Comment 62 for bug 375345

Mark,

Thanks for posting here. I think, as always, your attention to these issues when they arise and the willingness to post detailed explanations demonstrates a commitment to the Ubuntu community which we all appreciate.

However, while you've answered some of those who have commented here so far, I think you've missed the main complaint about Ubuntu One, which is one that I share.

It's not the proprietary nature of the backend, or the fact that it's intended to generate revenue for Canonical, that has caused many of us to feel uncomfortable. It's not even the use of the Ubuntu trademark by Canonical, per se. It's the fact that the use of the trademark in this case, and in this way means that there is a strong association between the site and Ubuntu as a project, and as a result is likely to affect the perception of the Ubuntu community around the free software community. It's clear that there are no legal impediments to the use of the name, because Canonical holds the intellectual property in the name "Ubuntu". However, in my view the name of the site is inconsistent with the spirit of Ubuntu's philosophy and trademark policy.

Ubuntu as a project, among others, has two primary and defining features. The first is a commitment to free software. That means that it stands for some of the essential principles of free software, including the right of a software user to find out exactly what a piece of software is doing to his data. The second is that Ubuntu is a community based project, so that volunteers are able to contribute in any way to its development.

Neither of these features are absolute principles. Both of them come under threat from time to time, and it is the Ubuntu Community Council's job to look after them. In some cases, exceptions can be justified, in particular by reference to other important goals of the project.

In this case, Ubuntu One risks undermining both of these principles. By carrying the Ubuntu name, there is in my opinion a strong risk that it will be confused by some users with the Ubuntu project itself. Incidentally, the use of the word "One" in the name, doesn't go anywhere to putting that confusion right. Users will ascribe to it the same level of trust that they put in Ubuntu, not just for high quality software, but also for openness. They will expect it to be free software, and to be community based. In the first instance, that is misleading.

More worryingly, Ubuntu One will almost certainly affect the perception of Ubuntu as a project. The project will be seen, at least in some degree, as less open. That also happened when Ubuntu decided to use Launchpad as its development management software. But Launchpad is all too clearly a separate project to Ubuntu, and carried a promise that it would be open source in the future, a promise that is now being carried out. I think that the effect of Ubuntu One could be more serious, because it is not clearly demarcated as being a separate project to Ubuntu. This is the first significant time that I'm aware of that a non-free project that Canonical has produced has carried such strong associations with the Ubuntu project itself. (The exception to that is the Ubuntu Training Project, which also bothers me, but which is not so severe in a few ways - it carries an "almost-free" license and is open to the community.)

No one can doubt Canonical's right to develop proprietary software, if it chooses. While many Ubuntu contributors will be disappointed to see that Ubuntu One does not follow the Franklin Street Statement on Free Network Services, the sensible ones will recognise that Canonical is an independent company, and has the right to take its own decisions about how best to generate revenue. As you've said, the more successful Canonical is as a company, the more the Ubuntu project will ultimately benefit, given that Canonical invests incredibly heavily in Ubuntu.

However, Canonical does have moral obligations to respect the Ubuntu project's fundamental principles, and to be sensitive to the relationship between its proprietary products and the Ubuntu community. When it does choose to produce a proprietary product, it needs to distance that product from the Ubuntu community.

For these reasons, I believe that the Ubuntu One website should be renamed, in order to make a clear distinction between it and the Ubuntu project. People have rightly pointed to the Landscape tool as an example of a closed source product that Canonical has successfully developed to fit with Ubuntu but which does not raise the same concerns.

I think that some consultation should have taken place with the Community Council about the potential ramifications of the name of the project prior to its beta release. It must have been foreseeable that it would cause offence in some quarters. Had the issue been raised earlier with the Community Council, issues would have been avoided, because even if the Council had decided that the name is acceptable, it could have issued a statement explaining its reasons, and I think the Ubuntu community would have appreciated the consultation. Or, if a name change had been the conclusion, it could have been put in place prior to the public beta. As it is, the Community Council will be discussing the issue somewhat after the event, and any change of name will be much more difficult now that the name is "out there" in the technology press. I still think it's the right choice though, myself.

I don't think this issue is about which entity between Canonical and the Ubuntu community has primacy over the other. Canonical and the Ubuntu community generally interact extremely well with one another. Canonical, let's face it, has extreme expertise about working in free software communities: as far as I can see, either all or at least the vast majority of Canonical developers (including those who have worked on Ubuntu One) have a wealth of experience working on free software and with communities. From the other side, most people in the Ubuntu community recognise and appreciate the huge importance of Canonical in Ubuntu's development and marketing. There is a good mix of Canonical employees and volunteers on each of Ubuntu's important governance bodies. There's every reason why Canonical and the Ubuntu community should be able to interact positively and happily. Problems occasionally arise, and they are occasional. They are normally because of a lack of communication between the two entities, and that's what I think has compounded the problem in this case.

I'd like to make clear that none of the above is a criticism of the Ubuntu One product itself, which looks very professional. I think the developers and web designers have done an excellent job so far. I also think it's a very exciting project, and look forward to seeing the new features that are planned to be introduced.