Stallman raises good points about the security issues with SaaS (i.e. contracts don't matter if you don't know when they are breached) But the alternative he re

Stallman raises good points about the security issues with SaaS (i.e. contracts don't matter if you don't know when they are breached) But the alternative he recommends is impractical. I don't know of any normal non-tech business that are end to end OSS (even a majority OSS is rare). Businesses don't want to run their own servers and have large IT shops, but they do want the sun/moon/stars in services. SaaS promises to deliver what they've wanted for years. It will take more than a security risk to dissuade businesses from using SaaS. It certainly didn't stop them from using proprietary software. I wonder if the goals of Stallman/GNU/FSF/Anti-DRM/Patent folks are actually in opposition. Imagine if DRM was flawless? Paid OSS could be more common without risk to the publisher. IT shops would have more of a means to insist that vendors provide source for independent security review.