On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 08:59:51PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > The above has nothing to do with beliefs. Beliefs are about people who believe > > > that using non-free services is better for some ethical reason. > > Do such people exist or that's a straw man? > I'm not sure if they do. Thanks. > > No free alternative was suggested here. Not to mention "insecure and > > untrusted" which can probably be classified as FUD > That depends who you want to trust. If you don't like the NSA, you definitely > shouldn't send your data to Google. Whether or not those with access are > trusted is a personal issue. This, of course, is not at all related to a question of freeness and is more or less equaly applicable to any other hosted solution. > > > The problem with services such as Google docs and YouTube is that the site > > > owner allows the service provider to violate the privacy of the visitors. This > > > shouldn't be a decision that the site owner is allowed to make. > > This, of course, has nothing to do with four freedoms or with your > > favorite definition of "free". > It is. Privacy violations do not pass the > https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest . Services that violate privacy are by > definition not free. If you are applying your freeness requirements not just to the service source code (as most people are, in my experience) then you probably need a different definition, and it's even harder to find a service complying with it. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature