I don't have a problem with it, it's their name.
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.
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.
"We visited sixty-six islands and landed eighty-one times, wading, swimming (to shore). Most of the people were friendly and delightful; only two arrows shot at us, and only one went near -- So much for savages!" - J.C. Patterson
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.
I would like to be explained in simple and understandable terms 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??
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 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, 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.
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"??
Last edited by misGnomer; May 14th, 2009 at 10:42 PM. Reason: I need to use EMPHASIS too
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.
Last night I lay in bed looking up at the stars in the sky and I thought to myself, where the heck is the ceiling.