I'm not so sure the server code being proprietary is much of an issue since
they aren't distributing that to others. What matters is it complies with a
free standard for compatibility and therefore supportable by others should
they be so inclined to develop there own compatible services. It's not your
hardware. It's Canonicals. It would be like us publishing the code to our web
site. While it may be of little value to others it's only where that code is
obfuscated javascript under a proprietary license that a concern exists. This
isn't to say though that relying on a service for which you can't move away
from isn't bad. It is. I wouldn't use Canonical's services as a user unless I
could move away form it should I ever need to. That they don't release the
code here though doesn't seem unusual or in violation of the four freedoms
since the users aren't running that code. And while we are running free
software (ThinkPenguin.com)there aren't any obligations for us to release any
changes we make to it unless we distribute it. We aren't. We are the end user
not our customers.
That is the free software position as far as I understand it.
The "Landscape" software for the enterprise always seemed like a bad move to
me. At the time that move did make me think "why are you going to distance
yourself from your customers"? As much as we are focused on less technical
users we aren't going to go out of our way to distance ourselves from the
people pushing our product.
