Re: Announcing GNU ethical criteria for code repositories
Am Sat, 21 Nov 2015 20:34:49 +0100
schrieb Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>:
> It's interesting to see that FSF fails this test themselves. They're
> using a third party DNS service for one of their DNS servers (FSF
> France, which is a sister organisation of the FSF, hence a third
> party.)
You also should mention all that third party routers they are using to
deliver their content.
Seriously: "No reporting of site visitors to third parties" does not
imply to not use common and necessary Internet infrastructure. If you
really think it can be misunderstood this way, please come up with
better wording.
> (They also fail the second part of B1, since they're using tracking
> tags in pages by way of using piwik, as well as using ETags, whose
> principal usage today is tracking.)
The purpose of Etags is - as you certainly know - to make caching more
efficient. They are an important part of HTTP/1.1. There surely is
misuse of Etags. But I doubt that this misuse is "the principal use"
and the guidelines forbid this misuse. Anyway: if you don't have
evidence that FSF is misusing Etags for tracking you should refrain
from such accusations.
>
> I think such a requirement, when treated as written is entirely too
> strict. It disallows the use of best-practices technologies like
> CDNs.
It would be interesting to compare CDNs (which are controlled by the
service provider) against caching proxies (not controlled by the
service provider) with respect to user tracking. My opinion: CDNs allow
for better controlling and tracking visitors and are therefor preferred
by many service providers. I wouldn't call that "best-practices
technology".
Werner
Reply to: