taler-merchant-demos

network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html (11520B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural ns" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>Network Services Aren't Free or Nonfree; They Raise Other Issues
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Network Services Aren't Free or Nonfree; They Raise Other Issues</h2>
 
 <address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
 Stallman</a></address>
 
 <div class="introduction">
 <p><em>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.</em></p>
 </div>
 
 <p>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 <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> have the four freedoms for
 your copy</a> or you don't.  If you don't, that program does a
 specific kind of injustice to you, simply because it is nonfree.</p>
 
 <p>The copyright holders of a nonfree program can cure that injustice
 in a simple, clear way: release the same source code under a free
 software license.  Convincing them to <em>do</em> this
 may be difficult, but the action itself is straightforward.</p>
 
 <p>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.  Lacking a copy to modify, the user can't
 modify it either.  As a result, the four freedoms that define free
 software don't make sense for services.  It is meaningless to say that
 the service is &ldquo;nonfree,&rdquo; or that it is
 &ldquo;free.&rdquo; That distinction makes no sense, for services.</p>
 
 <p>That does not mean that the service treats users justly.  Quite the
 contrary&mdash;many services do wrong to their users, in various
 ways, and we call them &ldquo;dis-services&rdquo;&mdash;but there is no
 simple universal fix for this, comparable to that for a nonfree
 program (to release it as free software so users can run and control
 their copies and their versions).</p>
 
 <p>To use a culinary analogy, my way of cooking can't be a copy of
 your way of cooking, not even if I learned to cook by watching you. I
 might have and use a copy of the <em>recipe</em> you use to do your
 cooking, because a recipe, like a program, is a work and exists in
 copies, but your recipe is not the same as your way of cooking.  (And
 neither of those is the same as the food produced by your
 cooking.)</p>
 
 <p>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.</p>
 
 <p>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 <a href="/philosophy/javascript-trap.html">
 JavaScript code</a> silently installed in the user's
 browser. The <a href="/software/librejs">GNU LibreJS</a> 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.</p>
 
 <p>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 <abbr title="Service as a Software
 Substitute">SaaSS</abbr> (we coined that to be less vague and
 general than &ldquo;Software as a Service&rdquo;), 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.</p>
 
 <p>SaaSS is equivalent to using a nonfree program with surveillance features 
 and a universal back door, so <a 
 href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">you should reject 
 it and replace it with a free program</a> that does the same job.</p>
 
 <p>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.</p>
 
 <p>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 &ldquo;dark
 patterns&rdquo;).  It could impose antisocial or unjust usage
 conditions.
 The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090124084811/http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/">Franklin
 Street Statement</a> 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 <em>different</em> from the issues about a
 program. Thus, for clarity's sake, it is better not to apply the terms
 &ldquo;free&rdquo; and &ldquo;nonfree&rdquo; to a service.</p>
 
 <p>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.</p>
 
 <p>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.</p>
 
 <p>However, the one party that is <em>certainly</em> 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.</p>
 
 <p>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.</p>
 
 <p>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 <a href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html">GNU Affero
 GPL</a>, since evidently they are useful on servers.</p>
 
 <p><a href="/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html">Why the Affero
 GPL?</a></p>
 
 <p>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.</p>
 </div>
 
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
 <div class="unprintable">
 
 <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
 the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
         replace it with the translation of these two:
 
         We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
         translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
         Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
         to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
         <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
         our web pages, see <a
         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
         README</a>. -->
 Please see the <a
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
 of this article.</p>
 </div>
 
 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
      files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
      be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
      without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
      Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
      document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
      document was modified, or published.
      
      If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
      Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
      years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
      year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
      being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
      
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
 
 <p>Copyright &copy; 2012-2014, 2020, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
 
 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
 $Date: 2021/09/19 16:26:24 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>