4 ms·

I remember rms having a strongly different view from the one he expressed in this video. Google mostly turns up mentions of him speaking against cloud computin

by mukyu 16y ago

I remember rms having a strongly different view from the one he expressed in this video. Google mostly turns up mentions of him speaking against cloud computing and such in the past few years; however, I did managed to find at least one instance in Tim O'Reilly quoting him from 1999[1]: "...a proprietary program on a web server that somebody else is running limits his freedom perhaps, but it doesn't limit your freedom or my freedom. We don't have that program on our computers at all, and in fact the issue of free software versus proprietary [only] arises for software that we're going to have on our computers and run on our computers. We're gonna have copies and the question is, what are we allowed to do with those copies? Are we just allowed to run them or are we allowed to do the other useful things that you can do with a program? If the program is running on somebody else's computer, the issue doesn't arise. Am I allowed to copy the program that Amazon has on it's computer? Well, I can't, I don't have that program at all, so it doesn't put me in a morally compromised position." 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-licenses-are-obsol.html http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/open-source-licens... e: The talk mentioned: http://tim.oreilly.com/archives/mikro_age_of_infoware.pdf http://tim.oreilly.com/archives/mikro_age_of_infoware.pdf The QA the quote comes from: http://tim.oreilly.com/archives/mikro_discussion.pdf http://tim.oreilly.com/archives/mikro_discussion.pdf

papachito 16y ago
Here is his full opinion on SaaS http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se...
- mattw 16y ago
  Thanks for the link. What I take away from it is that Stallman's full opinion on SaaS is internally inconsistent, either that or I am completely misunderstanding him. The "Distinguishing SaaS from Other Network Services" section was exceptionally incoherent; here's one quote: > 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.
  - papachito 16y ago
    > 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? 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"?
    - mattw 16y ago
      > Yes, if you don't put anything too private [on Google Docs], 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. 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.
jpablo 16y ago
Things are very different now than in 1999. 1999 we were talking a few cgis and perl script that did funny stuff. Now we have google docs and facebook. I think that is a very significant change that would account for the different view. I think the idea is the same, but the scales and implementation and hugely different.
- orblivion 16y ago
  Yes but Stallman is an unrelenting moral absolutist when it comes to software. Scales wouldn't make him change his stance, just the scale of his stance.
  - jpablo 16y ago
    But he did changed his stance. What is your point anyway ?
    - orblivion 16y ago
      Well, yes he changed his stance altogether, that's sortof what I'm saying. He's not giving a different position for a different situation, because as you said, the idea is the same. From what I've seen of him, he's not into gray areas, so this is an altogether different point of view coming from him. In other words, if you asked him today about the 90s, he would say the same thing as in this recent video.
orblivion 16y ago
This leads me to think that Free Software, while a good, ambiguous ideal, can't be made into a strict moral system because it's impossible. 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.
naner 16y ago
This is correct. O'Reilly kept harping on this issue whenever he talked to RMS but I don't think RMS could intuit the future as well as Tim could.

by mukyu 16y ago

papachito 16y ago

Here is his full opinion on SaaS http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se...

mattw 16y ago
Thanks for the link. What I take away from it is that Stallman's full opinion on SaaS is internally inconsistent, either that or I am completely misunderstanding him. The "Distinguishing SaaS from Other Network Services" section was exceptionally incoherent; here's one quote: > 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.
- papachito 16y ago
  > 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? 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"?
  - mattw 16y ago
    > Yes, if you don't put anything too private [on Google Docs], 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. 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.

jpablo 16y ago

Things are very different now than in 1999. 1999 we were talking a few cgis and perl script that did funny stuff. Now we have google docs and facebook. I think that is a very significant change that would account for the different view. I think the idea is the same, but the scales and implementation and hugely different.

orblivion 16y ago
Yes but Stallman is an unrelenting moral absolutist when it comes to software. Scales wouldn't make him change his stance, just the scale of his stance.
- jpablo 16y ago
  But he did changed his stance. What is your point anyway ?
  - orblivion 16y ago
    Well, yes he changed his stance altogether, that's sortof what I'm saying. He's not giving a different position for a different situation, because as you said, the idea is the same. From what I've seen of him, he's not into gray areas, so this is an altogether different point of view coming from him. In other words, if you asked him today about the 90s, he would say the same thing as in this recent video.

orblivion 16y ago

This leads me to think that Free Software, while a good, ambiguous ideal, can't be made into a strict moral system because it's impossible. 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.

naner 16y ago

This is correct. O'Reilly kept harping on this issue whenever he talked to RMS but I don't think RMS could intuit the future as well as Tim could.