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.

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?

[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?

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

[Kell Bengal]

When did you last check? 1992?

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: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: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". :-)

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."