1 |
Alex Efros posted on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:29:08 +0300 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Hi! |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:17:54PM +0000, Duncan wrote: |
6 |
>> skype considers itself master over users and refuses to give them the |
7 |
>> right to see and modify the code running on their own systems, there's |
8 |
>> little that can be done, except to choose not to run code from people |
9 |
>> who refuse to recognize my rights as a user, which is exactly what I |
10 |
>> do. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I'm 100% agree. I hate Skype and successfully avoided it for years. |
13 |
> But, thing is, some of my customers and co-workers use it, it's |
14 |
> "corporate standard" for them, so only choice I have is either lose some |
15 |
> interesting work projects and ability to talk with several friends or |
16 |
> start using Skype. :( |
17 |
|
18 |
While I recognize people need to be able to take their own position and |
19 |
that mine won't work for everyone, my own solution to that is simple |
20 |
enough -- I simply /can't/ install the proprietary stuff, at least not |
21 |
legally, since I can no longer agree to, among other things, various bits |
22 |
of most EULAs as well as the liability waiver that's standard for most |
23 |
software (including the GPL), when it's applied to "black box" binary- |
24 |
only software. |
25 |
|
26 |
Specifically, most software (including GPLed software) essentially makes |
27 |
the user responsible for any damage or harm that the software may cause, |
28 |
including damage to the system it runs on, etc. While there's legally a |
29 |
good reason for that and I don't begrudge the right of authors to ask |
30 |
that users assume that sort of responsibility, especially in the |
31 |
freedomware case where user patches that the software developers |
32 |
obviously have no control over are specifically supported and encouraged, |
33 |
I simply cannot and will not assume legal responsibility for black-box |
34 |
software I do not have either the legal right or the literal availability |
35 |
of code to examine, in ordered to give me a fair basis of determining |
36 |
whether it's reasonable for me to agree to that waiver in the first place. |
37 |
|
38 |
IOW, it seems to me that software authors who choose to include that |
39 |
waiver language should equally be required to make their sources |
40 |
available so people can actually determine what the software does and |
41 |
whether a user can in all legal sanity actually determine the viability |
42 |
of signing those liability rights away. For me it's relatively simple, |
43 |
if I don't have the sources, I don't agree to transfer that liability to |
44 |
me. End of story. |
45 |
|
46 |
And in all fairness, in the absence of such an agreement, I expect the |
47 |
authors wouldn't be comfortable with me running their software anyway. I |
48 |
know I'd not be comfortable with it, were I in their position, anyway. |
49 |
|
50 |
There actually IS software available that has far stricter proofs of |
51 |
functionality applied against it, where such waivers are not asked and |
52 |
where they likely wouldn't be granted in any case. This is the type of |
53 |
software used in, for example, flight control systems on commercial jets, |
54 |
and for control systems of nuclear reactors and the like. But this sort |
55 |
of software tends to have a **MUCH** higher cost, two orders of magnitude |
56 |
higher at least, and the hardware it runs on has similar function- |
57 |
verification certification requirements. |
58 |
|
59 |
"In my ideal world" I wouldn't ban proprietary software, I'd simply |
60 |
demand a "fair is fair" equality in these liability waiver agreements, |
61 |
etc, such that any such agreement or demand for it would be illegal |
62 |
unless the sources were actually available under fair terms (that means |
63 |
at minimum, no NDAs on sources, no required agreement not to work on |
64 |
competing software, etc) for users to examine, before they were asked to |
65 |
sign those liability waivers. |
66 |
|
67 |
The practical effect of such a fairness policy would be to price |
68 |
proprietaryware out of practical competition range, since proving and |
69 |
insuring the software to such high legal liability standards would price |
70 |
them well out of the common market range. A few proprietary products |
71 |
might remain in fringe areas, and of course single-user (including single |
72 |
corporate user) software wouldn't be affected as such single-user |
73 |
software is either used by the same people who authored it, or the author |
74 |
was hired or contracted and such for-hire or for-contract produced |
75 |
software normally already has the sources and liabilities questions |
76 |
resolved as part of the conditions of the employment or contract. The GPL |
77 |
similarly doesn't normally affect those cases either, for much the same |
78 |
reason. |
79 |
|
80 |
Anyway, when I explain that I /can't/ legally run most proprietary |
81 |
software, explaining why in the level of detail required by the context |
82 |
(so many time's it's simply that I can't legally run it because I can't |
83 |
agree to the EULAs, etc, and that's that, no detail needed), the question |
84 |
almost always resolves itself. Few feel themselves in a position to |
85 |
advocate that I put myself in legal jeopardy, and even the BSA and |
86 |
similar proprietary software boosters find themselves at a loss when |
87 |
faced with such reasoning, effectively using their own arguments of legal |
88 |
legitimacy against them, much as the GPL uses copyright law to boost |
89 |
copyleft. And "friends" that don't see the problem there and drop the |
90 |
subject concerning what I run, regardless of what personal decisions they |
91 |
make about what they themselves choose to run and how they resolve their |
92 |
own legal choices, really aren't friends at all. |
93 |
|
94 |
|
95 |
Of course it's worth pointing out that it's not an employment issue, as |
96 |
long as /the/ /employer/ assumes legal responsibility for making those |
97 |
sorts of agreements in the context of anything I'm required to use in the |
98 |
course of my employment. If it's the employer's systems running whatever |
99 |
software they've assumed legal responsibility for, fine. And if they |
100 |
want to buy hardware for me to run whatever software they might require, |
101 |
and then as their representative I am told to agree to whatever EULAs, |
102 |
etc, in sufficient detail that it's them assuming liability and I'm |
103 |
simply acting as their agent, that's fine too. As long as they don't |
104 |
expect me to install proprietary software on BYOD devices I've paid for |
105 |
with my own money, and otherwise myself assume the liability for the |
106 |
functionality of, because again, if it's black-box software, I can't see |
107 |
/what/ it does, and thus I cannot and will not assume liability for it. |
108 |
Should that be required, I couldn't in good conscience work there |
109 |
anyway. There's other places I can work. |
110 |
|
111 |
|
112 |
So explained in that way, it generally ceases to be a problem. And where |
113 |
it doesn't cease to be a problem, the people involved are obviously |
114 |
asking me to either break the law or at minimum, bend my own ethics, so |
115 |
it's in my interest to cease being involved with them anyway. |
116 |
|
117 |
Of course as a practical matter, it does in fact end up being a bit more |
118 |
difficult to communicate with some people, and the relationship will |
119 |
either survive that reality or it'll ultimately cease to be a problem |
120 |
simply due to the hassle factor, but again, either they'll respect me for |
121 |
the position I've taken and the relationship will be the stronger for it, |
122 |
or... on balance it's better that the relationship eventually goes away |
123 |
anyway. (Note that it's not an exclusive-or. They can respect me for my |
124 |
position, but still find it enough of a hassle that the relationship |
125 |
eventually ceases anyway. Oh, well... such things happen. Sometimes |
126 |
life brings around a second opportunity years later, too, after |
127 |
circumstances have changed.) |
128 |
|
129 |
> I just hope people will start moving from Skype soon, maybe to Tox.im or |
130 |
> some other open and secure alternative (I just hope it won't be |
131 |
> Hangouts). |
132 |
|
133 |
Again, no attempt to make other people's decisions for them here, but |
134 |
it's worth noting that such "social apps" have a usefulness geometrically |
135 |
related to the number of people that use them, such that by choosing to |
136 |
use skype you're another user making it that much more useful to |
137 |
everybody else, thus directly supporting its usefulness to others and |
138 |
working against the rise of an equally useful competitive alternative. |
139 |
It's called the network effect. |
140 |
|
141 |
Skype is as useful as it is precisely /because/ so many people use it. |
142 |
And precisely because so many less people use alternatives, they're not |
143 |
as useful. So if you want an open alternative to skype that's as useful |
144 |
as skype is, be sure that at mimimum you're running that alternative in |
145 |
addition to skype, thus boosting the alternative's usefulness to others |
146 |
via the network effect. Even better tho not necessarily practical for |
147 |
some, stop using skype, so its usefulness to others via the network |
148 |
effect goes down. One person alone doesn't do much, but it's something |
149 |
one person alone CAN do, and in combination with many others acting |
150 |
similarly, that "not much" can suddenly be a *MUCH* bigger effect than |
151 |
originally considered. That network effect is what boycotts are built on |
152 |
as well, and why they work or don't work, depending on how successful |
153 |
people are at getting others to make similar decisions, even when the few |
154 |
who started the boycott would have been unlikely to use those services |
155 |
much anyway. |
156 |
|
157 |
My vote doesn't count for much alone, but politically it counts enough |
158 |
for me to continue to vote, and for the same reason tho my own dollars |
159 |
don't count for much alone, I very deliberately vote with them too, as |
160 |
well as my online views and what I link, the social apps I use (or not), |
161 |
etc. |
162 |
|
163 |
But that's just my own policy and why I have it. What others choose to |
164 |
do with their own policies and why they have them is up to them. |
165 |
|
166 |
-- |
167 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
168 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
169 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |