's time for them to stop accessing all manner of websites and web services?
I think you are tarring Ubuntu's ideals with fundamentalism here.
First of all, the greatest uneasiness is caused by Canonical's proprietary server-side being called "ubuntu" (See Ubuntu Philosophy etc.)
Secondly, the larger Open Source community is already worried about server-side lock-ins and proprietary (secret) code handling your data, since those "cloud services" are becoming ever more *tightly integrated* with the actual OS and desktop.
If Canonical Ltd. feels that they don't want to share the code openly with other open-source vendors, surely many people aren't very happy with that approach but if they weren't riding on the reputation of the Ubuntu brand/community/philosophy (and muddying/soiling it), that would be still tolerable.
Finally, if Microsoft released a simple "open" desktop tool for running MS-Office in the proprietary cloud, would that the "kosher" enough to be shipped with Ubuntu[tm]? Sure, it might be the expedient thing to do, but promoting/shipping it would also damage the core objectives of the whole free software community by promoting further lock-ins in Microsoft's proprietary data formats.
misGnomer said: First of all, the greatest uneasiness is caused by Canonical's proprietary server-side being called "ubuntu" (See Ubuntu Philosophy etc.)
Secondly, the larger Open Source community is already worried about server-side lock-ins and proprietary (secret) code handling your data, since those "cloud services" are becoming ever more *tightly integrated* with the actual OS and desktop.
Don't like it? Don't use it. Simple.
As I understand it, the protocol is being made available, so those who are so motivated can create their own open source server side software to use with the open source client side software.
Given this possiblity, the argument about the closed source nature of the software that Canonical has selected to use at launch of this service is made redundant.
i.e: There is no lock-in.
misGnomer said: Secondly, the larger Open Source community is already worried about server-side lock-ins and proprietary (secret) code handling your data, since those "cloud services" are becoming ever more *tightly integrated* with the actual OS and desktop.
I must check the U1 page again as I haven't read that anywhere!
fatality_uk said: I must check the U1 page again as I haven't read that anywhere!
There has been a rather extensive discussion of this concern taking place on the mailing lists of autonomo.us and apparently the topic is slated for discussion at the next Ubuntu Community Council meeting.
ParanoidMetroid said: Would this be a good time to remind people that Canonical owns the Ubuntu trademark, not the Ubuntu community? Canonical put it's money where it's mouth is, what more do we want?
We've no disagreement here; I've already said that they own it and can, in the legal sense, do whatever they want with it.
Where the disagreement lies is in what the compact (not a contract) has been between Canonical and the Ubuntu community of developers, volunteers and users.
Ubuntu is already monetized. T-shirts, mugs, etc. This is nothing new. Why are we now concerned because suddenly software is involved? All things considered, it always has been.The keychains, t-shirts, etc. are and always have been a way to build brand-recognition for Ubuntu. How many "Canonical" t-shirts and keychains do you have?
You don't take a t-shirt with the Rolling Stones lips logo home and jam into your cd player and expect to hear music. You know it's a way to publicize the band and make it "cool".
I don't know how to respond to this one. Are you saying Ubuntu is Canonical's alter-ego? Shouldn't Canonical decided what to do as Ubuntu then?More like a child - bad analogy on my part, but I'd bet you still understood the underlying message.
Please note that I never said that Canonical was *more* important than the developers, just that it was important. This is something that many people are overlooking. We need *both*.
Agreed. But there is a fork in the road, and not everyone is going to choose the same path to follow, especially when the new path seems to be heading for a different destination than was agreed upon at the start of the trip.
Again with the money thing. Canonical is out to make a profit, always has been.Canonical is free to make a profit, I hope that they do.
For me, it's not the money thing, it's the Ubuntu thing.
Huh? Danger? What danger? Personally I think you're overreacting here.I was thinking of what Ubuntu puts on the screen when you install proprietary drivers. The word they actually use is "risk". Hey, it's not like I'm installing this stuff every day - once it's on there it tends to stay for a long time. <G> See screen shot:
And I thought it was made clear that *none* of this is Canonical's software. It's the Ubuntu Community's, remember? Like you say later on, "But in the Ubuntu scheme, I'm as important as Mark Shuttleworth, and so is everyone else..."Well, it* was *the Ubuntu Community's...It's going to be something else now.
(sorry for the sarcasm, but this one gets to me. don't falsely accuse me of having my cake and eating it too only to turn around and do the same thing.)It was meant rhetorically, not personally, and I apologize if you took it as a personal affront or attack.
