Stallman on SaaS [video]
mashable.com
mashable.com
At some point the FSF started pushing for the Affero GPL, which does not seem to be sufficient as now he says it should be avoided even in the case where you do have the source code.
I cannot think of any significant changes in the idea of software as a service over time that would account for such different views on it.
[1] http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/open-source-licens...
e:
The talk mentioned: http://tim.oreilly.com/archives/mikro_age_of_infoware.pdf
The QA the quote comes from: http://tim.oreilly.com/archives/mikro_discussion.pdf
> Multiplayer games are a group activity carried out on someone else's server, which makes them SaaS. But where the data involved is just the state of play and the score, the worst wrong the operator might commit is favoritism. You might well ignore that risk, since it seems unlikely and very little is at stake. On the other hand, when the game becomes more than just a game, the issue changes.
So, SaaS is okay so long as the "risks" are sufficiently small? Who defines that risk, me? So that makes it okay for me to use Google Docs, since I deem the risk of Google doing something evil with my documents to be small? (Well, no, because Stallman explicitly calls out Docs as unacceptable. So I guess I better not use that.)
Or from the conclusion:
> Don't buy or install “thin clients”, which are simply computers so weak they make you do the real work on a server, unless you're going to use them with your server.
...thus violating the "essential freedoms" of anyone who uses your thin clients?
This is (one of the reasons) why it's so hard to take Stallman and his "four essential freedoms" seriously.
Yes, if you don't put anything too private in there, it's ok (according to him), he also said in another interview that it's ok to use Facebook as long as you don't put any private stuff there.
> ...thus violating the "essential freedoms" of anyone who uses your thin clients?
Could you explain why it violates "essential freedoms"?
Actually, he says the opposite. Docs was his "clear example" of SaaS:
Which online services are SaaS? Google Docs is a clear example. Its basic activity is editing, and Google encourages people to use it for their own editing; this is SaaS.
And, of course: "don't yield; don't use SaaS". So Google Docs is out, regardless of what goes on it.
> Could you explain why it violates "essential freedoms"?
Because according to him you should never do "your" computing on anyone else's machine. Since he says it's okay to set up thin clients if they're using your server, I guess he must have meant you can set up a bunch of thin clients for yourself to use, since if anyone else used them they'd be using someone else's (your) server to do their computing.
Of course, he also says it can be okay if you sufficiently trust the person running the server (provided it's a person and not a company)...which again is not consistent, because even if you trust the operator you don't have the ability "to study and change the source code so it does what you wish", which is one of his "essential freedoms".
The whole essay left me with the impression that Stallman was just trying to avoid being completely written off by sane people (in the unlikely event that hasn't already happened). This was actually a surprise, because it previously seemed abundantly clear to me that Stallman didn't care at all what other people think. But since SaaS so obviously provides vast benefits in some cases, and people naturally want to take advantage of those benefits, he has to find loopholes in his philosophy instead of taking the hard line of consistency. This inevitably results in contradictions, because his premises were not reasonable to begin with.
I think the idea is the same, but the scales and implementation and hugely different.
Stallman is right on both counts. Software running on another computer isn't unfree to you, you just have to be careful what you send to it. And, there's really no difference between that and having a server running proprietary software in your living room. Or on a guest user account on the same computer. Really if you treat proprietary software as a dangerous black box it's no different from interacting with the outside world. So, unless you never send data to the outside world, you can't reach the ideal.
Question of the day: Is reputation among hackers enough to keep tech companies honest? I think for the smart companies the answer is Yes.
there are no tech companies! there are advertising, media, luxury goods etc. companies. Tech is just what drives their business, as many other businesses, just slightly more noticeably.
Second thing - free software - you have no control of the app when it's run by the service provider. Again - reality is that most of the people can not read code and sourcode or even executable binary is almost equal to 90% of the population. Biggest advantage of SaaS is that it can provide value that normal "behind the firewall" software can not match. What kind of value? I.e. cost reduction (thanks to consolidation effect). This leads us to the democratization of access to the computing power/software power - and it's, after all, what Stallman is all about, right?
Potentially this can mean that the user is totally disempowered - effectively they're no longer using a "personal computer", and their computer might be operating primarily for the benefit of someone other than the user.
His standard may not be completely unrealistic, but it is borderline and would make my life and work, pretty inconvenient.
But I think the issues around Facebook and the iPhone show the rising walled-garden environments we see today have serious issues concerning one's control of one's data.
Another common point is that they adore the guy sticking to his believes. You know what, believes can be wrong too…
His is way out simply because his needs and thinking is waaaay different from ordinary people (software users). I couldn't care less how proprietary is equipment in my car, all I want is it to run smoothly. On the other hand mechanic servicing my car couldn't care less what powers his computer as long as it does what he needs.
I am sure there will be a lot hand waving about the greater good without any demonstration of such good.
I don't think any radical idea was ever good.
What? Something that seems radical today is the norm of tomorrow.
Columbus looking for new trade routes was radical, but good. Ending world hunger is a pretty radical idea, but it will be good. Being an entrepreneur is radical.
Although, how radical the idea was pretty dependent on the lost knowledge of Eratosthenes and the black plague cutting off the Mongol lands.
The FSF exists to provide balance: remember we have companies radically promoting proprietary software, we just don't notice it because that's what companies normally do. The FSF promoting free software seems a little odd because they're not a company and the software is free, however it's not really any different.
There's absolutely no chance of proprietary software disappearing (at least in capitalist countries), but without Stallman free software might have been much less popular.
Fortunes are made every day by people and companies using OSS, but so rare is the open-source millionaire (or even sole operator eeking out a living) that they're largely exceptions that prove the rule.
So, keeping software proprietary isn't strictly necessary for making money, but the correlation is so strong as to make any alternative interpretation moot.