Bradley Kuhn on switching back from Ubuntu to Debian

[Matthew East]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:18:54AM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
>> At UDS Karmic some people found it strange that I was annoyed with
>> Ubuntu One's default inclusion. Some people said things like "You
>> visit google.com don't you? Do you use gmail? Those are non-free
>> server stuff too!". The difference is that my web browser pretty much
>> uses open standards throughout, and I can visit any web pages I like,
>> whether they're non-free or free in terms of content and the software
>> they run on. It's completely different to the case of Ubuntu One that
>> relies on non-free software.
>
> Why is it different?  Ubuntu One is based on open standards as well, and the
> services based on desktopcouch especially so.  The web is not free in the
> same sense that we use in free software.

I've rehashed this rather too many times now and I'm a bit sheepish
about raising it again, but I do so not because I think that this
issue is still up for discussion (it isn't) but because I think that
it's important to understand, given that there is an open discussion
going on here, that there is an argument that Ubuntu One *is*
different to Google and other non-free web applications. In my opinion
it's different because it carries the Ubuntu name. As such it reflects
on the project and the community. So the fact that it's not entirely
free and it isn't open to contribution from anyone who feels they wish
to grab a branch of code does reflect on our project and affects how
our project is perceived.

You're right that the web is not free in the same sense, but projects
like StatusNet and Launchpad have shown that there are other options.
The problem is that to release network applications as completely
free, one has to accept that you are giving others the ability to run
their own instances, and that potentially (although not necessarily)
compromises the commercial viability of the project. I suspect that
this didn't matter for Launchpad because of the immense technical
complexity of hosting an instance, but it might be more of a concern
for Ubuntu One. That's why, when it really comes down to it, I
personally don't object to Canonical running a web service that
generates revenue with some non-free aspects, and indeed applaud them
for releasing as much of the code as they have felt comfortable in
doing. We all want to see Canonical succeed. I just wish that the name
of the application didn't blur the distinction between Ubuntu and
Canonical.

Obviously we've rehearsed these issues numerous times in several
Community Council meetings last year. As I said, I'm not rehearsing
them now because I believe the issue is up for discussion (although of
course I'd support a call for a roadmap for Ubuntu One to be released
as entirely free software). But we shouldn't be surprised when we
occasionally see the consequences of it.

-- 
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF