RMS Says "Software As a Service" Is Non-free

BillyG noted an RMS interview where he says "'Software as a service' means that you think of a particular server as doing your computing for you. If that's what the server does, you must not use it! If you do your computing on someone else's server, you hand over control of your computing to whoever controls the server. It is like running binary-only software, only worse: it's even harder for you to patch the program that's running on someone else's server than it is to patch a binary copy of a program running on your own computer. Just like non-free software, 'software as a service' is incompatible with your freedom."

Comments

I must not use it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try and stop me, Emperor Neckbeard.

Re:I must not use it?

[impaledsunset]

I believe he uses the word "must" as in "you must not try to check if your gas tank with a lighter". You are free to do so, but he wants to tell you that it is a bad idea. And in his opinion, it is a ridiculously bad idea. It is certainly worse than proprietary software, and we all know what he thinks of that.

I would have to agree with him. Preferring software as a service vs. software running on your machine is a bad idea. It might be convinient in many cases, but you shouldn't trust a third party with your data and your work, especially when you can avoid it. It might not look that bad, but as you already have the tools on your computer, it's not worth it even if the issues don't look like a big deal to you.

This does not apply in each case you use 'software as a service'. Examples of acceptable use of software running on someone else's server would include using Slashdot for news discussion, using web hosting services and using GNU Savannah for your software project. His point is not to use Google Docs to edit your private documents, and not to use Gmail to send your private mails, or to be more specific - not to let them become a replacement for your office suite and mail client/server.

Of course, avoiding any software services is nuts, it is not needed, and it is not even possible. And running a program on your friend's server doesn't hurt, either. You should, however, be well aware of the risks. Unfortunately, in many cases you have to trust your data to a third party. Read stories about leaked private information here lately? Then I say you shouldn't let your word processing and spreadsheet needs become a part of those cases. Simply don't do it.

Re:I must not use it?

[Decameron81]

I believe he uses the word "must" as in "you must not try to check if your gas tank with a lighter". You are free to do so, but he wants to tell you that it is a bad idea. And in his opinion, it is a ridiculously bad idea. It is certainly worse than proprietary software, and we all know what he thinks of that.

I would have to agree with him. Preferring software as a service vs. software running on your machine is a bad idea. It might be convinient in many cases, but you shouldn't trust a third party with your data and your work, especially when you can avoid it. It might not look that bad, but as you already have the tools on your computer, it's not worth it even if the issues don't look like a big deal to you.

This does not apply in each case you use 'software as a service'. Examples of acceptable use of software running on someone else's server would include using Slashdot for news discussion, using web hosting services and using GNU Savannah for your software project. His point is not to use Google Docs to edit your private documents, and not to use Gmail to send your private mails, or to be more specific - not to let them become a replacement for your office suite and mail client/server.

Of course, avoiding any software services is nuts, it is not needed, and it is not even possible. And running a program on your friend's server doesn't hurt, either. You should, however, be well aware of the risks. Unfortunately, in many cases you have to trust your data to a third party. Read stories about leaked private information here lately? Then I say you shouldn't let your word processing and spreadsheet needs become a part of those cases. Simply don't do it.

I totally disagree. I realize there may be some inconveniences with using online services sometimes, but we should try and face the challenges to solve those issues, instead of simply tagging them as evil.

If there are privacy issues, we should look for ways to avoid them, by using cryptography or legistlation where necessary.

It's all about progress. We wouldn't be doing ourselves a favor by just rejecting it. We should embrace it and fix whatever issues show up in the way.

Dupe?

[maccallr]

Seems uncannily like this story from a month ago: Richard Stallman Warns About Non-Free Web Apps

Re:Dupe?

[Jurily]

Seems uncannily like this story from a month ago: Richard Stallman Warns About Non-Free Web Apps

Newsflash! RMS has the same opinion he had a month ago!

Re:Dupe?

[Sockatume]

On reflection, it seems that RMS has reached the conclusion that software freedom is beneficial, therefore the absence of software freedom is harmful, and furthermore that any absence of software freedom is unacceptable. I look forward to him publishing future articles from a home-built, hand-fabricated microcomputer, or perhaps some sort of elaborate open-source mechanical turing machine, when he decides that nonfree microcode is unacceptable. ;)

Re:Dupe?

[ShieldW0lf]

If you agreed with RMS in principle, and wanted to create a SAAS business that is ethical, how would you do it?

Because really, it's the entrapment that makes it non-ethical, not the collaboration.

Making sure your users are able to get copies of their data in a useful format that are complete enough for them to walk away from you is an obvious one. Using an entirely open source stack and releasing any changes and improvements you make back to the community is another, more indirect one.

What other steps might you take?

Seems to me, releasing your entire source tree wouldn't necessarily be relevant for a lot of web apps, because they're more about representing network effects and business relationships on a grand scale, and are only useful if you wish to also be a service provider. Giving someone the source code that makes eBay run isn't going to be particularly useful if all they want to do is sell used merchandise.

Anyone got any clever ideas?

Obviously!

[RiotingPacifist]

I'm no RMS fan (GPL2 all the way) but isn't this shit obvious?
The only point in software as a service's defense, is that at least you know you don't own the software.

Re:Obviously!

[Lumpy]

no it's not.

I had a customer just last week ask for us to get his backups from carbonite. I was confused and he said," I stopped paying for it a month ago, I want the copies of my backups from them."

I had to explain to him that you cant go to the car wash and demand the dirt off your car given to you after the wash cycle. It's gone, they delete all of it when you stop paying them.

He still did not fully understand it. And this is a college educated business owner.

"that's unprofessional of them to delete MY data."

Re:Obviously!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Nobody has any intentions of stopping you from doing so. RMS merely recommends that you don't. I've never understood why that raises so much ire. Were he proposing coercive measures to stop you, I'd see it; but (correctly) noting that, if you use SaS, you have fuck all control over the software is simply true.

Re:Obviously!

[Registered Coward v2]

Well it is a bit unprofessional. As a backup company they should keep the backup on hand for a period of time (probably 6 months) before deleting it. I mean at least then you can charge for several months of service at once and possibly a graveyard fee, that is dusting off the backups of your backups to get the data accessible. You might come off as a bit of an asshole but at least you'll have saved the day.

While that may be a good idea in general it can also cause problems as well; unless what they do is specifically called out in the contract.

For example:

If the owner assumed the information was deleted when the account was canceled; if they discover you kept the data they may get upset and decide to sue.

If they cancel and you still have the data and they get involved in litigation you may then get dragged in and have to provide the data. Who pays for the recovery? Or, if you delete at some later date you might be in trouble for "obstructing Justice" if criminal acts are involved.

You don't delete it for some period of time after the contract expires; but for some reason you lose the data. Who's responsible for recovering it?

Far fetched? Maybe. But why risk it. Delete it when the contract expires and move on. Why take the risk?

Re:Obviously!

[marco.antonio.costa]

That is, he believes every computer user is enough of a hacker to compile and run all the software they will ever need.

Yes! I mean, what the fuck is he thinking?! I'm not a damned hacker who can type a document in OpenOffice and save it to - of ALL PLACES - my LOCAL machine!

This man should have a haircut and shave mandated by law enforcement!

Talk about fallacies...

Congratulations to RMS...

[AKAImBatman]

...for spotting the major con of software as a service. I'm sure companies and individuals considering the use of such services will now weigh this con against the pros and develop an informed decision about whether or not a given service is right for them.

For services where personal data is kept, I'm sure that concepts like security, trustworthiness, and portability of data are key concerns.

Re:Congratulations to RMS...

[Bigjeff5]

Is it really a con?

I always thought the whole idea of SAS was simply shifting and consolodating the effort of creating and servicing software to (hopefully) lower costs. Not eliminate them. Kinda like call centers for help desk support (they usually manage multiple companies' help desks at one center), only it's serving your software. Honestly, who said paying someone else to serve software for you to use would be free? There's a contradiction in that statement if they did.

I'm surprised anybody needed to point this out. It blows my mind. And calling it a con? I'll bet they never thought anybody would be dumb enough to think it's free! Even at the most basic level.

Wow.

Re:Congratulations to RMS...

[AKAImBatman]

I always thought the whole idea of SAS was simply shifting and consolodating the effort of creating and servicing software to (hopefully) lower costs. Not eliminate them.

That would be under the pros category.

There are a lot of advantages to having someone else host your data. But there are also risks. Which RMS did put his finger on, but he's far from the first to do so. If anything, he's blowing the whole thing WAY out of proportion. (Thus the mildly sarcastic tone of my post.)

My basic issue with RMS's logic is that he doesn't want to trust anyone. Because if you don't trust anyone, you can't be double-crossed. Right?

The only problem is, society cannot operate without trust. At some point I have to trust someone else to handle a repetitive task, least I needlessly waste my time. Not to mention the myriad of skills I'd need for basic survival!

Think of it this way: Without trust, we would all be too busy farming, hunting, building our own homes, fabbing our own materials, and providing our own healthcare. Technology would go absolutely nowhere, because just one of those items is a full time job. Anyone not skilled enough in any of those trades would probably suffer a horrible death from starvation, disease, exposure, or predators. Even if people share discoveries ala the GPL, who would have time to examine and build upon the discoveries?

Thankfully, we trust each other. At least enough to where I let someone else farm the food, someone else build my house, someone else provide medical attention to myself and family, etc. I pay for those services with the expectation that my food will not be poison, my house is safe to occupy, and my doctor is a skilled medical practitioner. Society has a number of checks and balances to help verify those levels of trust, and thus we arrive at "good enough".

If there's anything I've learned over the years, save for a small percentage of exceptions, "good enough" is many orders of magnitude better than "superior". :-)

The World doesn't care

[prayag]

RMS is right of course. Software as a service is not free and one should always be at guard while using them.

Having said that, it is also important to realize that general public does not care, if its free. If you just ask them, "Do not use it." It does not help the cause. Shouldn't you instead try to educate them and warn them of the pitfalls ?

The world is not black and white. And software as a service is here to stay. When would RMS realize that ?

Re:The World doesn't care

[mr crypto]

Agreed. RMS's advice seems to be to run your own server, but how many people can or will do that? If he presented a viable alternative for the masses I'd be more sympathetic.

No need for him to lift a finger

[SuperKendall]

The first hiccup in your company internet connection will have you scrambling to replace many of the services you signed up for...

Re:No need for him to lift a finger

[EastCoastSurfer]

Maybe we shouldn't rely on phone service or power service either then. Last time I checked phones were more critical to most companies than being able to access the internet.

You simply need to recognize the risk if you internet goes down and have back up plans to work around it.

Re:No need for him to lift a finger

[Nerdfest]

As with mutual funds ... past performance is not an indication of future performance.

Then again, even if you can perform your work, not being able to communicate with anyone may render it useless in many cases as well.

Re:No need for him to lift a finger

[Kell Bengal]

When did you last check? 1992?

Re:No need for him to lift a finger

[Skuld-Chan]

I supported an SAAS app which did point of sale/accounting. Trust me - 30 minutes without internet makes people freak - especially when they can't sell anything.

It came to the point where most of our customers had modems they could use as backups if their net connection went offline and our bigger customers had frame relay connections directly to our customer network.

C'mon . . . Just a taste?

[MarkvW]

I've got some really neat cloud for you. I'll set you up real cheap, free even . . .. You're gonna like this stuff. C'mon, give it a try. You won't get hooked . . ..

You can always quit later . . .

Re:Ever get the feeling that....

[Seakip18]

The problem is when you crack open your daily life and look at computing services you can't crack open and look at.

Every minor, hidden process is suddenly game. Go to a grocery store and use your credit card? You are using the credit card company's servers to take care of the work of moving your money from account to account. Your data. Their software. Cut up your cards. Heck, stow your money in a mattress. You don't want the bank to be liable for doing account computing when you can't get to the software.

I mean, I'd like to see the underlying process and know how their software works, up-to-the-code-level, but realistically? I don't have the time or interest. I'll trust the bank to keep my money safe and they get to enjoy the benefits of that trust.

So...

[Culture20]

I should be running my own instance of /. at http://localhost/ ? Then I could patch /. to not have "idle" and editors I don't like. RMS, you're a lifesaver!

Re:Ever get the feeling that....

[TheRaven64]

Exactly. I don't dry clean my own clothes. Theoretically, I could. The methods and chemicals aren't a secret. Instead I turn over control of my cleaning to a third party.

And RMS has no problem with this. Would you, however, buy a new suit which could only be cleaned by the manufacturer, with an undocumented chemical formula? Would you encourage your organisation to adopt a policy that only people who wear these suits are allowed to attend important meetings?

95% of people don't want to make software

[presidenteloco]

and are not suited to doing it well.

If that sounds elitist, so be it. Reality is that people have all kinds of different skills, and a small percentage are good programmers. I can't run a marathon or play a cello, and I don't mind anyone saying so.

While I agree with RMS that software should be free, I don't believe that means that people should not simply use information services that are provided for them on managed information infrastructure.

In the 70s if you wanted information, you hired a programmer to write a program for you.

In the 80s and 90s if you wanted information, you used a program that was already written.

In this decade, if you want information, you use an service on the web.

Unless you are that most rare breed; an open source software geek, in which case you may still be in the business of gluing together or even modifying programs and web services.

I would believe more that free software was intended for the masses if it had in general any kind of document quality or code simplicity. But expecting Joe Six-pack to deal with maven builds, hierarchical make files, and package dependency graphs. Hah!

Re:Ever get the feeling that....

[Seakip18]

The problem is when you crack open your daily life and look at computing services you can't crack open and look at.

I really need to proofread, but instead, I rely on Firefox's little red lines. Maybe Stallman has something right....

Sewer as a Service

[tarsi210]

"'Sewer as a service' means that you think of a particular sewer as doing your poop disposal for you. If that's what the sewer does, you must not use it! If you do your pooping on someone else's sewer, you hand over control of your poop to whoever controls the sewer. It is like using truck-stop toilet paper, only worse: it's even harder for you to wipe an ass that's sitting on someone else's toilet than it is to wipe an ass sitting on your own bog. Just like dye-free Charmin, 'sewer as a service' is incompatible with your bowel freedom."

Re:Isn't Savannah SaaS?

[PhilHibbs]

If you can export your data from the Savannah service, download the Savannah source, and run it yourself, then I think that's good enough for RMS. The software is free (as in freedom), and you can free yourself, that's the important thing.

OK this is just stupid

[seeker_1us]

"Software as a service" means that you think of a particular server as doing your computing for you. If that's what the server does, you must not use it! If you do your computing on someone else's server, you hand over control of your computing to whoever controls the server. It is like running binary-only software, only worse: it's even harder for you to patch the program that's running on someone else's server than it is to patch a binary copy of a program running on your own computer. Just like non-free software, "software as a service" is incompatible with your freedom.--RMS

So if I remotely log into a linux server running 100% GPL software, and use that software to crunch data, it's non-free and I must not use it, because the server is owned and controlled by someone else.

So now software isn't free by it's license, it's free only if it's got a free license and it's on your personal box.

Ironic, because I was introduced to free software on my universities mainframe (e.g. emacs, LaTeX) and now I find out that wasn't free at all because I didn't have the money to buy a computer that could run it locally.

Re:RMS goes to the Zoo

[Hogwash McFly]

It is pitch black. You are likely to be raped by a Gnu.