But Canonical is running the servers behind Ubuntu One, and they own the Ubuntu trademark. They have every right to do so.Again, agreed. They have every *legal* right to do whatever they want with the name. I'm not disputing the legality of it at all, but they won't be Canonical servers, they'll be Ubuntu One servers
No it couldn't. Canonical One would have been just as controversial, because in the Ubuntu Community, many of us do instinctively equate the two. You know this, otherwise you wouldn't have compared the two to Superman and Clark Kent. The only way to prevent this would have been for Canonical to abandon the project, and that simply doesn't make sense.As I said above, it's more a parent/child relationship. Mea Culpa Mal Analogus (Roadrunner Latin: My Fault, Bad Analogy)
No, I see a clear demarcation between the two. Canonical One (or Cloud 9 - that would have been my first choice, though that's probably been snapped up long ago) is different than Ubuntu One, and while neither of us can provide any substantial proof, my feeling is that there would have been a lot less angst about the whole thing had it been named anything other than Ubuntu.
Didius Falco said: The keychains, t-shirts, etc. are and always have been a way to build brand-recognition for Ubuntu. How many "Canonical" t-shirts and keychains do you have?
Which brings up another point. This is brand-recognition for Ubuntu. Canonical is acting in what it thinks is in the best interest for both itself and the Ubuntu Community. I understand the worry that people have here that suddenly the Ubuntu brand will be recognized as closed source, but personally I doubt that could ever happen. Consider: the proprietary software used for the forums hasn't caused that problem, and it has "Ubuntu" in it's name and url as well. I admit the cases are a little different, but not significantly IMHO: in both cases, the proprietary code is behind the scenes. Also, from what I gather, Ubuntu is actually one of the best distributions out there when it comes to keeping proprietary code entirely optional. We already have a solid reputation here; a couple of server-side programs can't damage that.
That said, I'm all for keeping an eye out for this situation. While I understand Canonical's position so far, there is definite potential for them to cross the line. For example, if they start bundling ubuntuone-client with the latest Ubuntu release instead of as an optional download, that would be a serious issue.
vadi said: people are so ungrateful and demanding. I'm amazed.
+1 :-(
people are so ungrateful and demanding. I'm amazed.
Huh???
All we asking is that the definition of Ubuntu (See Ubuntu Philosophy; freedom) is not changed midflight.
Maybe you or others were attracted to the Ubuntu[tm] distribution of Linux by plain convenience, "cheapness" or some other reason perceived to benefit you, but please realize and respect the fact that there are also many people who took the idea of free/libre software seriously and without them there would be no Linux, GNU (etc. etc.) or Debian for the SA(B)DFL Mark Shuttleworth to build Ubuntu[tm] and his trademark/support/addon business on.
Since it's founding Ubuntu[tm] has stood for Freedom, until now that is.
So, if from now on Ubuntu[tm] is going to mean free/libre software + Canonical's proprietary Ubuntu-branded add-ons then at least have the balls to redefine the term Ubuntu[tm] accordingly; i.e. rewrite the old Ubuntu Philosophy, mark the Ubuntu bug #1 invalid and also stop calling Canonical Ltd. merely "the commercial sponsor" of Ubuntu since they now act as the de facto owners (besides de jure gatekeepers) of Ubuntu.
See, everyone realizes that Canonical Ltd. have the legal power to whatever they wish with "Ubuntu[tm], but if they do, then simply stop using the founding definition of freeness.
Problem solved.
This is basic ethics. Ungrateful and demanding? You are entitled to your opinion but kindly also respect the opinons of others.
All this talk of freedom, yet some people would seek to dictate to Canonical what software they may or may not use in the course of running their business.
Where's the freedom in that?
ubuntu-geek said: Moved to the Ubuntu One forum.
Well, this discussion isn't strictly speaking about the Ubuntu One-branded cloud service and its features or technical merits, but more about its marketing definition as "Ubuntu" and what it means when the owners of Ubuntu (Canonical Ltd.) start using the term Ubuntu to describe their (commercial) non-free add-ons to the Ubuntu OS.
I would personally feel that the Ubuntu Community Cafe was the right place to discuss these issues.
misGnomer said: I would personally feel that the Ubuntu Community Cafe was the right place to discuss these issues.
I agree. This is far from being a support thread and as such has no place here. The cynic in me thinks that perhaps this thread has been shunted here so as to be a bit less conspicuous.....
gn2 said: I agree. This is far from being a support thread and as such has no place here.
The cynic in me thinks that perhaps this thread has been shunted here so as to be a bit less conspicuous.....
It all seems like one bad dream .. when did things become soo bad. this thread clearly does not belong to the ubuntone support thread. seems canonical owns not just the ubuntu trade mark .. but also a final say on what goes on in the ubuntuforums :(
The other side of the coin is that this thread could just as easily have been deleted as moved, so all things considered it's a thumbs up to ubuntu-geek for allowing this debate to continue.
has any rationale actually been given for ubuntu one being closed source (server side), apart from lack of open alternatives? I ask because launchpad is closed source, but is being open sourced, no commitment has been made for ubuntu one. also i have noticed that mandriva have launched its own online storage service click n backup so there is obvious demand and already duplicated effort in the open source community. im am sure that with canonical and mandriva taking the lead an open source alternative could be developed, if the time element is a problem, it could be open sourced in stages (like launchpad), its not perfect, but alot more preferable that the current state of affairs.
benj1 said: has any rationale actually been given for ubuntu one being closed source (server side), apart from lack of open alternatives?
I ask because launchpad is closed source, but is being open sourced, no commitment has been made for ubuntu one. also i have noticed that mandriva have launched its own online storage service click n backup so there is obvious demand and already duplicated effort in the open source community. im am sure that with canonical and mandriva taking the lead an open source alternative could be developed, if the time element is a problem, it could be open sourced in stages (like launchpad), its not perfect, but alot more preferable that the current state of affairs.
Yeah, I challenged people to come up with a reason why Canonical needs a proprietary cloud app, too. The only answer I got back was, predictably, "To make money!". Everyone else just ignored it or deflected it. Look, Ubuntu can still charge people to use an open service. Does anyone here understand that? Ubuntu One's server side stuff could be fully GPL-compliant despite having to pay for the service. There is nothing in the GPL which says you cannot sell your wares. Don't get bamboozled into thinking it is only proprietary applications that can make money. This assumption is false. The benefits of having an open system from start to finish are myriad. The benefits of making it proprietary, however. Err, explain to me, what are those exactly?
monsterstack said: ~ Ubuntu One's server side stuff could be fully GPL-compliant ~
Still waiting for you to suggest an open source alternative for the server side part of Ubuntu One which meets Canonical's business needs....?
Do you know of any real world practical solutions, or are you just speaking hypothetically?
monsterstack said: The benefits of making it proprietary, however. Err, explain to me, what are those exactly?
If there's no adequate FOSS code yet, then it's either use proprietary code or wait until someone volunteers their time to write/improve the FOSS code. Like I said before, when FOSS works it's great, but sometimes the right stuff just hasn't been written yet.
gn2 said: Still waiting for you to suggest an open source alternative for the server side part of Ubuntu One which meets Canonical's business needs....?
Do you know of any real world practical solutions, or are you just speaking hypothetically?
How about the stuff they've already written? Why not open that? They own it; they can legally do anything with it.
as i said in my previous post, canonical could take the lead in developing the open source software. at the moment though, there is no commitment to making it open source, why???
monsterstack said: How about the stuff they've already written? Why not open that? They own it; they can legally do anything with it.
Apparently not, it looks to me like the server side will be handled by Amazon Web Services:
Technical details
Ubuntu One currently runs on Amazon EC2 and uses S3 to store files.
A quick search reveals the agreement for Amazon Web Services: http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ Clause 6 makes intersting reading: http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/#6
Doesn't look to me like Canonical have any ownership of the server side software at all and are effectively just operating as middleman between Ubuntu users and Amazon.
.
gn2 said: Apparently not, it looks to me like the server side will be handled by Amazon Web Services:
A quick search reveals the agreement for Amazon Web Services: http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ Clause 6 makes intersting reading: http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/#6
Doesn't look to me like Canonical have any ownership of the server side software at all and are effectively just operating as middleman between Ubuntu users and Amazon.
.
Ugh. That's horrible. Still it prompted me to actually have a look for free alternatives. Novell have iFolder, but that's filled with Mono (so it will create even more arguments if it's ported here). Mandriva are working on a similar system that "will be" GPL's at some point, so they say. The only one that impressed me was Mint's Upload [linuxmint.com] system. Impressive stuff. Oh and it's free.
monsterstack said: ~ Mint's Upload [linuxmint.com] system. Impressive stuff. Oh and it's free.
But you need to supply your own server space, not necessarily free....
mint upload looks interesting (couldn't find where it said it was open source) seems more limited than what ubuntu one plans to be but surely it could be used as a base
gn2 said: Doesn't look to me like Canonical have any ownership of the server side software at all and are effectively just operating as middleman between Ubuntu users and Amazon.
Huh? Well then, I take it back. This conflict *was* preventable. If this is the case, it would have been better to call it Amazon One or something similar, with a nice banner on the main page saying something like "Sponsored and/or maintained by Canonical, the proud distributer of Ubuntu." That way, they could open the service to Windows/Mac OS users as well, and use Amazon's name to increase Ubuntu's visibility.
gn2 said: But you need to supply your own server space, not necessarily free....
i don't think this discussion has ever been about the money, there is nothing in the gpl to prohibit charging for software, and yes server space does cost money.
@ ParanoidMetroid: I could be wrong about the precise nature of the business relationship between Canonical and Amazon, perhaps someone involved in the project could provide comment.
