Mark:

I'm not necessarily advocating a fundamentalist position in either direction. I don't think that you should derive that from the tone of my message, and I apologize if my use of language convened that idea.

I agree with you, as I believe that the most interesting solutions are usually the innovative ones, and sometimes this entails a new look to a debate to incorporate a nuanced middle ground that leaves every one happy.

I too believe that this nuanced solutions, and the possibility of having this discussions openly is what makes Ubuntu a great community to be part of (Having our own SABDFL participating in this discussions is invaluable).

BUT, the problem, and the whole point of my previous comment, to put it in your terms, is that the nuanced solution that was reached to the delicate problem of the relation between Canonical and Ubuntu was, to a great extent, the Trademark Policy, and its relation to the Ubuntu promise and philosophy.

And this solution was in the form of a promise by Canonical to use the name ubuntu for certain things only, and specifically, not for things that are not ubuntu, are not part of ubuntu, and have clear commercial intent (which canonical has all the right to produce and develop, of course).

In naming your cloud computing service "Ubuntu One", you broke that promise. We can find an innovative, interesting, nuanced middle ground solution for the future relation of Canonical and Ubuntu (again, as we had already done so with the tm policy), but before that, there's a decision to be taken, and this decision is of a binary, no middle ground nature: keep the promise by renaming the service, or declare the promise null and void and negotiate a new deal between canonical and ubuntu, all future nuances and middle ground solutions notwithstanding.

Since you are the daddy (ok, not the best choice of words, I retract), this decision is probably yours only, but bear in mind that the trust of the community in the free nature of the Ubuntu operating system rests in nothing more than a similar promise.

Apart from that, I endorse what Matthew East said in his comment (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubunet/+bug/375345/comments/62), particularly 

Matthew East wrote on 2009-05-17:
> 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.

Specifically, if the council had decided that the name was acceptable, this would have been a non-issue.

Finally, I believe that the questions asked by David D. Lowe in his comment (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubunet/+bug/375345/comments/71) point to the heart of the matter, to avoid future misunderstandings.