4 ms·
You might not have expected it, but privacy protection is not any sort of obligation encoded in any extant concept of Free Software.
by moron4hire 6y ago
You might not have expected it, but privacy protection is not any sort of obligation encoded in any extant concept of Free Software.
- gowld 6y agoIt has nothing to do with Free Software. I'd expect the same treatment if I were paying Microsoft to run Oracle for me.
- moron4hire 6y agoSo you didn't read the ToS, I take it? I did. I do whenever it's something important to the company's infrastructure. Canonical is the one at fault here for not adhering to Microsoft's guidelines. But Microsoft put the warning on the package. I mean, it's kind of ridiculous to think that you could do anything in a cloud environment system and not have your actions tracked. Hell, with automated load balancing and load-based billing, that's literally what you're signing up for.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoFree software is about user empowerment, and the ability for users to be hackers if they want to (or employ people to make changes on their behalf). “Sike, we've been stalking you and you can't do anything about it” is antithetical to this ideal. Privacy protection is not an obligation, but transparency and openness is. Yes, you're not contractually required to not make a separate computer system that's proprietary and closed and disempowering, but that's so pedantic as to be malicious.