3 ms·

I feel like it's a long list of fairly standard complaints about Google, when really the objection could just be "the server-side code is non-free". For exampl

I feel like it's a long list of fairly standard complaints about Google, when really the objection could just be "the server-side code is non-free". For example, He spends a lot of time talking about the You Tube JavaScript code, while not talking about the You Tube server code. Which seems backwards to me. It seems to me that the JavaScript part, while not licensed, is closer to free software (you can read it etc) than the server side. The tracking of information, privacy issues and so on seem unrelated to Free Software and are just a laundry list of bad corporate behaviour, which aren't a secret (and can be easily sumarized.) Frankly there are so many reasons to avoid Google that have nothing to do with the notion of Free Software, that the JavaScript license part is irrelevant. It's like saying that smoking kills you, and the packaging also sux. So I guess his page covers all the bases, but if bad corporate behaviour is the new Stallman Standard, then I guess pretty much any company is off limits.

nextaccountic 4y ago
> when really the objection could just be "the server-side code is non-free". That's exactly it. The move to cloud / saas is very convenient as a way to alienate software users from the software. You can use it, but only in pre-approved ways. You can use it but only until the software gets cancelled (when that happens nobody else can use anymore, instantly). You can use it but don't ever think about modifying it for your needs. Actually Stallman himself talks about this (like rebranding saas as "service as a software substitute" [0] rather than "software as a service") and that's really the crucial point, all the rest follows from Google's utter control of the software. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
- bruce511 4y ago
  I get that. So the long diatribe about Google (or any SaaS) is unnecessary. Whole article could be reduced to "see SaaS".
pyuser583 4y ago
“Free” in Stallmans sense is only an issue once the product is distributed. Being deployed server-side doesn’t usually count. If you keep it to yourself, even extreme copyleft licenses don’t require you to share changes.
- bruce511 4y ago
  For some definition of distributed. I think Stallman has a (reasonable) problem with any SaaS that isn't AGPL. (and even with AGPL, code without data is meaningless). >>If you keep it to yourself, even extreme copyleft licenses don’t require you to share changes. Assuming it's public, like YouTube, AGPL requires you to publish server-side code.
- nextaccountic 4y ago
  > “Free” in Stallmans sense is only an issue once the product is distributed. > Being deployed server-side doesn’t usually count. It's only an issue if the software has users. Whether those users interact with the software locally or through a remote server makes isn't important for him. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... (written by him)
omoikane 4y ago
> pretty much any company is off limits Maybe. I see a list of "what's bad about <company name>" on the front page of stallman.org, but I have yet to find a "what's good about <company name>" page. Although this is not necessarily specific to Stallman, there seemed to be an order of magnitude more people complaining about companies than endorsing them. Stallman at least has some positive restaurant reviews.
yarg 4y ago
The most fundamental line that google crossed for me was the vendor licensing agreement for android. The license prohibited vendors from forking android and an NDA prohibited the release of the licensing terms. Anything else they did, I knew they were doing it; but gmail was just too damned convenient.

nextaccountic 4y ago

> when really the objection could just be "the server-side code is non-free". That's exactly it. The move to cloud / saas is very convenient as a way to alienate software users from the software. You can use it, but only in pre-approved ways. You can use it but only until the software gets cancelled (when that happens nobody else can use anymore, instantly). You can use it but don't ever think about modifying it for your needs. Actually Stallman himself talks about this (like rebranding saas as "service as a software substitute" [0] rather than "software as a service") and that's really the crucial point, all the rest follows from Google's utter control of the software. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

bruce511 4y ago
I get that. So the long diatribe about Google (or any SaaS) is unnecessary. Whole article could be reduced to "see SaaS".

pyuser583 4y ago

“Free” in Stallmans sense is only an issue once the product is distributed. Being deployed server-side doesn’t usually count. If you keep it to yourself, even extreme copyleft licenses don’t require you to share changes.

bruce511 4y ago
For some definition of distributed. I think Stallman has a (reasonable) problem with any SaaS that isn't AGPL. (and even with AGPL, code without data is meaningless). >>If you keep it to yourself, even extreme copyleft licenses don’t require you to share changes. Assuming it's public, like YouTube, AGPL requires you to publish server-side code.
nextaccountic 4y ago
> “Free” in Stallmans sense is only an issue once the product is distributed. > Being deployed server-side doesn’t usually count. It's only an issue if the software has users. Whether those users interact with the software locally or through a remote server makes isn't important for him. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... (written by him)

omoikane 4y ago

> pretty much any company is off limits Maybe. I see a list of "what's bad about <company name>" on the front page of stallman.org, but I have yet to find a "what's good about <company name>" page. Although this is not necessarily specific to Stallman, there seemed to be an order of magnitude more people complaining about companies than endorsing them. Stallman at least has some positive restaurant reviews.

yarg 4y ago

The most fundamental line that google crossed for me was the vendor licensing agreement for android. The license prohibited vendors from forking android and an NDA prohibited the release of the licensing terms. Anything else they did, I knew they were doing it; but gmail was just too damned convenient.