Or not, what with commercial confidentiality and all that. :|
benj1 said: i don't think this discussion has ever been about the money, there is nothing in the gpl to prohibit charging for software, and yes server space does cost money.
That comment about the cost of server space was solely about the practicalities of using Mint Upload and not at all about Ubuntu One.
gn2 said: That was a comment solely about the practicalities of using Mint Upload and not at all about Ubuntu One.
then my apologies.
i think this amazon thing annoys me even more, one of the main pro arguments for ubuntu one seems to be that it will make money to reinvest in ubuntu, now most of its going to go to amazon, we also now have to rely on amazon being open with apis etc, they seem to have a fairly good track record and seem to 'get' open source but they havent exactly contributed much.
It looks to me like both Amazon and Canonical will make money from Ubuntu One.
For me the security and control of the storage is the main problem with the cloud. Will businesses entrust their storage to cloud suppliers? I know the one I work for never will.
Individual private users shouldn't rely on these services as back-up solutions either, it might be convenient for handy access in multiple locations but you're at the mercy of the supplier of the storage.
Personally I would rather just carry a big capacity flash drive around than pay to rent server space from the likes of Ubuntu One.
gn2 said: Apparently not, it looks to me like the server side will be handled by Amazon Web Services:
A quick search reveals the agreement for Amazon Web Services: http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ Clause 6 makes intersting reading: http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/#6
Doesn't look to me like Canonical have any ownership of the server side software at all and are effectively just operating as middleman between Ubuntu users and Amazon.
.
Ah, I see now. Thank you for this.
In the bug thread (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubunet/+bug/375345), Mark Shuttleworth said:
Is there any intention to make the server side open at some point?
There are lots of moving parts. Some of those are already open, some will end up open, others may not. As far as I can tell there's no data lock-in on any of the new services (they are all replications of your existing data which is available offline) and there's no intent to create such data lock-in.
Mark,
If Ubuntu One depends upon Amazon then there's not much Canonical can promise about what Amazon will do.
While I wish that Mark had been explicit about that point, I can see why he would not want to point at Amazon and say so.
I use Gmail and and Google Docs and, while I feel cautious, the sheer utility of ubiqitous access has made that worthwhile. Especially since it is trivial to strip everything from there if that Cloud becomes stormy.
So I feel comfortable that Canonical is doing the best that they can to provide the best that they can given they are in business.
Just to be clear (though it's already been said), [s]Ubuntu One is NOT proprietary[/s] only the server is proprietary. The protocol is open source, so anyone can make an Ubuntu One compatible server.
dmizer said: Just to be clear (though it's already been said), Ubuntu One is NOT proprietary. The protocol is open source, so anyone can make an Ubuntu One compatible server.
Anyone who has the required skills that is..... (rules me out for starters!)
How about Canonical setting it's developers to creating such an open source server side solution and releasing it to us, so that we can install it on our own hardware and not have to pay a rental charge for Ubuntu One?
Think I may have answered my own question there. :rolleyes:
dmizer said: Just to be clear (though it's already been said), Ubuntu One is NOT proprietary. The protocol is open source, so anyone can make an Ubuntu One compatible server.
Thanks for that [launchpad.net].
Elliot Murphy wrote on 2009-05-13:
Hi Corey, there are currently no plans or roadmap to open-source the server software part of Ubuntu One.
I didn't say that the server software wasn't closed source. The protocol (as linked above) is open. So anyone can make a _compatibile_ server. This means that (given someone develops a compatible server ... which is quite possible), you have no vendor lockin.
dmizer said: I didn't say that the server software wasn't closed source. The protocol (as linked above) is open. So anyone can make a _compatibile_ server. This means that (given someone develops a compatible server ... which is quite possible), you have no vendor lockin.
The protocols are free, but it is disingenuous to say that Ubuntu One is not proprietary.
dmizer said: Just to be clear (though it's already been said), Ubuntu One is NOT proprietary. The protocol is open source, so anyone can make an Ubuntu One compatible server.
*Parts* of Ubuntu One are not proprietary.
So apparently, Mr. Shuttleworth wasn't sitting in his secret lair, plotting the global downfall of FOSS by introducing nasty bad code into Ubuntu.
He bought in a Amazon EC2/S3 service and made it very easy to sync to such a service and also provided us with this for free or a small monthly charge :)
What a total and utter ******** :D
I must be thicker than I thought. How is this different from what I already do with Google and my IMAP e-mail provider (both free as in beer)? And I can upload, view and retrieve those files via any browser on any machine, smart phone or PDA, anywhere, it doesn't need to be my own Ubuntu-powered device. At work, I'm unfortunate enough to be saddled with a Windows desktop, but that doesn't stop me cloud computing.
If I understand UbuntuOne (and perhaps I don't), I can only use the service on a device running the client.
Please put me right, because of course I'd like to support Canonical as a small thank you for all that they've done to enhance my computing experience over the past several years (Yes, yes, I know it's countless community contributors, but Shuttleworth provided the initial oomph and much funding subsequently). I just can't see a commercial model in this which isn't already offered by Google and (for example) Fastmail.
gn2 said: Apparently not, it looks to me like the server side will be handled by Amazon Web Services:
...snip...
Doesn't look to me like Canonical have any ownership of the server side software at all and are effectively just operating as middleman between Ubuntu users and Amazon.
I don't think you quite understand how Amazon's EC2 and S3 work. Anybody can use them to run their applications, or store their data. They're just network services which do pretty raw stuff - EC2 provides virtual server environments, and S3 stores arbitrary blobs of data in a non-hierarchical model. They are services on which the Ubuntu One server software is built. There is probably no special relationship between Amazon and Canonical, and no Amazon code in Ubuntu One - Ubuntu One just uses the Amazon Web Services protocols and backends behind the scenes, like any other application.
It should be easy, for example, to port the Ubuntu One server to run on Eucalyptus, a Free Software reimplementation of some of the Amazon Web Services.
wgrant said: I don't think you quite understand how Amazon's EC2 and S3 work.
You are correct, before last night (UK time) I had no knowledge whatsoever of Amazon EC2 and S3 and I suspect that many people participating in this debate may not know much about them either.
wgrant said: Anybody can use them to run their applications, or store their data. They're just network services which do pretty raw stuff - EC2 provides virtual server environments, and S3 stores arbitrary blobs of data in a non-hierarchical model. They are services on which the Ubuntu One server software is built. There is probably no special relationship between Amazon and Canonical, and no Amazon code in Ubuntu One - Ubuntu One just uses the Amazon Web Services protocols and backends behind the scenes, like any other application.
It should be easy, for example, to port the Ubuntu One server to run on Eucalyptus, a Free Software reimplementation of some of the Amazon Web Services.
So what is the time frame for Canonical porting to such a "Free Software reimplementation"? Shouldn't take long if it's easy... Are plans for porting to a FOSS solution in place? Or will Canonical just continue the commercial relationship as customer of Amazon and continue to use *Amazon's* proprietary enabling software? Who owns the server hardware on which Ubuntu One users will store their data and where is it physically located?
gn2 said: ...snip...
So what is the time frame for Canonical porting to such a "Free Software reimplementation"? Shouldn't take long if it's easy...
They probably don't have any timeframe - there is little incentive to not use AWS, and it's much easier to have Amazon manage the physical servers.
Are plans for porting to a FOSS solution in place?
As above. You'd really have to ask Canonical.
Or will Canonical just continue the commercial relationship as customer of Amazon and continue to use *Amazon's* proprietary enabling software?
Proprietary enabling software? Canonical is using some of Amazon's provided APIs, which are an interface into proprietary software. The Ubuntu One server is not unlike the Ubuntu One client, in this respect.
Who owns the server hardware on which Ubuntu One users will store their data and where is it physically located?
Amazon would own the hardware, and it would probably be in an Amazon DC somewhere. IIRC they have S3 offered with US and Europe regions.
Thanks for those replies wgrant, you've told me all I need to know. :)
Yes indeed, wgrant. All is much clearer. Thank you.
Foaming Draught said: I must be thicker than I thought. How is this different from what I already do with Google and my IMAP e-mail provider (both free as in beer)? And I can upload, view and retrieve those files via any browser on any machine, smart phone or PDA, anywhere, it doesn't need to be my own Ubuntu-powered device. At work, I'm unfortunate enough to be saddled with a Windows desktop, but that doesn't stop me cloud computing.
Easy. They have different names, different brands, different communities and different promises. Google has never promised that they will always be gratis and free as in freedom. Ubuntu has. I'm not really dead against cloud computing, or even proprietary software. But I believe in calling things what they are. When you install proprietary drivers in Ubuntu, you get disclaimers making sure that the user understands that the driver is not Ubuntu and is not Ubuntu's responsibility. Will we get disclaimers like that for Ubuntu One?
Flimm said: When you install proprietary drivers in Ubuntu, you get disclaimers making sure that the user understands that the driver is not Ubuntu and is not Ubuntu's responsibility. Will we get disclaimers like that for Ubuntu One?
No need, because the part of Ubuntu One which will be installed on users' computers is FOSS.
I still can't see how UbuntuOne is different in practice, in practical effect, (never mind the semantics of "Free") from how I already order my cyberlife? In fact, it seems to go backwards, because now I can retrieve, view, edit, upload my calendar, contacts, IMAP mail, files, images, documents on any browser-enabled device, anywhere, running any operating system. As I understand UbuntuOne, users will only be able to do that on a specific machine running Ubuntu and having the UbuntuOne client installed.
