It's not a blanket condemnation of getting your email from an email provider.
I have not pretended it is. Sending/receiving email is not SaaSS. My point
only is, well, what I wrote: "You can never have control over a service
someone else runs".
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve makes that
same point, several times, e.g.:
For the server operator's sake, the programs on the server had better be
free; if they are proprietary, their developers/owners have power over the
server. That's unfair to the server operator, and doesn't help the server's
users at all. But if the programs on the server are free, that doesn't
protect the server's users from the effects of SaaSS. These programs liberate
the server operator, but not the server's users.
Releasing the server software source code does benefit the community: it
enables suitably skilled users to set up similar servers, perhaps changing
the software. We recommend using the GNU Affero GPL as the license for
programs often used on servers.
But none of these servers would give you control over computing you do on it,
unless it's your server (one whose software load you control, regardless of
whether the machine is your property).
That said,
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html is
definitely a better reference. RMS clearly explains there why "the four
freedoms that define free software don't make sense for services":
What's clear is that the issues about a service are different from the issues
about a program. Thus, for clarity's sake, it is better not to apply the
terms “free” and “nonfree” to a service.
Let's suppose a service is implemented using software: the server operator
has copies of many programs, and runs them to implement the service. These
copies may be free software or not. If the operator developed them and uses
them without distributing copies, they are free in a trivial sense since
every user (there's only one) has the four freedoms.
If some of them are nonfree, that usually doesn't directly affect users of
the service. They are not running those programs; the service operator is
running them. In a special situation, these programs can indirectly affect
the users of the service: if the service holds private information, users
might be concerned that nonfree programs on the server might have back doors
allowing someone else to see their data. In effect, nonfree programs on the
server require users to trust those programs' developers as well as the
service operator. How significant this is in practice depends on the details,
including what jobs the nonfree programs do.
However, the one party that is certainly mistreated by the nonfree programs
implementing the service is the server operator herself. We don't condemn the
server operator for being at the mercy of nonfree software, and we certainly
don't boycott her for this. Rather, we are concerned for her freedom, as with
any user of nonfree software. Given an opportunity, we try to explain how it
curtails her freedom, hoping she will switch to free software.
Conversely, if the service operator runs GNU/Linux or other free software,
that's not a virtue that affects you, but rather a benefit for her. We don't
praise or thank her for this; rather we felicitate her for making the wise
choice.
