Freedom on the web (Re: Bradley Kuhn on switching back from Ubuntu to Debian)

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 08:07:22AM +0000, Matthew East wrote:
> 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)

I don't see why it shouldn't be.  I wasn't very involved in the CC
proceedings from when this first came up, but I'm not aware of any reason
why it shouldn't be discussed.

> 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.

This is a coherent argument, but it is not consistent with how web
applications are perceived in practice.  There are a variety of websites
which carry the Ubuntu name, for which the four freedoms are not available
to visitors.  Some of these are run by Canonical, and many are not.

I have never seen an objection to a site with "Ubuntu" in the name being
judged on whether or not the site used any proprietary software in its
operation.  Many of them openly do.

I am not saying that this is a good thing, or that I think it is the
only way, but it is the status quo on the web.

> 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.

That's true, and Ubuntu could perhaps find a way to do better, but in my
view, we aren't doing any worse than a majority of the web.

> 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.

This depends entirely on the project.  One could envision a peer-to-peer
system for which a proliferation of instances would actually strengthen,
rather than weaken, the 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.

I was in fact surprised when this came up in the context of Ubuntu One.
Maybe this is a sign of me being out of touch, but it does seem like a
double standard.  Maybe this is only because of the high visibility of
Ubuntu One, or the fact that its purpose is to sell services.

-- 
 - mdz