What am I missing?
Hi Foaming Draught. We (Canonical employee here) have plans to support other distros and other OSs further along in the Beta. Currently, we're listening to user feedback, fixing bugs, and improving our infrastructure in order to support more Beta users.
As we check off the higher priority fixes, we'll spend more time on innovative file storage features, more robust developer resources, and new services in new areas.
@Canonical
All the success with this new project. Go for it!
After all,
"money makes the verld go 'round, the verld go 'round."
I'm signing up.
jbruced said: I'm signing up.
You would be daft to do so without trialling Adrive first.
To be honest I thought UbuntuOne was a version for the Acer Aspire One at first... ;-)
I think UbuntuOne and other similar ventures with OSS and FOSS bring out some of the weaknesses and dangers inherent in the commercial interactions and relationships with GPL style communities.
As a user community we need to exercise eternal vigilance as the brands we all help develop become more valuable and ripe for exploitation.
I think that using Ubuntu in the name was out of character with the past and general ethos of the Canonical/Ubuntu relationship.
I don't know, but if, due to the recession, there is quickly a need for more cashflow or financial support for Ubuntu development and this was seen as a route for generating said income then perhaps engaging the Ubuntu communities creativity would instead be a more inclusive and positive experience.
I have seen several projects wax and wane. Some get too far from their roots in the name of cash generation or the brand and software value was too attractive to resist selling out. I think we are right to remind Canonical that this is a community that cares about its philosophy.
Personally, I want Canonical to offer a great cloud based storage system for Ubuntu, Linux, Windows, Apple and more but I don't want it to dilute the perception of the Ubuntu brand in pursuit of short term cash.
With a commercial company holding the rights to our community name we are only as powerful as the noise and future choices we make.
At the high times who holds a trademark seems like an insignificant thing particularly when it comes to the fun of a project like Ubuntu. When something unexpected like this happens we suddenly feel exposed and vulnerable to a company. We can fear it may not share enough of our ideals and become quickly aware its only connection with us is on trust. It can feel like a betrayal even if it isn't.
Are we are being foolish accepting a commercial company and 'Daddy' Shuttleworth ;) to look after the trust and time we have invested them.
Ian Murdock, Debian Project founder was prevented by the Debian Project itself from using the Debian name even in a linked FOSS project. I would like to feel Ubuntu had similar options for protection yet never needed to employ them. Perhaps that confirmed to Mark Shuttleworth the risks of not having control ;-)
Aside from the trademark type stuff I really don't think UbuntuOne is a very good name for the service. It doesn't express much about the service especially if it will support wider distros and OS. It may put off other users because it sounds too Ubuntu. Ubuntu users would hear of the service via the forums and general chatter so its not needed for them. On those grounds I think it should change to aid the commercial success of Canonical.
I also think it should change because enough informed community members are uneasy about it and Canonical should do more than just listen to those anxieties. It should really have foreseen such feeling coming. I know Mark does like to shake things up, that's a good thing generally. Complacency is bad for democracy and communities and this may help slow down any damaging complacency.
So, suitably shaken awake, how do we move on?
1) Change the UbuntuOne name for the two reasons I mention - choose one that will associate with the style the service more. Commercially I don't see the benefit in weakening the brand, especially for so small a return.
2) I don't care if Canonical keeps the server software closed that's their prerogative both legally and morally. Landscape/Launchpad/1U can all be theirs alone.
3) Look for a better mechanism to protect the Ubuntu name. Perhaps extend the prohibitions of use to Canonical Ltd and use a Community/Canonical based council specifically to oversee the Trademark.
Canonical CAN *(if they like)* be permissive with the name, and use it, and share it, if they like, because is they trademark.
Read the GNU *a*GPL for more info.
Oh yes I understand that, I know the legal framework well. It is the morality and philisophy I am interested in. The real world is human based and requires trust and common purpose to be efective. Legal rights are intended to represent that not be an end in themselves. When legal rights don't work to support it, the divergence of common interests and purpose work against a community.
"Ubuntu One" is fine as it is. There is no point in arguing that.
I don't see any bug in that bug report.
The Community Council will be discussing it again on Tuesday, July 7th on ubuntu-meeting.
Anzan said: The Community Council will be discussing it again on Tuesday, July 7th on ubuntu-meeting.
Glad to hear that.
Flimm said: Glad to hear that.
They ran out of time.
Next CC meeting will be Tue, 21st July 11:00 UTC but basically
23:10 sabdfl we didn't reach consensus on the use of the Ubuntu name, I don't think it's productive to revisit that now
23:10 mako silbs issues sounded like a new issue (maybe a subset, but it was a distince new proposal/question) 23:11 sabdfl there's a new question, w.r.t. one.ubuntu.com which is being raised here rather than simply executed 23:11 sabdfl i asked that the domain be one.ubuntu.com, and it was felt better to raise it here than JFDI 23:11 sabdfl which is how that came to be on the agenda 23:11 sabdfl but we're out of time now
Don't they have to so that so nobody else will take the name. Imagine if they didn't trademark it and then Microsoft did!
differnt people have differnt thinking open souce can be use by any one ..but he must have to comman on it .
I agree the name should be protected, but the control of the name should be alligned with the interests in it. That is not just the Canonical commercial side, which is vital but also all of us in the Ubuntu community.
Open Source works best when the interests are more alligned - authors, users, developers etc. Those committments and interests should be reflected in the systems of control and ownership.
It may be that the Ubuntu One name will increase the collective benefit but personally I haven't seen that argument successfully made.
Anzan said: They ran out of time.
Next CC meeting will be Tue, 21st July 11:00 UTC [...] Bah.
Well, that meeting was four days ago. Anyone got any links to minutes (assuming it's a public meeting)?
Incidentally, another thread (here) discussed the costs associated with the UbuntuOne product. I think they need a selling point over and above "$1 a month per Gb" for cloud storage, when you compare to their competitors in this space.
The main reason I want to see the minutes of the CC meeting, however, is to discover whether the inclusion by default of the UbuntuOne client in Karmic Koala is a final decision, or whether it's still up for debate.
I don't have any particular qualms (unlike many on this thread) about the naming of the UbuntuOne product, but I most certainly *don't* want it installed by default on every installation of Karmic I install - this is the first step on the rocky, downhill road of bloatware that I left behind in MS-land. I'd rather a "Getting Started" web page with apt-url links to install the client if it's of interest. They could promote many different services this way without offending the community.
I wasn't watching for the CC meeting and the IRC records for -meeting don't have anything I could quickly see.
However, my 9.10 alpha 3 install has Ubuntu One by default.
I haven't yet tested how it does with my files from my other 9.04 machines. Hopefully better than alpha 2 when I installed from the PPA.
I think i have posted here before but they give it to you and they don't port it for any other o.s. they do charge for more space but the price is only part of the expense for the extra hardware and man hours it takes to keep the service up and running.I know i don't need more then 2gig of space and this is a great service and has proved it will only get better over time.
I can add the newbie side to this, I was on ubuntu left for mac but things such as this (ubuntu one) are making me look again.
I think its vital canonical look for ways to make money, I mean how on earth are they to fund the things they do (the new coders etc?) do we really expect Mark to continually dip into his pocket - and these are the moral leaders?. No its unrealistic and unfair, and most important it will not succeed!. How is the ubuntu one causing problems with a free operating system? it is not, ubuntu will continue to be free! Ubuntu one is a seperate project, whats the problem?. It offers a service that is needed by loads of people, it even has a free option!.
I see no point of arguing about it, I see no reason for ubuntu to exist to bleed an individual dry when the smallest amount of financial savvy says make some money to make the product better.
Just my two cents.
Canonical is also really putting forward its support services.
I've not read all the messages in this thread. But I caught a few that prompted me to think that some folks are confusing free and libre. A clear explanation is in a WikiEducator tutorial, "What is free content?". The second page, link below, refers to "The essential freedoms", GNU, and Richard Stallman.
http://www.wikieducator.org/Wikieducator_tutorial/What_is_free_content/Freedom_as_concept
Perhaps respect and concern for the community should have dictated a different name. Maybe they will acquiesce in this regard.
However, in that they made a business decision, in extremely hard economic times, to develop a proprietary product and market it, does not alter or distort their public or community image, contribution, promise or reputation one iota.
Everybody deserves to get paid for their work. Some get paid in fiat, and some in benefit. A corporation needs fiat, a community needs benefit.
My hat's off to Canonical, it's principles, employees, and community contributors! Karmic rocks, btw!:)
Please keep canonical and ubuntu business areas seperate. Use of names must adhere to vision (philosopy).
"Canonical One" looks fine for me...... that way Canonical can promote the brand (name) as well...
Ubuntu is community...... effort
Bharath
I agree Canonical should make money, should commercially gain benefit from its investment in Ubuntu and it's community. I just think they should not blur the Free/Free philosophy of Ubuntu with fees and proprietary software. CanonicalOne is fine for a commercial service Canonical deliver, or any other non-Ubuntu-esque name.
Ubuntu rests on Debian and the work given freely by its members and community so I think they deserve to be credited for much of what happens within Ubuntu. It isnt just Canonical as a magnanamous organization that delivers Ubuntu, or even Debian, it is a vast and diverse collection of people all contibuting to all that Ubuntu is built on and with.
