Comment 3 for bug 375345

Given that the treatment given to Ubuntu One is vastly different than what would be given to any similar project developed by a third party, this very much appears to be a licensing of the mark in a way that best serves Canonical, rather than best serves the project. The blurring of the line between Ubuntu and Canonical is a key concern here, as otherwise this seems to strongly go against the line of the Ubuntu Promise which reads "Ubuntu will always be free of charge, including enterprise releases and security updates." If there exist things that are proprietary in code and commercial in cost, yet marketed as Ubuntu, then those things constitute a separate, for-pay-only "enterprise" version of Ubuntu, which is of course not acceptable to the Ubuntu community. While in legal terms as the controller of the Ubuntu mark Canonical can get away with such things in court, doing so is a violation of the community's trust in it to protect that mark on their behalf, and degrades the value of the Ubuntu name.