From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html | 201 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 201 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8f5200c --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html @@ -0,0 +1,201 @@ + + +Network Services Aren't Free or Nonfree; They Raise Other Issues +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

Network Services Aren't Free or Nonfree; They Raise Other Issues

+ +

by Richard Stallman

+ +

Programs and services are different kinds of entities. A +program is a work that you can execute; a service is an activity that +you might interact with.

+ +

For programs, we make a distinction between free and nonfree +(proprietary). More precisely, this distinction applies to a program +that you have a copy of: either +you have the four freedoms for +your copy or you don't.

+ +

An activity (such as a service) doesn't exist in the form of +copies, so it's not possible for a user to have a copy of it, let alone +make more copies. As a result, the four freedoms that define free +software don't make sense for services.

+ +

To use a culinary analogy, my cooking can't be a copy of your +cooking, not even if I learned to cook by watching you. I might have +and use a copy of the recipe you use to do your cooking, +because a recipe, like a program, is a work and exists in copies, but +the recipe is not the same as the cooking. (And neither of those is +the same as the food produced by the cooking.)

+ +

With today's technology, services are often implemented by running +programs on computers, but that is not the only way to implement them. +(In fact, there are network services that are implemented by asking +human beings to enter responses to questions.) In any case, the +implementation is not visible to users of the service, so it has no +direct effect on them.

+ +

A network service can raise issues of free vs nonfree software for +its users through the client software needed to use it. If the service +requires using a nonfree client program, use of the service requires +ceding your freedom to that program. With many web services, the +nonfree software is +JavaScript code silently installed in the user's +browser. The GNU LibreJS program makes +it easier to refuse to run this nonfree JavaScript code. But the issue +of the client software is logically separate from the service as +such.

+ +

There is one case where a service is directly comparable to a +program: when using the service is equivalent to having a copy of a +hypothetical program and running it yourself. In this case, we call it Service as +a Software Substitute, or SaaSS (we coined that to be less vague and +general than “Software as a Service”), and such a service +is always a bad thing. The job it does is the users' own computing, +and the users ought to have full control over that. The way for users +to have control over their own computing is to do it by running their +own copies of a free program. Using someone else's server to do that +computing implies losing control of it.

+ +

SaaSS is equivalent to using a nonfree program with surveillance features +and a universal back door, so you should reject +it and replace it with a free program that does the same job.

+ +

However, most services' principal functions are communicating or +publishing information; they are nothing like running any program +yourself, so they are not SaaSS. They could not be replaced by your copy of a +program, either; a program running in your own computers, used solely +by you and isolated from others, is not communicating with anyone else.

+ +

A non-SaaSS service can mistreat users by doing something +specific and unjust to the user. For instance, it could misuse the +data users send it, or collect too much data (surveillance). It could be +designed to mislead or cheat users (for instance, with “dark +patterns”). It could impose antisocial or unjust usage +conditions. +The Franklin +Street Statement made a stab at addressing these issues, but we +don't have full understanding of them as yet. What's clear is that the +issues about a service are different from the issues about a +program. Thus, for clarity's sake, it is better not to apply the terms +“free” and “nonfree” to a service.

+ +

Let's suppose a service is implemented using software: the server +operator has copies of many programs, and runs them to implement the +service. These copies may be free software or not. If the operator +developed them and uses them without distributing copies, they are +free in a trivial sense since every user (there's only one) has the +four freedoms.

+ +

If some of them are nonfree, that usually doesn't directly affect +users of the service. They are not running those programs; the service +operator is running them. In a special situation, these programs can +indirectly affect the users of the service: if the service holds +private information, users might be concerned that nonfree programs on +the server might have back doors allowing someone else to see their +data. In effect, nonfree programs on the server require users to trust +those programs' developers as well as the service operator. How +significant this is in practice depends on the details, including what +jobs the nonfree programs do.

+ +

However, the one party that is certainly mistreated by the +nonfree programs implementing the service is the server operator +herself. We don't condemn the server operator for being at the mercy +of nonfree software, and we certainly don't boycott her for this. +Rather, we are concerned for her freedom, as with any user of nonfree +software. Given an opportunity, we try to explain how it curtails her +freedom, hoping she will switch to free software.

+ +

Conversely, if the service operator runs GNU/Linux or other free +software, that's not a virtue that affects you, but rather a benefit +for her. We don't praise or thank her for this; rather we felicitate +her for making the wise choice.

+ +

If she has developed some software for the service, and released it +as free software, that's the point at which we have a reason to thank +her. We suggest releasing these programs under +the GNU Affero +GPL, since evidently they are useful on servers.

+ +

Why the Affero +GPL?

+ +

Thus, we don't have a rule that free systems shouldn't use (or +shouldn't depend on) services (or sites) implemented with nonfree +software. However, they should not depend on, suggest or encourage use +of services which are SaaSS; use of SaaSS needs to be replaced by use +of free software. All else being equal, it is good to favor those +service providers who contribute to the community by releasing useful +free software, and good to favor peer-to-peer communication over +server-based centralized communication, for activities that don't +inherently require a central hub.

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3