> Troubling that Ubuntu One wasn't already open source. Why is that troubling? Why should a service provider open source the software that they use for providi

> Troubling that Ubuntu One wasn't already open source. Why is that troubling? Why should a service provider open source the software that they use for providing the service? You're not 'receiving' the software code of the server parts -- providing the storage functionality -- but are just using that. In this case, the Ubuntu One client software and protocol libraries were already open source, and their statement suggests that they will also be open sourcing the server software code shortly. As another example and similar case -- server software code that implements the storage functionality not available as open source -- is this quote on Tarsnap: > While the Tarsnap code is not distributed under an open source license, Tarsnap contributes back to the open source community via bug fixes and enhancements to [...] In these cases, the storage parts implement the competitive advantages for the provider. Now that Ubuntu One is stopping to leverage that competitive advantage, it remains a classy move to open source their implementation.