HyperWiki

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
en:philosophy:nonfree_services [2024/11/29 20:31]
throgh [Non-free services] 		en:philosophy:nonfree_services [2024/11/29 20:38] (current)
throgh
Line 15: Line 15:
 </code> </code>
  
-It is even not enough to "release the source code under a free software license", when data is not provided. A service is at minimum also software, a program running and remote offered. It can be even more complex and then several programs are running, finally to form the service. We talk nevertheless about software running. So we talk here about possibly free software running therefore. But not enough on that: There has to be also a communication-effort. So when all of this is open, transparent and clear for users we can surely describe a service as free or non-free. Any service is running with software, so the whole approach from the FSF is not working, to quote:+It is even not enough to "release the source code under a free software license", when data is not provided. There is no injustice solved as the program is useless. A service is at minimum also software, a program running and remote offered. It can be even more complex and then several programs are running, finally to form the service. We talk nevertheless about software running. So we talk here about possibly free software running therefore. But not enough on that: There has to be also a communication-effort. So when all of this is open, transparent and clear for users we can surely describe a service as free or non-free. Any service is running with software, so the whole approach from the FSF is not working, to quote:
  
 <code> <code>
Line 35: Line 35:
  
 Hyperbola rejects the failed definition and approach of the FSF, but also we do not include any kind of software enforcing later on a network-connection outside without the knowledge of the users. We do not offer software with included interfaces for external network-services. Yes, we recognize that it is always possible to build such services based fully on free, libre software. But that is left for the decision of the users and not our decision. Our stance is and will be always towards local executed software, nothing more and nothing less! Hyperbola rejects the failed definition and approach of the FSF, but also we do not include any kind of software enforcing later on a network-connection outside without the knowledge of the users. We do not offer software with included interfaces for external network-services. Yes, we recognize that it is always possible to build such services based fully on free, libre software. But that is left for the decision of the users and not our decision. Our stance is and will be always towards local executed software, nothing more and nothing less!
 +
 +Yes, we have no control about software on someone else's computer, therefore services. But this demonstrates even more that why we should reject their inclusion when it comes to freedom, privacy and security. No control, so why should we even think of the inclusion? Just because of "distributed computing" or "convinience"? That is a foul excuse and nitpicking definitions are not helping there. Honest and clear statements are a way forward, defining something as "progress" therefore is not.