rms allegedly against cloud computing?

[eddie]

http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/04/st ... oftwa.html

Richard Stallman: We don't want people to circulate modified texts that purport misleadingly to be the GNU General Public License.

Copyright does not restrict the writing of license text. Thus, if you want to write a license with wording similar to the GNU GPL but not exactly the same, you can do so. But you can't copy our preamble without our permission, so you can't make it appear to have come from us.

You have also created a separate license, Affero GPL, to deal with software provided as a service (for example webmails). Why?

Richard Stallman: Please don't associate the GNU Affero GPL with "software as a service". That license is meant for any sort of program for which use on servers is expected to be an important source of improvements.

When a program is designed to be distributed to the end users, who get copies and run them, its modified versions are also normally released in this way (except when they are just used privately). Therefore, the original developers can normally get a copy of the modified version. Then the GNU GPL gives them legal permission to use the source code of the modified version to enhance their version.

However, if a program is normally used on a server, it is quite plausible that someone will make major improvements to run on his own server and never release copies of the modified version. Since the original developer cannot get a copy of it, the GPL will do nothing to help him put those changes into his version. This outcome was discouraging to the developers of such free software.

The GNU Affero GPL requires the server operator to distribute copies to the users of the server. If the server allows access by the general public, the original developer can connect to it and get a copy of the modified source, then use the changes to enhance his version. But this is not a privilege limited to that sole developer: anyone maintaining a version of the program can benefit from this.

The GNU Affero GPL gets its name from Affero, a company which several years ago wanted a license with this feature. As a stopgap, we worked with Affero to design such a license based on GPL version 2. It was released by Affero, not under the auspices of the GNU Project, and was called the Affero GPL.

Running programs on a server can cause various problems. Releasing a program under the GNU Affero GPL solves one of them, a problem that affects the software's developers. But there is also sometimes a problem for the users: namely, that of "software as a service".

"Software as a service" means that you think of a particular server as doing your computing for you. If that's what the server does, you must not use it! If you do your computing on someone else's server, you hand over control of your computing to whoever controls the server. It is like running binary-only software, only worse: it's even harder for you to patch the program that's running on someone else's server than it is to patch a binary copy of a program running on your own computer. Just like non-free software, "software as a service" is incompatible with your freedom.

We did not try to address this with the GNU Affero GPL because this cannot be solved by a software license. If all the software running on the server is released free software, that would enable you to set up a your own similar server if you wanted to; but you still have no control when you use the server that isn't yours.

The only solution to this problem is not to use someone else's server to do your own computing on your own data. Do it on your own computer, using your own copy of a free program.

Will we ever reach a point where a software, to be considered really free (as in freedom), will have to be gratis too?

Richard Stallman: I would rather hope we will reach a point where people understand these two concepts well enough that everyone will see the difference.

Is the distinction between "free software" and "open source" still meaningful?

Richard Stallman: It is fundamental, because it is a difference in basic values. The free software movement is concerned above all with values of freedom and social solidarity. We recognize that free software respects your freedom, while non-free software takes it away. Therefore, distributing non-free software is creating an injustice, and it is wrong to do so. Our goal is to put an end to that injustice by making software free.

The idea of open source was promulgated by people who did not want to speak of such things, and they chose to associate it with practical values only: for instance, making powerful, reliable software. They say that their development methodology is likely to produce "good software" -- good in a practical sense only. They do not say that a program tramples your freedom if it isn't open source. They do not say that making it open source is an ethical imperative. Often they do just the opposite: they explicitly grant ethical legitimacy to proprietary software.

Open source supporters often work together with free software activists on technical projects, where what matters is the technical work you do, not what you believe in. However, at the philosophical level, they oppose our campaign for freedom.