Re: [Action Required] glibc decision to use CTI services.

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org>]

On Aug 31, 2023, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

> On 2023-08-30 10:31, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> I believe the LF has already agreed to implement the hosting entirely with
>> free software.

> Where is this agreement written down?

To the best of my knowledge, it just isn't.  It's the sort of commitment
that's not worth the paper it's written on.

Besides, LF is not really about Free Software, and never has been.  They
might as well prefer to refer to it with such weasel words as Open
Source Software, that when it comes to the software mean pretty much the
same, but that shift the focus and motivations away from the freedom
that software users deserve.

One of the consequences of this shift is that people who swallow their
terms are more prone to make mistakes and forget that when doing your
computing through third-party services, the software that the
third-party uses, if free, respects the service *provider*'s freedom,
not the service *users*' freedom, and the users end up even more
helpless than in the case of proprietary software.

That's how SaaSS providers have managed to fool some Free
Software-caring people time and again, making them believe that it's
enough for the software to respect someone else's freedom.  Multiple
businesses have engaged in lock in through SaaSS, and we need to make
sure we avoid such traps.


And then, even if there was a written agreement, the other relevant
question is who'd enforce it.  Just like a strong copyleft without
enforcement is little different from de-facto optional compliance, LF's
making an alleged commitment to a group without any leverage or means
for enforcement is little different from the group's having begging
rights.  That's not a position I want us to be in.

It's not like the LF has a long history of respecting or caring for
software freedom that could make their unwritten allegation more
trustworthy.  The kernel Linux, that they're named after, contains
binary blobs, after all.  Their board is packed with companies who have
long disregarded provisions of the GNU GPL, even when it comes to Linux.

If the LF were at a bank trying to borrow some money, these factors
would demand the bank to require *more* assurance from the borrower, not
less, than from a random borrower without such a history of not living
up to commitments to others.

We should be no less careful than this hypothetical bank in protecting
our collective assets, particularly our freedom.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                    https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                           GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but
very few check the facts.  Think Assange & Stallman.  The empires strike back