Slashdot Mirror
SourceForge Terms of Service Change, Users Unhappy
An email fluttering around a few mailing lists has been submitted in
various forms here today. It's about changes to the SourceForge
terms of service. Some relevant links unclude the
old terms,
new terms,
old privacy statement,
new privacy statement
and
contact for "questions or concerns"
(Patrick McGovern, Site Director). Obviously since SF is owned by the
same parent company as Slashdot, I'm biased and corrupt and you should
ignore my opinions on the subject, but while
I don't particularly like this any more then anyone else, I also
don't think it's the huge deal that others are making of it. Especially
considering projects aren't paying for the free service. You get
what you pay for after all.
I have attached a summary to this article of the changes that are
being called into question if you don't want to do a mental diff
on the links above.
This list was submitted by a few different users and was apparently originally posted to several mailing lists, although I don't know who actually originally wrote it. I just quote it here for reference.
- They can henceforth change the terms without notice, just by posting the new terms on the website. (Currently they are obliged to give 15 days notice by email, a period that we are currently in for this change.)
- They can henceforth remove user accounts without giving a reason. (Currently they are obliged to have a reason, though the set of acceptable reasons is open-ended.)
- They're no longer obliged to make the contents of a deleted account available to its owner. (There was previously a "reasonable effort" clause to that effect.)
- They're no longer obliged to provide notice of changes to the privacy policy, unless the changes are "substantive". (Currently they are obliged to provide notice of any change.)
- The privacy policy is acquiring a disclaimer that amounts to "this is not true". It actually disclaims the entire privacy policy.
I host a project at sourceforge, and I've been more than happy with the service I've gotten. I have CVS space, ftp space, mailing lists, discussion boards, and web space. And as far as I can tell, they have nothing from me except for some slightly useful information from my profile.
Big whoop.
There is nothing they can take from me. I have the source code. I update my local cvs daily. The project webpage is garbage, and half of the discussions about development are in email. The greatest benefit is that the package I run has been difficult to find, and now it has a 'permanent' home.
I'd have more problems with, oh, say, Comcast changing the TOS. Or M$. Or AOL. When those guys change things, I always get the "I changed the bargain, just pray I don't alter it any further" impression. With sourceforge, I AM A LEECH. I live at the whim of my host.
If they piss me off, it's off to the FSF hosted site. No problem.
Hey, I don't like the VA Systems->Linux->Software scam. I'm part of the gang whinging about the 'post'. And I often question the integrity of folks. But sourceforge.net never promised anything, and they haven't disappointed me yet.
Nothing to see. Move along.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
1. The privacy policy is acquiring a disclaimer that amounts to "this is not true". It actually disclaims the entire privacy policy.
To say that the clause at the end claims the privacy policy is "not true" is pretty simplistic. It attempts to avoid iablility for circumstances beyond their control, which is a far cry from disclaiming the entire thing.
In other words if armed men break into our facilities and steal our database and sell it to spammers, or our daatabase administrator gets a brain tumor and tries to "MAKE MONEY FAST!", we think we shouldn't be sued.
NO GUARANTEES
While this Privacy Statement expresses SourceForge.net's standards for maintenance of private data, SourceForge.net is not in a position to guarantee that the standards will always be met. There may be factors beyond our control that may result in disclosure of data. As a consequence, SourceForge.net disclaims any warranties or representations relating to maintenance or nondisclosure of private information.
Since I don't think we're dealing with an vast evil corporate conspiracy here, I don't think the proper reading of this is "these statements are not true."
Basically they're protecting themselves against crackers. If someone steals the password list, they aren't responsible. I don't think that this means they're going lax on security or forgetting about privacy, it just means that shit happens, and they don't want to be sued.
As to the rest of the changes: this is their perrogative. They don't have to warn you about service changes. And if that fact alone bothers you, you can take your (non-paying) business elsewhere. It's how they use this priviledge that matters, and I don't think that they are going to radically alter their service in an attempt to scam users.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Check out savannah...here. Download the software its run on. Put that on your computer. Then you have the project on your own server. That's the idea of free software.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
You get what you pay for after all.
... and I can relate, as I have some libertarian leanings myself), then I suggest you consider, with an open mind, the implications of applying one set of assumptions (scarcity and greed driving a free, self-organizing market) vs. the actual conditions (a fundamental lack of scarcity in the electronic world) which may well make those assumptions invalid in the context in which you are trying to apply them.
... we are dealing with an area that interfaces the (cyber)world of virtually unlimited abundance (virtually zero-cost copying) and the physical world of scarcity. It is along this interface that the most interesting problems and opportunities are going to arise (and the area the copyright cartels would be concentrating on if they had any intelligence, rather than trying to use authoritarian laws to impose their business model on a world which lacks the scarcity they require).
Amazing. Now I understand why the slashdot editors really appear to not "get" a lot of fundamental things, like the ongoing, direct harm the Copyright Cartels (Hollywood and the music industry in particular) are doing to free software.
"You get what you pay for," is demonstrably a myth. (c.f. GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, non-paid sex, love be it familial or romantic, and as a counter example underscoring the very same point, Windows vis-a-vis quality, used cars, enron stock, and so on ad nauseum.). Air is the most valuable substance to any living, breathing human. Don't believe me? Try going ten minutes without it. Yet it costs nothing.
With free software you don't "get what you pay for," you get what many thousands have contributed to a public commons to give themselves and you, with a resulting value far greater than any single enterprise could possibly offer. These contributions are often completely unrelated to any economic value as defined in the traditional market sense, and are only very indirectly related to any sort of free market or monetary value at all.
If you don't understand this (because of your libertarian bent of capitalism ueber alles, perhaps
In this particular case the area is more gray
I should point out that the Free Software Foundation's GNU project offers a similar service to sourceforge called Savannah, which I highly recommend. Will the laws of supply and demand as created out of scarcity apply, or are there enough willing donars, and enough inexpensive (or free) resources available that the laws of plenty will apply? In this gray area the answer is probably both yes, and no, depending on local circumstances and conditions.
In any event, the notion that "you get what you pay for" has been disproven numerous times in the physical world of scarcity-driven capitalism (ask any number of people who have purchased property or used automobiles, only to have their worth drop to zero, or climb insanely, in no relation to "what they paid for"), and in the abundant sphere of free software is demonstrably inapplicable in nearly every case.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
1. They can henceforth change the terms without notice, just by posting the new terms on the website. (Currently they are obliged to give 15 days notice by email, a period that we are currently in for this change.)
It is a free service... if they want to change something should they be shackled by having to email all the users to change anything?
2. They can henceforth remove user accounts without giving a reason. (Currently they are obliged to have a reason, though the set of acceptable reasons is open-ended.)
They avoid leagle entanglement for said free service... People abuse free systems, they need to be delt with quickly and effectivly.
3. They're no longer obliged to make the contents of a deleted account available to its owner. (There was previously a "reasonable effort" clause to that effect.)
The users should have local backups... this is more then resonable.
4. They're no longer obliged to provide notice of changes to the privacy policy, unless the changes are "substantive". (Currently they are obliged to provide notice of any change.)
Hmmm, some web notice would be nice... but again it is a free service...
5. The privacy policy is acquiring a disclaimer that amounts to "this is not true". It actually disclaims the entire privacy policy.
Well, if you bother to read (and comprehend) the policy you should know what you are in for, again it is a free service...
Have you read Hotmail Terms of Use?
You know they have your best interest at heart.
~Sean
Also, considering SourceForge is their product and SourceForge.net is a great demo of their functionality/scalability they'd have to be looking to sell the whole SourceForge business, not just SourceForge.net for it to make sense... Logical buyers would probably be RedHat or IBM. It would be a PR coo for whoever buys it, and if it's IBM and they move it over to their hardware it'd be a REALLY good marketing point... especially for their new Linux mainframe...
Nothing like fanning the flames of random speculation =)
.technomancer
"Open and Free" has nothing to do with the amount you pay. Especially for a service.
Did CmdrTaco, one of the helmsmen of the most popular Free/OS news sites in existence just mimic what Microsoft PR/FUD machine has been saying since Linux showed up on its threat radar?
I was thinking something along those same lines, but then I remembered that he's talking about a service that it costs money to continue providing. He's not talking about source code or software, he's talking about a website providing a service.
There is a very big difference.
We're lucky to live in a time when people are giving away their code, but we're luckier still to live in a time when there are SO many entirely free (except for ads) web services.
All the same, free or not, I can't think of an above-the-board reason a why site would need a policy allowing it to change it's terms of use without first notifying it's users. That just seems low down and shady.
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
If you're gonna offer something for free... then you can do it however you damn well please. What is this "right" crap you guys keep talking about? You mean acceptable by your standards? Geez don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
And in case you didn't know... alot of the volunteer housing projects aren't exactly examples of fine craftsmanship... but it is the BEST people can offer. they are trying to help and make a difference. So shut up and take it... or shut up and dont' take it... or speak up and DO something about it. What have you done?
I ate my sig.