Please do not confuse clarity of purpose and mission with a mad belief it can all be free of all costs. Everything costs something but not everything need cost money or be driven by the pursuit of it. Ubuntu and Canonical are not the same thing.
wbutchart said: I think its vital canonical look for ways to make money, I mean how on earth are they to fund the things they do (the new coders etc?) do we really expect Mark to continually dip into his pocket - and these are the moral leaders?. No its unrealistic and unfair, and most important it will not succeed!. How is the ubuntu one causing problems with a free operating system? it is not, ubuntu will continue to be free! Ubuntu one is a seperate project, whats the problem?. It offers a service that is needed by loads of people, it even has a free option!.
i take it you haven't read anything by Stallman, the originator of the term "free software". the only reason he could continue to make free software is because he sold it. remember: the software liked by the FOSS community makes its source code available. that's the issue here with Ubuntu One: the source code on the server side is not made "free", or even "open". i feel the more free software there is, the better free software there can be. there is no need that i know of to make the source code closed for security reasons.
This Ubuntu One thing sounds a lot like those AOL CDs of the past, which were distributed in the most unsual and invasive forms.
I am deeply disappointed. Canonical has granted itself a commercial Trojan horse to the desktop of millions of users.
If I go to Applications>Internet I find an icon of a non-free software/project which I never chose to install. It is a privilege that no other stakeholder of the Ubuntu Project (Dell, HP and, above all, the Community of users) has.
Yeti can't ski said: This Ubuntu One thing sounds a lot like those AOL CDs of the past, which were distributed in the most unsual and invasive forms.
I am deeply disappointed. Canonical has granted itself a commercial Trojan horse to the desktop of millions of users.
If I go to Applications>Internet I find an icon of a non-free software/project which I never chose to install. It is a privilege that no other stakeholder of the Ubuntu Project (Dell, HP and, above all, the Community of users) has. Firefox is free software, but takes you to sites and services that are non-free. The Ubuntu One application does the same thing, so I don't see much difference in that regard.
Go start up your own syncing software. Buy servers. Make them free for people.
Then talk about it replacing Ubuntu One!
ubuntu-freak said: Firefox is free software, but takes you to sites and services that are non-free. The Ubuntu One application does the same thing, so I don't see much difference in that regard.
Agreed, this is not a matter of sin, evil, purity or absolutely forbidden strategies. It is only an issue of where to draw the line and let it be transparent to everyone so that people can regulate their expectations (note: some folks don't see Ffox as FOOS but I'm not of them; moreover we cannot forget that Mozilla Foundation is non-profit).
My problem is that I (humbly and personally) get the feeling that the line is being slowly redrawn in the Ubuntu/Canonical area, from more community oriented to more commercial oriented. I am sure about the good faith of Canonical – no conspiracy theory on my side – and thankful for their hard work, but things like the following (in addition to Ubuntu One) concern me somewhat:
The Ubuntu Software Center is a graphical utility for package management in Ubuntu. [...] In version 2, the primary goals are to take the place of Synaptic and gdebi, and to include ratings and reviews of software. In version 3, we plan to offer commercial software for sale. [...] Unifying the interface will make handling software easier, [...] and provide a prominent showcase for Ubuntu and partner software
Source: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter
Sudden changes are easy to notice. The dangerous ones are those that take place slowly (boiling frog anecdote). If it keeps going like this, it will arrive the day in which we will all have pop-ups of Ebay offers upon log-in and will have to buy third parties plug-ins in order to have full functionality in the system.
but it's not free. these people want the stuff for free. doesn't run on ubuntu either.
Vadi said: but it's not free. these people want the stuff for free. doesn't run on ubuntu either.
its free as in freedom, i thought thats what you were talking about, i know it doesnt work in ubuntu, but considering its built on debian, i refuse to believe that if canonical had gone to them about developing a client, something couldnt have been done.
although i agree some people have been talking about free as in beer it isnt exactly possible with something that involves actual running costs, such as a server.
Yeti can't ski said: If I go to Applications>Internet I find an icon of a non-free software/project which I never chose to install.
project yes, software no. the client side (on the install) is open source, but the server side (meaning ubuntu's hardware) is closed source. my understanding is that this is a matter of freedom, not price.
ubuntu-freak said: Backblaze is proprietary according to Wikipedia.
full instructions on how to build the hardware, they even include 3d models for their own spacial cases http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/
and from with that article
A Backblaze Storage Pod Runs Free Software
A Backblaze Storage Pod isn’t a complete building block until it boots and is on the network. The pods boot 64-bit Debian 4 Linux and the JFS file system, and they are self-contained appliances, where all access to and from the pods is through HTTPS.
it could be that the front end is proprietary, but as canonical managed to make an open source front end for ubuntu one ...
@gonzomalan at least some of the hardware is amazon's, its based on their cloud offering