@bob Sigh. First The Guardian painting us with a broad brush, then these guys (though not quite as bad).
This betrays the fact that they don't even understand the fundamentals of their own philosophy.
Being able to run the same code on your own hardware doesn't help if your data is held hostage.
Freedom zero, freedom to use the software without restrictions, necessarily requires access to your own data.
In the vast majority of cases, software without user data serves no purpose and the user is effectively denied the ability to make use of it.
This is why I say they don't even grok their own philosophy. They've been bamboozled by the cloud hype machine.
Isn't there that old quote "show me your flow charts and I will be confused. Show me your data structures and I won't need your flow charts", or something like that? That sort of thinking does seem to be missing from the FSF's philosophy.
But it's the very thing that drives the SQLite devs.
Neither is true, haven't been for years.
It's no coincidence that the FSF didn't author the AGPL - it took outsiders to recognize the need and create the license. More work in that direction is desperately needed, and I don't expect it to come from the FSF.
Just my opinion, of course. But it's based on over 2 decades of work in this space.
@kaniini @aminb @bob @alcinnz The FSF is unique in that they (Richard) pioneered thinking about the ethics behind software development and the relationship and power dynamics between developers and users.
This was ground-breaking.
So it's a constant disappointment that the FSF follows up with what amounts to a strict "abstinence based" regime.
This works about as well in computing as it does in sex ed: the people who are at risk are not helped, the faithful few are isolated and out of touch.
But the thing is, I don't think that is the role the FSF itself wants. I think the FSF wants to be relevant today and wants to inform developers on the ethics of their trade.
For that to succeed, the organization needs to engage with modernity, at least enough to understand what the issues are.
They don't have to like it and don't have to approve, but if they don't do their research and keep up with the times, they cannot hope to say anything relevant to the rest of us.
Leading by example, being a beacon of purity is mostly self-indulgent elitism. It doesn't help anyone.
I just think not having machine-readable data does much more harm. And that as those philosophy pieces point out (which *are* excellent) points out, it doesn't matter much to those of us using a site whether or not we have the code. Different criteria must apply to the same ends.