On 2018-03-09, Dashamir Hoxha wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Laura Arjona Reina <larj...@debian.org> > wrote: >> > What does it even mean "a non-free service"? >> >> A canonical definition may be difficult, but I think that we can agree >> that at least, all the services for which their "core" software (core in >> the sense of the service that they provide, different than other similar >> services) is non-free, can be called "non-free services". >> > > No, I don't agree at all. It does not seem so simple or intuitive to me. > > >> Interested people can have a look at >> http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Franklin_Street_Statement_on_ >> Freedom_and_Network_Services >> for some ideas about free/nonfree services. >> > > Right, the ideas of "a workgroup" of anonymous people, some 10 years ago, > that were never discussed, supported or confirmed by anyone else.
The simple fact that someone is referencing it suggests that there is support and confirmation from at least one person, and given the related comments from several other people, I suspect at least a few more. Here's another one with similar aims: https://opendefinition.org/ossd/ > The "freedom" in free-software is about the freedom of people to do with > the software whatever they want: use it, study, customize, distribute, etc. > > When it comes to services these things are not relevant anymore because > the program runs on the computers of the service-provider. Some other > things become relevant in this case, like: > - The privacy of the user. > - The security (protection) of the account and the data of the user. > - The ownership of the user data. What are allowed the user and the > service provider to do with them. > - Can a user make a backup of all his data? > - Can a user transfer his account and his data to another service-provider > or is it locked-in? > - Can a user delete all his data and his account? (The right to be > forgotten.) > - Can a user interact easily with users from other service-providers? All those things sound great! The above referenced article attempts to address *exactly* these sorts of issues... > Developing software on your spare time might be Ok. But offering a service > on your spare time is a completely different thing. Because it is inevitable > that sometime there will be something that needs to be fixed immediately > on the system, but you cannot do it because you have other more important > obligations. With that kind of attitude, Debian would never even started and sustained itself for nearly 25 years... While biting off more than you can chew is definitely something to be concerned about, I don't understand how pressuring people to use services that they consider to be non-free services (and therefore undesireable to them) is appropriate in the context of Debian. Especially when multiple parties have said "no, thank you." or simply "no." more than once. Debian has a strong history of self-hosting nearly all services it provides, and that seems like a healthy thing in an increasingly centralized world. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
