On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Ian Clarke wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
On Monday 26 January 2004 14:34, Ian Clarke wrote: I'm not sure about it personally but it most certainly _is_ the philosophy of the FSF.
I stand corrected, in which case I disagree with whoever wrote that FAQ answer.
There are many things which might benefit the public interest were they not secret. For example, if my e-gold password was not secret then my money could be distributed to the masses, which would probably benefit the public interest. Does this mean that the FSF should advocate the disclosure of my e-gold password? Should the FSF refuse to use the software of anyone who doesn't disclose their e-gold password?
The thing that makes source code different to my e-gold password is that source code controls what my computer does. I have a right to know what software is doing to my computer, just as I have a right to know what a plumber is doing to the pipes in my apartment. But I have no more right to know what a plumber is doing to my friend's pipes than I do to know his bank PIN. This is true even if I occasionally visit my friend's apartment.
The argument that I should know what someone else's software is doing with my hardware is strong and defensible, but the argument that I have a moral right to know what someone else's software is is doing with someone else's hardware (and they have a moral obligation to disclose it) is isomorphic to arguing that nobody should have any secrets about anything - which is silly.
On the other side, the creation of the Affero License was to close a hole in the GNU GPL in case of distribution. As more software (not directly on your computer) is running outside the user classical scope but for the use (you know well the 'ASPware' stuff) of the user itself, the user should have access to the software (of course in the the case that the software claims to be free software).