[10:54] <amachu> elky: persia: lifeless: Hi alla
[10:55] <elky> hi
[10:55] <persia> amachu, Hey
[10:55] <amachu> *all
[10:55] <persia> lifeless told me that he wouldn't be able to make it today.
[10:55] <amachu> persia: are you also at UDS?
[10:55] <persia> I am.
[10:56] <amachu> so we are three. unless zakame, belutz or themuso are going to turn out
[10:56] <amachu> elky: Hi
[10:57] <elky> persia, the others not within sight?
[10:57] <persia> I'll peer about for the one I know to be around
[10:58] <amachu> persia: ok
[10:58] <amachu> pyc: darkvertex: Hi
[10:59] <darkvertex> hi
[10:59] <SamhainXIII> Hello. Good afternoon.
[10:59] <pyc> hi, this is my second round :)
[10:59] <boyet> Hello good afternoon bosses
[10:59] <amachu> pyc: darkvertex: Thanks for joining. We are awaiting one more member of the board for Quorum. We have to wait. Hope you understand
[11:00] <pyc> ok
[11:01] <darkvertex> ok with me
[11:01]  * drubin waits for meeting to start
[11:02]  * persia has a lead, and will report again soon.
[11:06] <persia> We should reach quorum as soon as a laptop is set up.
[11:08] <amachu> persia: who is that?
[11:09] <TheMuso> Hey folks.
[11:09] <darkvertex> hi
[11:09] <TheMuso> Assuming we have no network connectivity issues here at UDS, we should be right to go.
[11:11] <amachu> TheMuso: Hi
[11:11] <amachu> So we start..
[11:11] <amachu> elky: are you there?
[11:11] <elky> yup
[11:11] <amachu> elky: great
[11:12] <amachu> persia: We start now
[11:12] <elky> your pinging me made me realise i havent eaten yet, so i'm ordering food :-P but carry on.
[11:12] <amachu> pyc: Welcome back!
[11:12] <pyc> hi, thanks :)
[11:12] <drubin> who is on Council for this loco meeting?
[11:12] <amachu> pyc: Go ahead introducing yourself
[11:12] <pyc> Hi, i'm Loell Erecre,  most of my tehcnical contribution lies in ubuntuforums.org
[11:12] <drubin> s/loco/Membership council/
[11:13] <pyc> My forum work started since late 2005, in areas of yahoo instant messaging, webcams, screencasting.
[11:13] <pyc> of which i tend to help promptly in troubleshootings.
[11:13] <pyc> almost two years after, because I was already known to have consistenly been helping people back then, the philippine LoCo team gave me the privelege to be the LoCo's  primary moderator in 2007.
[11:13] <pyc> not only did I do LoCo modship functions since then, I've also maintained prompt replies for users technical problems posted in the Philippine Loco forum,
[11:13] <pyc> I tried to be as detailed as i can if job doesn't get in the way. ;)
[11:13] <persia> drubin, https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-membership-board-asia-oceania/+members
[11:13] <pyc> parallel to this, I also do extensive testing for gyachi yahoo messaging client.
[11:13] <pyc> 've also been packaging it  upstream since 2006 for ubuntu users, and a year ago in my PPA, constantly updating it for every incremental release from the project.
[11:14] <pyc> I have just notified debian for an ITP for the said software.
[11:14] <pyc> in addition since Ubuntu Net Cafe has been slowly on the rise, i provided deb packages for "cafe con leche" cafe timer and management, for ubuntu users to use and helping them in setting up their internet shop by advising them on the forums.
[11:14] <TheMuso> pyc: Well done.
[11:14] <TheMuso> re debian.
[11:14] <pyc> and  among one of my little contributions is a web app for searching PPAs (http://ppa-search.appspot.com/)
[11:14] <pyc> It started late last year, probably of little significance, but it made ppa users aware of what others were searching, thereby making a package advertising of some sort. :)
[11:14] <pyc> I believe that's it...
[11:14] <pyc> thanks TheMuso :)(
[11:15] <persia> pyc, What's the state of gyachi in the Ubuntu repositories?
[11:15] <pyc> i belive i have supporters here, just ready  to sound off :)
[11:15] <pyc> persia: none yet
[11:16]  * drubin is here for pyc
[11:16] <boyet> i'm here an internet cafe owner that uses ubuntu OS exclusively
[11:16]  * SamhainXIII is here for pyc as well
[11:16] <pyc> persia reason for that, is questionable which was just resolved lately
[11:16] <dodimar> me here also for pyc...
[11:16] <Knightlust> yay for pyc!
[11:16] <drubin> his contributions of the forums have been great! He has be long standing memember as well as a active loco moderator
[11:18] <persia> pyc, Could you tell us about some of the seminars you have conducted?
[11:18] <pyc> i believe, i did not, its my future plan
[11:18] <boyet> loell has been a great help for my icafe shop here in the Philippines like he said ccl is my timer
[11:18] <persia> pyc, My apologies.  I misread.
[11:19] <persia> pyc, Could you tell us about some of the seminars you plan to conduct?
[11:19] <pyc> foss awareness mostly, and introduction to ubuntu would be most common
[11:20] <TheMuso> Could anyone else on the membership board enlighten me as to whether this is the same candidate who talked about a web PPA search a few weeks back?
[11:20] <TheMuso> From memory it isn't, but I can't exactly remember.
[11:20] <TheMuso> i.e I am not 100% sure.
[11:21] <elky> dont think so...
[11:21] <Knightlust> TheMuso: yeah, he's the one, PPA search
[11:21] <amachu> TheMuso: yes
[11:21] <pyc> same person, like i said this is second application :)
[11:21] <TheMuso> amachu, Knightlust, thanks.
[11:22] <amachu> http://ppa-search.appspot.com/
[11:22] <TheMuso>  can't remember what nick you used originally.
[11:22] <TheMuso> amachu: Yes, I got the link on his wiki page.
[11:22] <pyc> it's always pyc heheh
[11:23] <elky> that was a very busy meeting iirc
[11:23] <TheMuso> pyc: Is there any reason why you wrote a separate client, rather than helping improve a client like pidgin?
[11:23] <TheMuso> Or did you not write it?
[11:23] <pyc> themuso, i'm not the developer, but specific yahoo protocols is difficult
[11:24] <pyc> not for pidgin imho, like yahoo msg15 prtocol and such
[11:24] <TheMuso> pyc: Right, just double checked, thanks for the confirmation.
[11:24] <lifeless> hi guys; turns out I'm in bangkok airport :P
[11:25] <lifeless> but not for long, so I won't be voting
[11:26] <amachu> lifeless: glad to see you
[11:26] <elky> lifeless, i didnt know they relocated UDS to bangkok!
[11:26]  * elky ducks
[11:26] <amachu> I would give +1 for pyc this time..
[11:27] <elky> amachu, agreed, +1 from me too
[11:27]  * drubin cheers
[11:27] <persia> +1 from me.
[11:27] <TheMuso> +1 here, Jerome's feedback is likely the clincher for me, as well as the many other endorcements.
[11:27] <amachu> cool.. Welcome pyc and keep up the good work
[11:28] <pyc> thanks!!! :D
[11:28] <Knightlust> yay for pyc!!! congratulations!
[11:28] <boyet> congrats boss loell
[11:28] <pyc> thanks Knightlust
[11:28] <SamhainXIII> pyc is in?
[11:28]  * dodimar cheers for pyc
[11:28] <SamhainXIII> yey!
[11:28] <amachu> lifeless: would you like to think of voting now, we are going to call up the next participant
[11:28] <pyc> oh thanks to all who attended for my application :)
[11:28] <boyet> pyc, dont forget to help me my network manager ha
[11:29] <amachu> darkvertex: Please go ahead
[11:30] <darkvertex> hi, my name is Hertatijanto Hartono. I only joined Launchpad since late 2008
[11:30] <lifeless> amachu: I don't have the focus/time right now. For the former see planet,f or the latter I'm boarding an airplane very shortly
[11:31] <amachu> lifeless: ok
[11:31] <darkvertex> I haven't done much direct public projects using ubuntu, but in the office / workplace I applied my linux knowledge through ubuntu 8.04
[11:32] <darkvertex> I am a system admin at the company hq
[11:33] <darkvertex> I have done some translations in Launchpad
[11:33] <darkvertex> I guess that's it
[11:33] <darkvertex> :)
[11:33] <amachu> darkvertex: Glad that you started contributing. I would give +0 this time, the wiki need have more information...
[11:34] <TheMuso> I agree with amachu, +0 also. I don't feel there is sustained contribution to the Ubuntu community.
[11:34] <amachu> darkvertex: continue with the good work.. you should make it in future..
[11:34] <persia> darkvertex, https://translations.launchpad.net/~darkvertex looks like it might not be a complete list.  Is there other documentation of either your translations or your efforts leading the translation team?
[11:35] <darkvertex> persia: no, this Launchpad Indonesian Translators team has just been started
[11:36] <darkvertex> amachu: thanks for the encouragement
[11:36] <darkvertex> TheMuso: thanks
[11:36] <persia> I'm going to vote -1 for now: I think that more time, and more docs would certainly raise my vote.
[11:36] <amachu> and elky?
[11:36] <elky> 0 from me.
[11:37] <darkvertex> persia: I believe the translation team could be managed and improved upon
[11:37] <persia> darkvertex, I'm certain of it, and I even think you're in a great position to lead that.  I just don't think you've done it yet.
[11:38] <darkvertex> persia: the documentation of the team is almost non existent at the moment
[11:38] <amachu> darkvertex: best wishes for the future
[11:38] <amachu> is there anything else that anyone would like to bring upon?
[11:38] <persia> darkvertex, There's some docs on the wiki about setting up and coordinating teams.  Please ask for help if you get stuck.
[11:39] <TheMuso> Not from ne
[11:40] <persia> I'd like to see either more mailing list discussion of nominees for empty positions, or an invitation for candidates to attend one of our meetings.
[11:40] <darkvertex> persia: will do
[11:40] <darkvertex> thanks for your time guys :)
[11:40] <persia> darkvertex, Great.  Good luck, and we look forward to seeing your reapplication in a few months.
[11:41] <boyet> thanks bosses for your vote for loell
[11:42] <amachu> good. comparitively a short meeting.
[11:42] <elky> a nice change after the past few weeks.
[11:42] <amachu> thankyou every one for participating..
[11:42] <TheMuso> Has an announcement been made publically about new candidates being needed?
[11:43] <amachu> TheMuso: new candidates for the Board?
[11:43] <TheMuso> amachu: Yes.
[11:43] <amachu> yes
[11:43] <persia> There was one when we were first authorised to grow, but that was long enough ago we might benefit from another call.
[11:43] <TheMuso> I think we probably would.
[11:44] <amachu> there is one nomiation from persia, and i would like have your opinion on that, for taking a decision
[11:45] <persia> If nobody objects, I think we ought invite the nominee to the next meeting.
[11:45] <persia> We can take a decision then.
[11:45] <amachu> persia: sounds good
[11:45] <amachu> i will add it to the agenda too
[11:46] <persia> And who volunteers to arrange another call for nominees?  We still have open slots, even if the current nominee is approved.
[11:46] <TheMuso> Sounds fine by me.
[11:47] <amachu> persia: another call with?
[11:47] <persia> call for nominees.
[11:47] <persia> We need more nominations, because we're short on board members.
[11:48] <amachu> persia: yes. people whom I had initially are now out of our time zone. i will look into logs etc., and try to make a nomination
[11:49] <persia> amachu, Great!
[11:49] <amachu> TheMuso: lifeless: elky: Kindly look out for nominations.. and suggest if you have any on the list
[11:49] <TheMuso> I'll do my best, however most of my attention is towards the dev community...
[11:50] <amachu> TheMuso: Thanks
[11:51]  * TheMuso thinks we're done here.
[11:51] <amachu> persia: shall we wind up this meeting
[11:51] <persia> SOunds good to me.
[11:52] <amachu> our next meeting is scheduled on 09 June 09, 10.00 UTC
[11:52] <elky> will do (sorry, distracted by late dinner)
[11:52] <amachu> thank you everyone for partipating
[11:52] <TheMuso> Great, should have no probem making that one.
[11:52] <persia> See you all then.
[11:52] <TheMuso> Now, to the rest ofr UDS.
[11:52] <boyet> gudday and ahv a nice day
[12:01] <elmo>   
[12:02] <elmo> good morning
[12:02] <sabdfl> hello all
[12:02] <Technoviking> hello everyone
[12:02] <dholbach> hello
[12:03] <dholbach> !startmeeting
[12:03] <sabdfl> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[12:03] <dholbach> #startmeeting
[12:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 06:03. The chair is dholbach.
[12:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[12:03] <elmo> I don't think mdke will be able to join us
[12:03] <dholbach> hello everybody
[12:03] <elmo> mako should be around though
[12:03] <dholbach> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[12:03] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[12:03] <dholbach> we only have one agenda item today, the other two are for June 2nd
[12:04] <dholbach> [TOPIC] Ubuntu One
[12:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Ubuntu One
[12:04] <sabdfl> mdke has registered concerns about ubuntu one in http://launchpad.net/bugs/375345
[12:04] <dholbach> sladen: are you around?
[12:04] <dholbach> [LINK] http://launchpad.net/bugs/375345
[12:04] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://launchpad.net/bugs/375345
[12:04] <sabdfl> he can't make this meeting but we should discuss his comment(s) there
[12:06] <dholbach> I guess https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubunet/+bug/375345/comments/62 is what we're talking about?
[12:07] <sabdfl> can i have a quick poll to see who wants to participate in this conversation?
[12:08] <Vantrax> o/
[12:08] <sabdfl> we have a lot of people lurking in the channel, and all the CC folks who are here are in one room
[12:08] <wgrant> me
[12:08] <sabdfl> so, we could just TALK amongst ourselves if nobody else wanted to participate :-)
[12:08]  * sbc listens in
[12:08] <wgrant> I see.
[12:08] <sabdfl> ok, yay, we have folks here
[12:08] <sabdfl> hey mako, let's get started
[12:08] <mako> greetings
[12:09] <sabdfl> first, can we deal with the trademark issue as defined in the bug?
[12:09] <sabdfl> i think there are more general issues
[12:09]  * mako nods
[12:09] <sabdfl> but lets deal with them one by one
[12:09] <wgrant> It hasn't been clear exactly which issue is in the scope of which governance body.
[12:09] <sabdfl> on the trademark front the easy answer is "it's not a trademark violation if you own the trademark"
[12:09] <Hobbsee> belated o/
[12:09] <sabdfl> so, pass on a technicality
[12:10] <sabdfl> but i think it's important to address the folks who are concerned about the spirit of the law, as much as the letter of it
[12:10]  * elky hugs Hobbsee
[12:10] <wgrant> sabdfl: That's not an answer to mdke's comment 62, which is probably the one in question.
[12:10] <Hobbsee> elky: *hugs back*
[12:10] <sabdfl> there are good people who have said "the spirit of the ubuntu trademark is that it denotes goods that are in line with certain value"
[12:10] <sabdfl> it's more the brand than the trademark
[12:10] <sabdfl> but i think we should discuss it here
[12:10] <sabdfl> is that a good starting point?
[12:10] <Vantrax> sabdfl imo its not so much that it was done, but that the CC/community wasnt notified that it was coming, or at least given a chance to give input
[12:11] <wgrant> Vantrax: Different people feel differently about that.
[12:11] <sabdfl> for us to say "not a legal violation, but worth discussing from a brand-and-values perspective"?
[12:11] <wgrant> It's not either of those in particular.
[12:11] <wgrant> sabdfl: That sounds good.
[12:11] <wgrant> But brand and trademark are very much intertwined.
[12:11] <sabdfl> ok, so there's the heads-up issue, and the values issue
[12:11] <sabdfl> i'd like to defer the heads-up issue, because it's more general
[12:12] <sabdfl> let's start with the question of the "ubuntu brand" and whether u1 is consistent with it
[12:12] <sabdfl> open floor... wgrant?
[12:12] <wgrant> Ah, well...
[12:13] <sabdfl> right. Vantrax?
[12:14] <sabdfl> quoting mdke:
[12:14] <sabdfl>  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 ef
[12:14] <wgrant> Right.
[12:14] <wgrant> The trademark policy is meant to prevent that from happening.
[12:15] <sabdfl> ... 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.
[12:15] <wgrant> And the problem here is that Canonical doesn't have to follow the policy.
[12:15] <sabdfl> wgrant: are you talk about a different issue? the fact that canonical has a privileged position in the Ubuntu ecosystem?
[12:15] <dholbach> wgrant: which policy are you referring to right now?
[12:15] <sabdfl> for example, if the CC "owned the trademark", would that address your concerns?
[12:15] <wgrant> sabdfl: Hmm, true, we were talking about the branding, weren't we?
[12:16] <wgrant> sabdfl: But yes, I was talking about that. We should come back to that later, I guess.
[12:16] <sabdfl> a brand is not a legal entity, it's "what people think about you"
[12:16] <wgrant> dholbach: http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy
[12:16] <erichammond_> o/ - Don't want to get into arguments, but am willing to make a short statement when it's ok to fit it in.
[12:16] <sabdfl> mdke's point, i think, is that this use of the Ubuntu brand will mean that people think differently about Ubuntu
[12:16] <sabdfl> go ahead eric, if you have it pre-prepped
[12:16] <Hobbsee> sabdfl: indeed.
[12:17] <erichammond_> Even if the name fits the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, I suggest Canonical may wish to consider the feelings of the community.
[12:17] <Vantrax> Ubuntu specifically is the distribution or related to the community support for the distribution. To me canonical represents the commercial aspect, and add on services. I kinda think the two should not be mixed, but I dont feel strongly about it
[12:17] <erichammond_> I have to admit that when I first learned that Ubuntu One was commercial I felt uncomfortable.
[12:17] <erichammond_> I worked through my feelings and listened to all of the different positions folks came out with subsequently, but must admit I would be very impressed with Canonical if you were to change the name to not included "Ubuntu".
[12:17] <Hobbsee> sabdfl: if this keeps going ahead, anyhing and everything "ubuntu" is no longer free and open sourced.
[12:17] <sabdfl> erichammond_: wrapped?
[12:18] <erichammond_> that's all, thanks :)
[12:18] <Hobbsee> sorry, any given thing.  and I think i've spoken out of turn, sorry
[12:18] <sabdfl> Hobbsee: on this one, i think we want to keep multithreading to a minimum :-)
[12:18] <sabdfl> it will make it easier for folks reading the logs
[12:18] <sabdfl> wgrant: on Canonical's privileged position
[12:18] <Hobbsee> sabdfl: yeah, sorry.  I was trying to agree to your synopsis of mdke's point, but was slow.
[12:18] <wgrant> Certainly. It's a complex issue, and discussion is already convoluted enough.
[12:19] <sabdfl> it's more or less a fact of life, as I see it, and one that is unlikely to be a surprise to most Ubuntu users or members of the community
[12:20] <wgrant> sabdfl: Right, it's always going to be there.
[12:20] <sabdfl> Canonical does try to set a high standard for the way it collaborates with the community on Ubuntu, but it's privileged position is a function of the fact that Canonical and Ubuntu were founded together, symbiotically, by design
[12:20] <sabdfl> i hope we are a leader in how you do that well
[12:20] <sabdfl> but i don't think it would be constructive to try to imagine a world where that symbiosis is broken
[12:20] <wgrant> Oh no, I don't think so either.
[12:21] <wgrant> It's beneficial to both.
[12:21] <wgrant> But in this case, I think it's not clear exactly what role Canonical holds.
[12:21] <sabdfl> if that's a surprise to folks in the community, i imagine they would migrate to other projects that don't have this issue (by design), like gentoo or debian
[12:21] <sladen> dholbach: sorry, /me waves hand
[12:21] <sabdfl> i think the we want to make sure there is room in the commercial ubuntu ecosystem for more companies than canonical, too
[12:22] <sabdfl> but that's not to suggest that canonical's position should not, or would not, be privileged
[12:22]  * mako finishes reading all the recent stuff on the bug
[12:22] <Tm_T> sladen: hi son
[12:22] <Hobbsee> (is there any debate on this?  This sounds like what everyone accepts to be true)
[12:22] <sabdfl> how we define the line of "acceptable use of that privileged position", i don't know, other than to take matters on a case by case basis
[12:23] <wgrant> That's probably why it has rarely come up before - but here we have a specific case.
[12:23] <wgrant> I don't think it can be generally defined.
[12:23] <sabdfl> yes, that's true
[12:23] <mako> there's a few different ways to approach this issue
[12:24] <elmo> mako: will you share them with us? :-)
[12:24] <sladen> I'm trying to be fairly agnostic on this issue, and migrated it to the CC agenda to try and defuse the Won't Fix/New/Won't Fix/New fighting that was going on
[12:24] <sabdfl> mako: he's laughing, btw ;-)
[12:24] <mako> sorry, i'm trying to digest things a little bit
[12:25] <mako> so the first way is about values, and presumabley the free software position in particular
[12:25] <mako> the implication there would be that if the ubuntu one service were free, that would be fine
[12:26] <mako> matt lee's comment on the bug (and a number of others) echo that position
[12:26] <mako> another position is that this about the line between canonical and ubuntu
[12:26] <mako> corey and mdke seem to take that position
[12:26] <sabdfl> mako: free of charge, or franklin street free?
[12:27] <mako> sabdfl: franklin street free in mattl's case
[12:27] <mako> like, "the ubuntu name should be reserved for things that are totally free"
[12:27] <wgrant> sabdfl: There are people in both camps, I believe. But more FSS-free.
[12:27] <sabdfl> ok, let's talk about the values piece
[12:27] <sladen> it could be franklin street, with the default setting, and website pointed at canonical
[12:27] <mako> right
[12:28] <wgrant> sladen: Somwhat like Launchpad will be in a couple of months. That sounds sane.
[12:28] <mako> so i want to explore the second issue first
[12:28] <sabdfl> it touches on the brand - "what does Ubuntu mean in people's minds", and the issue Hobbsee raised, which is the "free or not" one
[12:28] <mako> because i think it's interesting
[12:28] <sabdfl> mako: would you agree that ubuntu also stands for "it just works", and that we've been pragmatic on freedom to achieve that?
[12:29] <mako> so if we argue that the issue is just about ubuntu and canonical, we might say that the problem with calling this program ubuntu one is that the software itself uses in the ubuntu brand (and the good will created by the community) to reinforce canonical's position
[12:29] <mako> in a way that would be hard for other members to compete with
[12:29] <sabdfl> in the past we've done binary drivers when we felt it was warranted, and while we took heat from some quarters for that, it was a decision driven by the brand of Ubuntu delivering the best possible experience with - broadly defined - free client apps?
[12:29] <mako> so someone might say that if there were some existing protocal that ubuntu one was using
[12:30] <wgrant> sabdfl: But those drivers were, and still are, forced on us by hardware manufacturers.
[12:30] <mako> and existing implications, etc
[12:30] <mako> then it would be ok
[12:30] <mako> so jabber might be a good example
[12:30] <wgrant> sabdfl: Here we have proprietary software created just next to the community.
[12:30] <wgrant> sabdfl: It's very different.
[12:30] <sladen> I'm hopeful that since ubuntu one shares a name/intended functionality so intimately with Ubuntu, it could live at  www.ubuntu.com/one/   Then comes the question of what critia it would have to meet to be featured there.  (eg. the Ubuntu.com/employment page does not exclusively feature Canonical jobs, but those that are relevant, interesting, and add value)
[12:30] <sabdfl> wgrant: we are not forced to use them, we chose to
[12:31] <wgrant> sabdfl: There was very strong reason to.
[12:31] <mako> if canonical made an im service that used jabber. they shouldn't call the SERVICE UbuntuTalk, but they could call the client UbuntuTalk and have it default to using the CanonicalTalk servers
[12:31] <sabdfl> sladen: it's a good point re ubuntu.com/employment
[12:32] <sabdfl> mako: i'm willing to bet that the ubuntu archives have long held packages which talk proprietary protocols
[12:32] <wgrant> sabdfl: And I can see the good reasons to integrate a service like Ubuntu One into the desktop.
[12:32] <sabdfl> pidgin?
[12:32] <sabdfl> samba?
[12:32] <mako> sabdfl: i am trying to separate those issues
[12:32] <sladen> sabdfl: but none of those have the name 'Ubuntu' in them
[12:32] <Flannel> sabdfl: There isn't a conflict of interest in the usage of binary drivers, no one who made the decision to use them benefits from their usage (except from having hardware that works, etc)
[12:33] <Flannel> Although, that may be off topic for this thread.
[12:33] <sabdfl> Flannel: not directly, but they benefit from the adoption of Ubuntu
[12:33] <mako> sabdfl: forget about whether ubuntu contains proprietary protocals. this is about proprietary protocals CALLED ubuntu which reinforce
[12:33] <sabdfl> mako: at least for the moment, I *think* all the protocols are in fact implemented by code which is free
[12:34] <Flannel> sabdfl: Yes, and the same benefit would come to Canonical if the service were named Canonical One
[12:34] <mako> sabdfl: it's about using the goodwill associated with the brand that the community feels some degree of attachment to and responsibility for to reinforce one companies market position
[12:34] <sabdfl> but, i take the point that if they aren't then it becomes an issue, and it might
[12:34] <sabdfl> so, coming back to the brand itself
[12:34] <mako> i am no position to tell canonical how to run its business, although i'll be happy to make suggestions :)
[12:34] <sabdfl> mako: and you'll always find willing ears there ;-)
[12:35] <sabdfl> i don't think it's right to say that "ubuntu == FLOSS" on the client side
[12:35] <mako> this issue is about ubuntu. and it's important that we be able ot have that converstion separately
[12:35] <sabdfl> we have binary drivers and firmware blobs, and don't devote a lot of cycles to agonising over that
[12:35] <mako> the reason that corey and mdke and many others on the bug seem to upset is that they feel that this blurs the line between the two
[12:36] <sabdfl> we also have mechanisms for skype and similar (acroread, flash etc)
[12:36] <sabdfl> it's also not new for the trademark itself to denote something commercial
[12:36] <mako> there's a funny relationship between proprietariness and this way of framing the issue
[12:36] <sabdfl> for example, the authors of the official ubuntu book asked for that, for commercial reasons
[12:36] <Vantrax> again sabdfl I think the issue is none of these bear the Ubuntu name, and most people think of it in different terms
[12:36] <sabdfl> and it was licensed that way to them by canonical
[12:36] <sladen> sabdfl: Ubuntu == "just works" "coolness" "I won't get screwed up" "hipness" "brown desktop"
[12:37] <wgrant> sabdfl: But the Ubuntu book is about Ubuntu.
[12:37] <wgrant> Ubuntu One doesn't seem to be...
[12:37] <sabdfl> similarly, Official Ubuntu Partners get the use of the name on commercial terms
[12:37] <elmo> wgrant: that's disingenuous
[12:37] <Tm_T> indeed it's matter of having Ubuntu in the name there, not if Ubuntu contains something or not
[12:37] <sabdfl> training partners, hardware partners, isv's
[12:37] <elmo> wgrant: Ubuntu One is absolutely about helping the users of Ubuntu
[12:37] <elky> there has already been confusion in terms of community support avenues and even media. -marketing has had at least one journo that i'm aware of wander in there asking about One. the support side is only going to continue whilever the name is the same.
[12:37] <elmo> wgrant: just as much as the book is
[12:37] <mako> sabdfl: sure, and part of the requirement was that the book being freely licensed
[12:37] <mako> sabdfl: which it is
[12:37] <sabdfl> in that case, yes, but not in all cases
[12:38] <mako> i would object to having a book being called "The Official Ubuntu Book" if it were not freely licensed (not to mention that i wouldn't work on it)
[12:38] <mako> people are prefectly able to go about making ubuntu books
[12:38] <dholbach> (Regarding the protocol bit of the discussion: as I understand it the ubuntuone-storage-protocol package is AGPL3.)
[12:38] <Hobbsee> is there a requirement that everything containing "ubuntu" needs to be freely licenced, though?  Should there be?  Is this what the issue actually falls back to?
[12:39] <dholbach> Hobbsee: what about multiverse and restricted?
[12:39] <sabdfl> Hobbsee: i don't believe there is such a requirement, and i think it would be harmful to try to retrofit one now
[12:39] <Hobbsee> dholbach: i was meaning what gets distributed on cds, in media, etc.
[12:39] <Hobbsee> sabdfl: right
[12:39] <Hobbsee> sabdfl: then my third question is "does the community perceive that that is the requirement?"
[12:39] <sabdfl> we have always walked a careful, pragmatic line
[12:39] <dholbach> Hobbsee: but still it's "Ubuntu Multiverse" and "restricted" ends up on the CDs
[12:40] <mako> Hobbsee: so, i think that's a good idea but that doesn't address the issue here
[12:40] <mako> i can go back to the jabber example
[12:40] <mako> if canonical runs a jabber service, there's an open question of whether they should EVER call it UbuntuTalk
[12:40] <Hobbsee> right
[12:40] <mako> even if they run unmodified ejabberd or something
[12:41] <sabdfl> why, mako? i'm not sure i understand
[12:41] <mako> i'm pretty comfortable that as long as the client is free, it should/can named ubuntu
[12:42] <elmo> mako: the u1 client is free?
[12:42] <elmo> it's GPLed
[12:42] <mako> yes, i know
[12:42] <mako> but there's a service necessary to use it
[12:42] <wgrant> (and the service also carries the Ubuntu brand)
[12:42] <elmo> mako: well; that's an interestingly broad definition of 'free'
[12:42] <mako> it's hard to unpack the two
[12:43] <mako> elmo: i'm not talking about whether its free
[12:43] <sladen> IIRC, previously, we've worked quite hard to ensure packages that could potentially benefit others (and which, we'd like to encourage the use of by others) don't use the word "ubuntu' in the software name, or branding ("eg. Ubuntu Menu Editor")  'ubuntuone-storage-protocol' fails that (to my mind) by it conflates a protocol description (reusable) with an implementation
[12:43] <Hobbsee> mako: so what you're actually saying is that you're comfortable as long as the client, and at least the core things that are necessary for it, are free, right?
[12:43] <mako> i'm saying that calling the particularly instance of server software running on a canonical machine "ubuntu" is one way to understand the issue
[12:43] <Hobbsee> er, necessary for it to be used, are free
[12:44]  * mako nods to sladen
[12:45] <mako> part of the reason this is complicated is that it's not clear WHAT we are talking about
[12:45] <elmo> sladen: I'm pretty sure those kind of name changes (e.g jockey too) was to make the software more palatable to !Ubuntu distros like Fedora
[12:45] <mako> there is (a) the client software (b) the server software (c) the protocal (d) the particular instance of the server software being run as a service by canonical
[12:45] <sladen> elmo: why should that not apply to ubunet?  What's paletable to Fedora is probably paletable to community.*@ubuntuland
[12:46] <elmo> sladen: *blink* wut
[12:46] <wgrant> mako: Given that there are no alternative server implementations, are those things separate?
[12:46] <elmo> sladen: Fedora didn't want to use something called 'Ubuntu'.  I'm not sure I see your analogy
[12:47] <Hobbsee> elmo: it's the opposite, you're agreeing with each other
[12:47] <Hobbsee> sladen: the question is, is ubuntuone-storage-protocol actually usable by anyone else, who isn't ubuntu?
[12:47] <mako> wgrant: right, so there's an argument that since the whole point of this software is make all these things transparent to the user, they should be presented as one
[12:48] <mako> in which, if we decided that those things imply differences courses of action with the name, we've got a lowest common demonitor problem i think
[12:48] <silbs> mako: can I back up a sec to your jabber example? do you think that would be wrong because Canonical would be running a service called Ubuntu? Or because of non-free aspects of it?
[12:48] <wgrant> mako: Given that I don't really see Ubiquity asking 'Which service do you want Ubuntu One to use?', I think they should be one thing for now.
[12:48] <mako> silbs: i'm trying to unpack the example by giving a free software everywhere example
[12:49] <mako> silbs: so free jabber client, free jabber protocal, server install of free software
[12:49] <silbs> mako: so your issue (in that example) is that it is canonical providing the service that is called ubuntu?
[12:50] <mako> silbs: so it's a question about where the line between canonical and ubuntu is drawn
[12:50] <sabdfl> i don't see the difference between cases where Canonical licenses someone else to use the Ubuntu name commercially, and where it does so itself
[12:50] <wgrant> sabdfl: Canonical isn't likely to deny its own requests.
[12:50] <sabdfl> for example, there's a new magazine called "Ubuntu User"
[12:50] <mako> silbs: if canonical runs a jabber service called talk.ubuntu.com, for pay or for a fee, it really sounds like an activity of canonical
[12:50] <sabdfl> they get that name under a commercial license from Canonical
[12:51] <sabdfl> Canonical doesn't publish the magazine
[12:51] <sabdfl> but, if it DID, that wouldn't be any different, would it?
[12:51] <mako> there's no reasonable way tha the community can become involved in its development. if people disagre with some aspect of how its run, access the code doesn't actually help
[12:51] <elmo> mako: how is this different to e.g. the forums?
[12:51] <sabdfl> which run on vBulletin?
[12:51] <silbs> mako: as another example, canonical runs an Ubuntu certificaiton service for OEMs (which we get paid for) that restuls in little stickers on machines that say "Ubuntu Certified". It's a canonical service, it's commercial.
[12:51] <elmo> and which Canonical host
[12:51] <silbs> mako: good or bad on that?
[12:51] <elmo> (but do not control, to be clear)
[12:52] <Vantrax> at this stage I dont really think there is a way of everyone to be happy, and I think the issue is getting more confusing. I think sabdfl is right in that they canonical can license itself, but for such a public service the CC should at least be aware that it is coming
[12:52] <mako> elmo: sure, or the website, or the mailing lists
[12:53] <sabdfl> on the brand issue, i think we need to recognise that different people will be drawn to the project for different reasons
[12:53] <mako> elmo: what if the forums were pay to play?
[12:53] <sabdfl> and will tend to assume that THEIR reasons are the defining characteristics of the brand
[12:53] <elmo> just as a data point, Canonical get on the order of ~100 trademark requests a month
[12:53] <sabdfl> elmo: more, i think
[12:54] <sabdfl> the CC simply cannot handle that
[12:54] <elmo> mako: so, you know u1 is not exclusively pay to play, right?
[12:54] <sabdfl> and in any event, there's no question of ceding the trademark to the CC
[12:54] <mako> elmo: yes, i understand
[12:55] <wgrant> elmo: Wow, I didn't think it would be anywhere near that many!
[12:55] <sabdfl> so, on the brand front, the reality is that Ubuntu itself is squarely in the "pragmatic, effective blend of commercial and community approach"
[12:55] <sladen> elmo: the current T&C state: "You shall indemnify Canonical in full for any ... cost ... as a result of your use ... of the services."  (which is the reason why I have not signed up)
[12:55] <sabdfl> that's caused friction in the past, and will in the future, but it's also the source of many of the things that people love about ubuntu
[12:55] <mako> elmo: one importatn difference with the forums and this, is that the cc ultimately oversees the forums and its administration
[12:55] <sabdfl> there are other projects that take different positions
[12:56] <sabdfl> debian is not even the most fundamental of the positions, considering their kernel GR's
[12:56] <Tm_T> sabdfl: agreed on that, commercial side cannot be put aside
[12:56] <sabdfl> so, where do we stand
[12:56] <Vantrax> Even more the commercial side is critical to the success of ubuntu
[12:57] <mako> silbs: i think i can bring this back to u1 now more explicitly
[12:57] <sabdfl> we still have to address the heads-up question from vantrax (i.e. what can the CC reasonably expect to hear about and consider before it gets announced?)
[12:57] <sabdfl> go ahead mako
[12:58] <mako> if there was a program called the "u1 synchronization client" and it opened up and said, "we can communicate with a variety of services including: (a) canonical's hosted storage engine (b) other one here (c) etc" that seems like it would be more clearly on the other side of the line
[12:58]  * wgrant would be very happy with that.
[12:58] <Tm_T> mitsutaka: jumpy there
[12:58] <mako> because it would be making it clear that the canonical service was canonical
[12:58] <Vantrax> good call mako
[12:59] <mako> and i *think* that would speak to the criticism raised by both corey and mdke (although i'm hesitant to speak for them)
[12:59] <sladen> succinctly put
[12:59] <Hobbsee> agreed.  I can't see why it wouldn't.
[13:00] <elky> it would certainly be less confusing
[13:01] <sabdfl> mako: i don't think it would
[13:01] <sabdfl> it is more addressed at the question of Canonical's privileged position
[13:02] <SteveA> when I went to the US a while ago, I tried to place a long distance call from a phone.  I found it confusing because an operator asked me what long distance service I wanted to use, rather than just letting me place the call.
[13:02] <wgrant> sabdfl: That seems to address the privileged position, at least somewhat.
[13:02] <wgrant> U1 is no longer a thing in which only Canonical can play.
[13:02] <Flannel> sabdfl: No, because "Ubuntu One" would be the client, that connects to Canonicals servers.
[13:02] <sabdfl> this is tricky because profit is evil, nobody would suggest we make people choose who should pay for their updates ;-)
[13:02] <mako> sure
[13:02] <mako> that's fine. but that's  business decision by canonical
[13:03] <sabdfl> my point is that ubuntu already points to Canonical servers in many places, and we don't insist on adding options there
[13:03] <sladen> SteveA: Currently, we have IRC clients that default to irc.ubuntu.com (Freenode).  However, you can change it.  The IRC client is not restricted to _only_ working with irc.ubuntu.com and neither is it called "IRCUbuntu"
[13:03] <wgrant> The Ubuntu archives, while hosted by Canonical, are open to community involvement.
[13:04] <mako> as as someone on the ubuntu community council, i'm very hesitant to empower companies doing that sort of business call that work ubuntu
[13:04] <ccm> actually this reminds on ekiga which is a main desktop app suggesting you to use diamondcard as commercial provider while still being able to talk to other services though the support for ekiga is the most advanced in ekiga
[13:04] <sabdfl> it has been very useful, in the past, to be able to exercise discretion on that empowerment
[13:05] <wgrant> mako: But does the CC have any power here?
[13:05] <mako> i want canonical to be able to make business decisions without having to worry about what ubuntu thinks
[13:05] <sabdfl> the book example is useful, we were able to negotiate the free licensing, for example
[13:05] <sabdfl> there are third-party services we would like to integrate, and using the Ubuntu trademark as leverage would probably get the clients open sourced
[13:05] <sabdfl> and who knows, perhaps even the servers
[13:06] <sabdfl> my point is that we have long used discretion in how the commercial terms around the ubuntu brand get used
[13:06] <mako> if the book where not something that could be reworked, reimagined, and redeployed by the community, i would have had an issue calling it "official ubuntu"
[13:06] <sabdfl> and the net effect has been to enhance the Ubuntu ecosystem
[13:06] <sladen> say somebody wants to make "Ubuntu t-shirts", is it okay to simply ask that they allow others to be able to also sell Ubuntu t-shirts?
[13:06] <sabdfl> and this is no different
[13:06] <mako> this is where the issue of privledged position and proprietary sort of intersect in a weird way
[13:06] <sabdfl> mako: in part, because you know that a remix of the book would not itself be official, but would be a good source of updates for the next edition?
[13:07] <sabdfl> Vantrax asked about the relationship between the CC and Canonical, and whether the CC should have had the name Ubuntu One raised to them in advance
[13:08] <sabdfl> given the volume of trademark requests, i don't think we want the CC on the loop on all of them
[13:08] <sabdfl> though i think it may be possible to have a window through which the CC could watch that process
[13:08] <wgrant> This one was obviously going to cause conflict.
[13:08] <sabdfl> i don't know the trademark workflow and whether that's possible
[13:08] <mako> i agree, our goal here should be to help build the guidelines or intuition for that
[13:08] <sabdfl> a lot of it is confidential - people send us their business plans
[13:09] <sabdfl> and it would not be appropriate to publish it
[13:09] <mako> having received trademarks@ubuntu.com before, i have no real interest in doing it again :)
[13:09] <Hobbsee> well, this is simple
[13:09] <elmo> mako: but this time you wouldn't even get paid!
[13:09] <silbs> mako: lol
[13:09] <sabdfl> shucks, mako, thought we'd get you there ;-)
[13:09] <sladen> sabdfl: of those 100 requests/month, how many result in exclusive deals that might lock out future (competing, and/or genetically improved) equivalent uses?
[13:09] <Hobbsee> if the canonical trademarks judges it to be OK, then it gets passed to the CC to see if they think it's OK, if it contains 'ubuntu'
[13:09] <sabdfl> sladen: some do, most don't
[13:09] <Flannel> Why not let the Ubuntu Foundation handle it?
[13:09] <sabdfl> some people say "i will only invest in this if I can have exclusive rights", and sometimes it's reasonable
[13:10] <Flannel> isn't that what it's for?
[13:10] <sabdfl> Flannel: nup :-)
[13:10] <elky> Flannel, no.
[13:10] <Hobbsee> most things will get stopped at the canonical trademark level
[13:10] <elky> Flannel, it's a name and a promise.
[13:10] <wgrant> It's not what it's for, but IMO it's what it should be for.
[13:10] <mako> sabdfl: in general, i think we should be careful about exclusive licenses (which i am sure you all are)
[13:10] <sabdfl> i wish there was a simple statement that COULD be made about the relationship between commerce and the brand
[13:10] <sabdfl> mako: +1
[13:11] <Flannel> to quote sabdfl: "It's important for us to distinguish the philanthropic and non-commercial work that is at the heart of the Ubuntu project, from the commercial support and certification programs that are the focus of Canonical Ltd."
[13:11] <sabdfl> Flannel: the trademark licenses are often explicitly commercial
[13:11] <Flannel> sabdfl: For the other companies
[13:11] <mako> we need to remember that there are different types of use of the mark
[13:12] <mako> most are basically descriptive or pointing TO ubuntu
[13:12] <mako> something like a t-shirt that is about ubuntu
[13:12] <mako> the t shirt is not claiming to actually BE ubuntu
[13:12] <sabdfl> on Vantrax's question, i think we could have anticipated the concern raised by U1, and raised it with the CC in advance
[13:12] <mako> ubuntu one is on the other side of that line, with important implications
[13:13] <sabdfl> i don't think that would have meant there was then no concern, but it would have been a good idea, with hindsight
[13:13] <sabdfl> "The Ubuntu Shop"
[13:13] <Vantrax> the CC should have been able to limit the damage definately
[13:13] <elky> it certainly would have been less of a shock to the system, so to speak.
[13:13] <Vantrax> and conserns about the way things ran could have been resolved. I think some of the reaction has been a basic 'knee jerk'
[13:14] <sabdfl> i think folks hugely underestimate the extent and diversity of the trademark / commercial ecosystem now
[13:14] <sabdfl> the issue here is that U1 is "tightly integrated"
[13:14] <mako> so i like it! and i actually want to see the mark as widely used as possible
[13:14] <Vantrax> sabdfl im sure they do, but some people will always think of it as a small core.
[13:14] <sabdfl> it's by no means the first proprietary service that's tightly integrated
[13:14] <mako> it's really in our interest to get the ubuntu name out there
[13:14] <sabdfl> consider Google search in Firefox
[13:14] <sladen> another interesting question is;  if Ubuntu One gets in the news (eg. stolen data), would that have a negative and detrimental impact on the brand.  Is that same risk assessment undertaken for all trademark reqeuests
[13:14] <mako> sabdfl: but it's the first one called ubuntu
[13:15] <mako> (AFAIK)
[13:15] <sabdfl> sladen: Imagine a headline "Canonical One data stolen, many Ubuntu users mad"
[13:15] <sabdfl> apart from the fact that the Canonical One name is *taken* ;-)
[13:15] <Vantrax> lol
[13:15] <Hobbsee> rename the plane "Canonical two" then :P
[13:16] <elky> Hobbsee, that'd ruin it though.
[13:16] <sabdfl> my point is that whatever we call it, it will be intimately associated with Ubuntu
[13:16] <sladen> UbuntuTwoYou (U2U)
[13:16] <sabdfl> and so, it had better work, and work well :-)
[13:16] <mako> sabdfl: but nobody confuses google search for ubuntu
[13:16] <Flannel> nor google for firefox
[13:17] <mako> sabdfl: even though they understand that it's tightly integrated
[13:17] <Vantrax> I think in the end we have to trust that Canonical will try and do the right thing and attempt to overlook when something is not what we would have expected. That being said I think the relationship imples a level of two way communication on what is going on, and what major products are being launched with the ubuntu trademark
[13:17] <mako> the general argument is of the form of "if things are going to be called ubuntu and shipped in the os, they should actually be ubuntu"
[13:17] <mako> that doesn't solve the problem at all :)
[13:17] <sabdfl> mako: i don't think Ubuntu One is not Ubuntu
[13:17] <Hobbsee> mako: then one just redefines ubuntu.
[13:18] <sabdfl> it's high quality, it's well integrated, the client software is all free
[13:18] <mako> i don't think it's a redefinition
[13:18] <sabdfl> it's moving the goalposts *substantially* to broaden the definitions we have applied, now that Canonical is engaged
[13:18] <mako> imho, sabdfl and others made a very smart decision by not calling canonical "ubuntu ltd."
[13:18] <Vantrax> If I can give a slightly different example, the learning project recived permission from canonical to use the ubuntu trademark and proceed with the project, but we are still turning up to the next community council meeting to more or less pitch the idea again
[13:19] <Flannel> sabdfl: Will Canonical be providing copious amounts of details about how its run, etc, so that the LoCos can answer the questions we're going to get about it?
[13:19] <mako> and i think it's worth preserving that distinction. even if we have to flirt with it
[13:19] <Vantrax> Based on this as a technicality it would not be *required*, but it is the right thing to do.
[13:19] <sabdfl> Flannel: yes, you'll find good answers in #ubuntuone
[13:20] <Flannel> sabdfl: Is there a fact sheet?  I don't really want to visit an IRC channel in front of someone while at a Conference
[13:20] <Technoviking> also a Ubuntu One forum
[13:20] <sabdfl> Flannel: ask for one, it's a good idea
[13:20] <Technoviking> http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=367
[13:20] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=367
[13:21] <mako> so i think i have one more observation
[13:21] <Flannel> I imagine my next conference will be about Ubuntu One instead of Ubuntu, I'd like to be prepared.
[13:21] <elky> from a support perspective, the least amount of bouncing around, the better. currently it's alot of bouncing.
[13:21] <Flannel> sabdfl: bug report? or what?
[13:21] <mako> i know have one more. i might have more after that :)
[13:21] <mako> i'm worried by the bug report
[13:21] <dholbach> Vantrax: I think the CC "recognised" teams and community initiatives before,  but that had nothing to do with trademarks or allowing them to work on something
[13:21] <sabdfl> Flannel: on the channel, would be best
[13:21] <mako> i'm seeing a real canonical non-canonical split on this. at least on the cc and in general on the bug
[13:22] <Technoviking> mako: I'm fine with Ubuntu One name
[13:23] <sabdfl> i agree, we don't want this to turn into a divisive issue along those lines
[13:23] <mako> Technoviking: sure, it's not perfect. it's just a general sense that i think holds
[13:23] <Vantrax> I actually like it too
[13:23] <sabdfl> in my case, i see two very different futures for ubuntu, depending on how well Ubuntu One is received, and works, technically and commercially
[13:23] <mako> i'm sure we can find canonical people that don't. i'm trying trying to pigeon hole people :)
[13:24] <mako> sorry, NOT
[13:24] <mako> NOT trying. whoops :)
[13:24] <elky> very trying.
[13:24] <sabdfl> i don't know the extent to which non-Canonical would be aware of the delta between those futures :-)
[13:24] <sabdfl> to a certain extent, the financial drivers of Ubuntu are opaque to non-Canonical folks
[13:24] <sabdfl> they would find it hard to know what would STOP if Canonical stopped
[13:25] <Technoviking> mako: since Ubuntu One will not be a require to use Ubuntu, if feel in is a community mebers choice to use it or not.
[13:25] <sabdfl> and Ubuntu One is a significant portion of the consumer plan around Ubuntu, that justifies the investment, in the expectation that it will underwrite the ongoing cost of the operation
[13:25] <sabdfl> folks within Canonical are more likely to be aware of that
[13:25] <mako> sure. but i think that canonical is well served by having ubuntu be an identity distinct, in most important senses, from canonical
[13:26] <sabdfl> we had a lot of debate about the name, on those grounds
[13:26] <Technoviking> s/mebers/members
[13:26] <sabdfl> in the end, we settled on the idea that we want an integrated experience, from start to finish
[13:26] <Vantrax> I really like the idea of the service and what can be done with it, but I would have expected it to see canonical branding as a commercial service. But I understand the choice, and am happy to support it
[13:26] <sabdfl> we don't want Ubuntu One to feel like something that was bolted on by someone else
[13:26] <sladen> sabdfl: but is that ubuntuone working as in just a filesync system, or is that ubuntuone as a brand encompassing many, many (separate, but integrated) sub-product covering EC2 compatible virtual machines, out-of-the-box VoIP signups, eg.   In the same way that Java is "all or nothing" for Sun (even as far as the ticker symbol), and yet Java is just a brand, that covers many things that share nothing with Java (virtual machine) other than from the 
[13:27] <sabdfl> we *want* it to feel like it Just Works, and delivers great benefits, and does so using free software
[13:27] <sabdfl> sladen: in due course, i hope there will be a broad Ubuntu One ecosystem, just as we have a broad Ubuntu ecosystem
[13:27] <wgrant> sabdfl: Not a Free server, though.
[13:27] <wgrant> sabdfl: A Free client is only part of the way.
[13:27] <sabdfl> some of those players will have free servers (identi.ca is a good example) and some won't
[13:28] <sabdfl> wgrant: that's a different set of goalposts, and not one we aim for right now
[13:28] <sabdfl> wgrant: consider Firefox + Google
[13:28] <mako> in the process though, you're eliding a distinction that i think is very important to a community whose continued existnace is at least part based on the idea that they don't want to feel like they are volunteering for a for-profit entity
[13:28] <sabdfl> we can play towards that agenda, but we are not tied to that agenda
[13:28] <mako> sabdfl: identi.ca is a great example
[13:29] <mako> sabdfl: because the identi.ca software has a different name
[13:29] <mako> identi.ca is the company/instance. laconi.ca is the software
[13:29] <Myrtti> Control Yourself Inc is the company ;-)
[13:30] <mako> Myrtti: i was eliding things myself a little bit :)
[13:30] <Myrtti> fairy nuff :-)
[13:30] <sabdfl> if someone (or Canonical) builds an identi.ca infrastructure into Ubuntu One, that would be an example of the place some folks would like us to go
[13:31] <mako> the reason i think this is important is because that i think a sense of community ownership is basically essential to elicit contributions
[13:31] <wgrant> Can this 'someone' actually call this thing Ubuntu One?
[13:31] <sabdfl> to be clear, if anyone has a really good plan as to how we could drive Ubuntu One to being in line with the Franklin Street statement, sustainably, Canonical would listen
[13:31] <sabdfl> at the moment, we don't see that being the case
[13:31] <wgrant> You've implied a couple of times that Ubuntu One isn't actually just Ubuntu One.
[13:32] <sabdfl> but, over time, that may change
[13:32] <elky> wgrant, are you asking 'can' or 'should'?
[13:32] <Vantrax> wgrant its a platform for services, remote file storage seems to be just the intro
[13:32] <sabdfl> for now, i think the best we can do is minute this discussion
[13:32] <wgrant> elky: The former.
[13:32] <sladen> my hunch is that Canonical can do a better job of running an instance of ubunet-sync and ubunet-cluster under the Franchised UbuntuOne brand than other people.  Time may come when the it would be more profitable to outsource the running of the instance under the franchised brand to somebody else and just take the profit percentage.  It would be good if that possibility was allowed for by not having the instance name == implementation name == Servi
[13:33] <wgrant> sabdfl: What changed with Launchpad?
[13:33] <sabdfl> sladen: in my judgment, the margins driven purely by economies of scale are insufficient to justify the risk of the investment
[13:33] <sabdfl> so, where do we stand?
[13:34]  * Vantrax is happy to support Ubuntu One
[13:34] <sabdfl> i hoped to nail the legal issues (i think we did that)
[13:34] <mako> sabdfl: sure, there are no legal issues
[13:34] <sladen> Ubuntu (to me) should be the CD, UbuntuOne should be the best available online service portfolio that be shipped as default settings.  If some of those don't make the cut for a particular release, they could be switched on, or switched off in the same way that other (offline) componets in main are
[13:34] <sabdfl> i also hoped to get past the "free or else" meme, which I think is inconsistent with what we've done successfully in the past
[13:35]  * Hobbsee is now just confused as to what Ubuntu stands for now, tbh
[13:35] <sabdfl> vantrax raised the question of the CC's general level of awareness, and i think (s)he has a point
[13:35] <sabdfl> i also hoped to get some sort of general guidance on "where the line is" w.r.t. online services
[13:35] <sabdfl> but i don't think we have that, here
[13:36] <wgrant> I don't think the line can be defined.
[13:36] <sladen> That would open up the criteria for what should be included as part of that portfolio (it should be good quality, it should be well integrated, it should "just work", probably it should be franklin free, (_not_ beer free).  It should add to the quality and experience of using Ubuntu
[13:36] <mako> i can think about it. i might be able to come up with something that describes a line i would be happy with
[13:36] <sabdfl> sladen: Last.fm?
[13:36] <elky> sabdfl, i think the lingering issue is that of the dilution of brand, which is probably as much simply human territoriality for something that many people care a heck of a lot about.
[13:37] <elky> and it's probably not going to go away any sooner than the k/x/ed/ubuntu dilution itself will.
[13:37] <mako> this not about what services should be accessible from within ubuntu
[13:37] <mako> this *is* about what services should be accessible from within ubuntu and *called* ubuntu
[13:37] <Hobbsee> and thus what ubuntu actually stands for, i presume
[13:38] <sabdfl> elky: my answer to that is that we have to be clear to our community that we are comfortable with services which are not Franklin Street compliant
[13:38] <sabdfl> we won't take out Google
[13:38] <sabdfl> we won't take out MSN from Pidgin
[13:38] <sladen> sabdfl: Last.fm could be included (hint, take 20% for signing the user up and charging their credit card).  The other conflict of interest would be when CanonicalMusicStationPlus launches and there is an issue about whether to ship Last.fm as default, or ship CMSP as default).  If that is taken by the Ubuntu Foundation, the best (tm) one would be picked, regardless of who made it
[13:38] <mako> sure, i've not heard anyone suggesting that
[13:38] <sladen> s/other/only/
[13:39] <sabdfl> they are all part of the experience of the Ubuntu system, by users
[13:39] <sabdfl> we can and should figure out how we can support the Franklin Street statement
[13:39] <sabdfl> just like we can and should (and do) work towards getting better open source drivers
[13:39] <sabdfl> being open to Flash doesn't mean we don't support Gnash (we fund the latter)
[13:40] <dholbach> sladen: it's best to leave the Ubuntu Foundation out of the discussion, it's basically a trust and not an entity
[13:40] <sabdfl> some members of the community may be surprised by this, and choose to leave
[13:40] <sabdfl> but those who are comfortable with this will help to build this experience
[13:40] <elky> sabdfl, my point is that Ubuntu One redefines Ubuntu, and as alot of people identify with what Ubuntu *used* to encompass, it's going to take some time for adjustment. Some people may never adjust.
[13:40] <mako> dholbach: right, the CC is only relevant body here
[13:40] <sladen> dholbach: r. s/Ubnntu Foundation/CC/
[13:41] <wgrant> sabdfl: We can't help build this experience. It's a proprietary service.
[13:41] <sabdfl> wgrant: have you looked at the code?
[13:41] <sabdfl> i wasn't referring to Ubuntu One
[13:41] <elmo> elky: why does Ubuntu One 'redefine' Ubuntu any more than e.g. 'Ubuntu Training' or 'Ubuntu Certification' or 'Ubuntu Partners' or 'Ubuntu Support' or etc. etc. etc?
[13:41] <mako> the reaction to this issue shows that a number of (almost exlusively non-canonical people) feel that this use of ubuntu is referring to something that they don't identify with and that they identify (accurately, i think) with canonical instead
[13:41] <sabdfl> I was referring to the whole experience of Ubuntu, which blurs these lines
[13:41] <wgrant> sabdfl: Which code?
[13:41] <wgrant> Ah.
[13:41] <sladen> elmo: it's exclusive
[13:41] <sabdfl> look, if someone wants to work inside an ecosystem that is solely defined by a single principle, there are places to do that
[13:42] <sabdfl> Tututo?
[13:42] <sabdfl> mako, help!
[13:42] <sabdfl> but they exist
[13:42] <elky> elky, because "Ubuntu" is no longer "a family of linux distributions" it's now "a family of linux distributions and a cloud service tacked on the side"
[13:42] <elky> er, elmo^^
[13:42] <sabdfl> what makes Ubuntu *interesting* is the fact that it aims to dislodge Apple and Microsoft
[13:42] <mako> so firms in this space need to make a decision to offer a less integrated user experience because it's seen as being in the best interest of community empowerment
[13:43] <sabdfl> you can't credibly be part of that in those other, more narrowly defined pieces
[13:43] <sabdfl> and here, you CAN help build that alternative experience
[13:43] <sabdfl> wgrant: make sense?
[13:43] <mako> it happens all the time. it's annoying to have to explain that canonical is this company that funds most ubuntu development
[13:43] <mako> when this would be clear if we just said "ubuntu ltd."
[13:44] <sabdfl> so, here we stand
[13:44] <wgrant> sabdfl: The alternative experience can never compete.
[13:44] <wgrant> Ubuntu One gets the name and Ubuntu integration.
[13:44] <sabdfl> Ubuntu (+One) aims to be the alternative to Windows / Apple
[13:45] <sabdfl> those who WANT to be part of that, and help shape it, certainly can do so
[13:45] <sabdfl> we have an enormous community that does just that
[13:45] <sabdfl> people will choose to participate in the place that most aligns with their goals in life
[13:46] <wgrant> I was under the impression that Ubuntu was intended to do that.
[13:46] <sabdfl> if someone defines their goals as "GPL" they will not participate in X, right?
[13:46] <sabdfl> right now, as far as I'm aware, there is no community that is defined as "FLOSS + Franklin St" w.r.t. software + services
[13:47] <sladen> aka AGPL
[13:47] <sabdfl> and i don't see a way for such a community to offer a credible chance of becoming an alternative to Windows / Apple
[13:47] <sabdfl> i may be wrong
[13:47] <mako> sure, all that's fine
[13:47] <Flannel> sabdfl: So, instead youre going to try and define Ubuntu(+One) as FLOSS + Closed Source Cloud?  Or am I not following?
[13:47] <sabdfl> but at the end of the day, to address wgrant's point, people who want to help build that alternative can do so here
[13:47] <wgrant> sabdfl: How does non-freeness increase the feasibility of become an alternative to Windows or Apple? Simply the presumed increased income?
[13:48] <sabdfl> Flannel: no, i'm defining it as FLOSS + Cloud [we will see how this goes]
[13:48] <mako> but the issue here does not need to be whether we wish ubuntu one the best of luck
[13:48] <wgrant> sabdfl: But this cloud is closed.
[13:48] <sabdfl> some of the cloud stuff will be open, some closed, it's hard to see hwo ti pans out, let's get going
[13:48] <Hobbsee> Flannel: the new aim is not to define ubuntu in terms of FLOSS at all - or at least, not to say that it's all free, because it isn't now.  And because one part isn't free, it's fine for other parts not to be free too.  I think.
[13:49] <mako> the issue is whether canonical's own services (which happen to be proprietary, which may or may not be relevant) should be called ubuntu
[13:49] <wgrant> sabdfl: I'm not aware that these other cloudy things have been referred to before now.
[13:49] <dholbach> wgrant: "simply"?
[13:49] <Flannel> Hobbsee: The other parts aren't free because they can't be.  This parts could be, but we're choosing to close them.
[13:49] <mako> we don't have to care whether ubuntu refers to things that are free to be concerned that it be limited to things that are controlled by the community and its governance structures
[13:49] <Vantrax> I have to head to bed, close to midnight for me, go easy on sabdfl. Hes trying to do the right thing.
[13:49] <Hobbsee> Flannel: which, afaik, is immaterial.
[13:49] <wgrant> dholbach: s/Simply/Only/
[13:50] <mako> from what i can tell, ubuntu one is controlled by canonical and not by the ubuntu community and its governance community. so we should name it in a way that makes this clear
[13:50] <mako> referring to ubuntu versus being ubuntu
[13:50] <sladen> Vantrax: r.  And sabdfl will succeed in doing the right thing;  but not necessaryily a thing that everyone is immediately comfortable with
[13:50] <mako> if it were called "Sync for Ubuntu" it would be much less problematic, IMHO
[13:50] <wgrant> mako: That seems to be the core of the issue, although there are other bits hanging off it.
[13:50] <sabdfl> mako: the experience of ubuntu includes those online services, there is no real benefit to be had from naming it otherwise
[13:50] <wgrant> mako: That is what the trademark policy recommends, yes.
[13:51] <sabdfl> and in any event, there is a very long list of things which have a commercial angle, which are named ubuntu, this is not a new event
[13:51] <wgrant> sabdfl: No real obvious benefit for Canonical, no.
[13:51] <mako> sabdfl: you are balancing volunteers desire to be involved in the project
[13:51] <mako> which is my primary concern today
[13:51] <sabdfl> mako: we have long done that. we know that many will choose to participate elsewhere.
[13:51] <sladen> mako: Sync for ubuntu is one part of Ubuntu One, (which is intentionally blurred, in much the same as '.NET')
[13:51] <Hobbsee> mako++
[13:52] <mako> sabdfl: and this is seen, by many of your most active and engaged volunteers over the long term, as crossing a line
[13:52] <sabdfl> my personal view is that this is not nearly the big change it is being described as
[13:52] <sabdfl> that, if there is a line there, it was crossed a long time ago
[13:52] <sladen> you open up the long list of available Ubuntu One subscription services, and you tick some of the ones listed (eg. Sync, 10G) and you don't tick some of the others
[13:52] <wgrant> sabdfl: Which other proprietary service carrying the Ubuntu brand is there, that is also integrated into the desktop?
[13:52] <elmo> mako: and is seen by many others of our most active and engaged volunteers over the long term as not crossing the line
[13:53] <erichammond_> sabdfl: It's almost 6a here and I'm trying to parse your above statements which sound like "either you're with us or agin' us".  Are you saying that for one to support Ubuntu, one must support "Ubuntu One" a commercial service provided by Canonical?
[13:53] <elky> sabdfl, there was never only one line.
[13:53] <Hobbsee> That may be true, but this has been the first time it's been public, and in our faces.
[13:53] <Hobbsee> A lot of people don't know about the training materials, for eg
[13:53] <mako> elmo: i didn't say everyone, and i know it's not
[13:53] <sabdfl> wgrant: hardware certification?
[13:54] <sabdfl> i don't think we've made much progress
[13:54] <elmo> wgrant: why is there this artifical distinction with 'integrated into the desktop'?
[13:54] <wgrant> sabdfl: That does seem to need to be centralised, but it's not in your face in Ubiquity and integrated with the desktop.
[13:54] <sabdfl> there are those with reservations, and among them are people i take very seriously
[13:54] <elmo> wgrant: the part that's integrated into the desktop _IS_ free
[13:54] <wgrant> elmo: No, the part that is *doing* the integration is free.
[13:54] <elmo> (sorry, "may be integrated"; nothing is right now, not by default anyway)
[13:55] <elmo> wgrant: the part (potentially) on the CD, and on the desktop and that the user is running is free
[13:55] <sabdfl> i think the brand issue is being inflated because the folks who are concerned are most interested in that aspect of ubuntu; the broad base of contributors, participants and users see ubuntu as meaning "just works" as much as "free as I define free"
[13:56] <sabdfl> mako said he would consider this further and write more
[13:56] <wgrant> elmo: But it's the glue between Ubuntu and this proprietary thing named Ubuntu.
[13:56] <sabdfl> i'd invite others to do the same, and to write to the CC
[13:56] <wgrant> elmo: It is integrating the proprietary Ubuntu into the Free Ubuntu.
[13:56] <mako> i think that a viable free software community succeeds as a volunteer project insofar as it can create an institutional independent space
[13:57] <sabdfl> wgrant: there are proprietary things IN ubuntu, and long have been, and to pretend otherwise is not helpful
[13:57] <sladen> I think there's another meeting on 2 June, would it be worth tieing it up now, letting mako (et al) try to quatify what's been said and bringing it back then?
[13:57] <wgrant> sabdfl: I am not pretending otherwise.
[13:57] <mako> if ubuntu is just a canonical product, i'm not interested in working on it and volunteering my time
[13:57] <wgrant> sabdfl: Those proprietary things are not from Canonical.
[13:57] <wgrant> sabdfl: They are included because it would be detrimental to the user experience, and their owners will not open them.
[13:57] <sabdfl> mako: i'm surprised to hear you characterise it that way, on the basis of this issue
[13:57] <mako> and my experience in the broader free software community seems to imply this is at least somewhat (if not entirely) generalizable experience
[13:58] <mako> sabdfl: sorry, i'm not trying to charactertize it. the "if" actually meant "if"
[13:58] <mako> sabdfl: not "if (and it is)"
[13:58] <sabdfl> mako: in no way could the whole of Ubuntu be "just a Canonical product"
[13:59] <sabdfl> Ubuntu is the product of tens of thousands of people, only a small fraction of them work for Canonical
[13:59] <Hobbsee> The more stuff of nonfree nature that you call Ubuntu, the more it appears that way, though.
[13:59] <sladen> "if Ubuntu were to become (in the future) just a"
[13:59] <mako> sladen: yeah that ^^^^
[13:59] <sabdfl> but yes, Canonical has a privileged position, and if that makes people uncomfortable they will find other projects to participate in
[14:00] <sabdfl> my feeling is that this new piece is not a major shift in that regard
[14:00] <wgrant> Many feel that it is.
[14:00] <sabdfl> so yes, let's invite people to write to the CC
[14:00] <elky> it is for some people though, regardless of if you want it to be.
[14:00] <mako> so i'm not talking about shifts in policy
[14:00] <cody-somerville> Ubuntu One isn't a commercial service. Ubuntu One as far as I understand is an open source platform for building cloud powered services on the desktop.
[14:00] <mako> i'm talking about perceptions of "ownership"
[14:00] <wgrant> you are not going to see it as a shift, as it has most probably been in the roadmap for years.
[14:01] <sabdfl> the plan for the moment is that Karmic will include Ubuntu One services
[14:01] <sabdfl> folks who are interested in how that is achieved, tastefully, should participate in the UDS sessions this week
[14:01] <mako> so i'm not making my mind up based on any actual delta in policy, i'm making it up based on people's reactions
[14:02] <sladen> mako: and it's not just Ubuntu geeks,  IIRC, the Guardian, or Telegraph had a piece entitled   "Ubuntu One, Freedom Nil"
[14:02] <sabdfl> cody-somerville: that's a good point
[14:02] <wgrant> cody-somerville: Are we aware of that yet?
[14:02] <sabdfl> reactions are important, but they can also involve people with pitchforks and regrets in the morning, and i don't want to be associated with those, usually
[14:03] <mako> i don't actually care what ubuntu one is. i care what it's relationship to the ubuntu community and to canonical is
[14:03] <sabdfl> wgrant: that's the code I asked if you had looked at
[14:03] <mako> and i want it to have a name that reflects that accurately
[14:03] <wgrant> sabdfl: Which code?
[14:03] <sabdfl> the point is that many of those reactions are knee-jerk. there is good, open code that is generally useful
[14:03] <sabdfl> wgrant: OFFS. ubuntuone-*
[14:03] <wgrant> sabdfl: I have.
[14:03] <sabdfl> cool
[14:03] <mako> the answer seems to be, "yes, it really is more a canonical product but we're naming it in a different way becaues it leads to a more integrated user experience"
[14:04] <mako> sabdfl: the reactions by the people on the bug who are influencing my own thinking are not knee-jerk
[14:04] <Hobbsee> mako: yeah, that's what I'm getting out of it.
[14:04] <sladen> mako: I didn't see it as the integation, I saw it as Ubuntu have a more valuable (more likely to result in revenue) brand than "Canonical" or "Launchpad"
[14:05] <sabdfl> let's wrap up. we have another meeting in a week. I would ask folks to write to the CC, and participate in the UDS sessions.
[14:05] <sladen> mako: which is a sensible, commericial (and therefore good for Ubuntu development long-term) decision
[14:06]  * mako nods
[14:06] <cody-somerville> I think its named the way it is because of the (open source innovation)/platform/base its built on top of. Sort of like how Debian is titled Debian Linux/GNU, no?
[14:07] <wgrant> cody-somerville: Or is the Ubuntu desktop going to, within a few releases, be called Ubuntu because of the platform/base it's built on top of (Ubuntu One)?
[14:07] <sabdfl> i'm going to respond to the new questions on the linked bug
[14:07] <sabdfl> i would encourage folks to ask questions on #ubuntuone
[14:07] <sabdfl> and for wgrant to look at the code
[14:07] <sabdfl> ;-)
[14:07] <mako> i'll think about this some more and write something in the next week
[14:07] <ibuclaw> For clarification, am I right in hearing that Ubuntu-One is currently just an integrated service that syncs/backups documents/files to a server (similar to the way DropBox works), but will extend for further services in the future?
[14:08] <wgrant> sabdfl: I have, but not all of it! Is there anything in particular I'm meant to notice?
[14:08] <mako> i'll make a log of this meeting and post it to the bug
[14:08] <mako> or a link to it
[14:08] <elky> ibuclaw, pretty much.
[14:08] <sabdfl> wgrant: just that the technology is broadly and generally useful, all as open source, with no reference to a commercial service
[14:08] <mako> i have a meeting i need to leave for in 5 minutes also :)
[14:09] <wgrant> sabdfl: I'm not arguing against any of that.
[14:09] <wgrant> I think it's a good idea.
[14:09] <sabdfl> ok
[14:10] <sabdfl> well, at least we agree there's no trademark issue
[14:10] <sabdfl> we disagree on the brand issue
[14:10] <wgrant> Hm.
[14:10] <mako> this was a useful discussion for me
[14:10] <wgrant> I think there is a trademark issue. But not a legal one. But maybe that's what you refer to as branding.
[14:11] <mako> even if we didn't come to a conclusion. i'm thinking a lot more clearly about this i think
[14:11] <Hobbsee> this was certainly an illuminating discussion.
[14:11] <mako> sabdfl: is there other business we want to handle today?
[14:11] <Flannel> sabdfl: I'm not sure I have a concern over the branding now that I actually know what the service is going to be.
[14:11] <Hobbsee> and will give people a lot more to think about, in how they wish to proceed.
[14:11] <elky> mako, i'm not sure it's a topic that can have a conclusion.
[14:11] <sabdfl> mako: no, this was it for today
[14:11] <elky> (or ever should)
[14:11] <wgrant> It was indeed quite illuminating, as I don't think we previously knew that Ubuntu One was a generic brand.
[14:11] <mako> elky: it *will* have a conclusion
[14:12] <dholbach> thanks a lot everybody
[14:12] <wgrant> I knew it was a sync service that had aspirations to be a general data store.
[14:12] <dholbach> #endmeeting
[14:12] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 08:12.
[14:12] <sabdfl> my hope is that we see a lot of cool franklin st stuff emerge, that uses Ubuntu One technology, which itself is all open
[14:12] <cody-somerville> I'm very psyched about the possibilities myself :)
[14:13] <wgrant> sabdfl: Ah, you mean Ubuntu One rather than Ubuntu One.
[14:13] <wgrant> I see.
[14:13] <wgrant> That makes a bit more sense.
[14:13] <sabdfl> wgrant: *exactly* ;-)
[14:13] <wgrant> But does the OSCON talk mean Ubuntu One, or Ubuntu One?
[14:13] <wgrant> I took it to mean Ubuntu One.
[14:13] <wgrant> But it might mean the other one, if you mean that.
[14:13] <mako> later everyone
[14:13] <sabdfl> cheers
[14:14] <wgrant> Thanks everyone, I think it was a pretty productive discussion.
[14:14] <ibuclaw> sabdfl, from the brief insight I've seen today, it certainly seems that it has great potential.
[14:14] <sabdfl> thanks ibuclaw, i think so too