Within a separate article the FSF tries to make clear that “network services are not free or non-free, but raise other issues”. To first make clear Hyperbola's stance on this effort: We decline those nitpicking definitions as they do not fit the reality.

In their article the FSF is trying to create the perspective that services are not comparable to free software and so the four freedoms would not be possible to be used in such scenarios. But this fails also when they use such wordings, to quote:

(...)

The copyright holders of a nonfree program can cure that injustice in a simple, clear way: release the 
same source code under a free software license. Convincing them to do this may be difficult, but the 
action itself is straightforward.

(...)

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:

(...)

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.

(...)

There is no scenario, where a service is not implemented without software, not possible in any way. But the problem is failing also at a different level, because users can be nevertheless loosing when it comes to network-services, even when those are implemented fully with free software. This refers to the data of the users: There is no final control possible, whether the data is saved or where it is later on distributed in so-called decentralized networks for example. It is an illusion that users have at any given time full control just when they use so-called free implementations. The data is nevertheless distributed and saved on several other perhaps unknown nodes.

We see the FSF failing to provide a working definition as they want all at the same time: Free software, straight principles but also convinience. That is impossible and at one point there is no other way as to recognize a needed decision. Hyperbola's decision is straight forward said for free, libre software, security and privacy and when it comes for convinience we stay at our decision, when we should be enforced to forget about this and therefore endanger the users.

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.