On Saturday 4. May 2019 13.42.51 Nikos Roussos wrote:
On 03/05/2019 19:00, Paul Boddie wrote:
So, in the case of the Copyright Directive, where much fuss was made about keeping code sharing platforms free of copyright filters, it seemed that the FSFE was acting to defend GitHub and various proprietary services on the basis that they help people share Free Software.
That doesn't sound like a logical conclusion. Sure Github is one of the affected platforms, but code sharing platforms also include Free Software initiatives (eg. sourcehut) or even self-hosted instances of Gitlab, Gitea, etc.
Of course. But what I object to is a prominent position being given to a centralising, proprietary service provider in a campaign about how copyright legislation will affect Free Software. I would much rather the FSFE supported and promoted genuinely open code-sharing platforms and let the proprietary service providers do their own lobbying.
Particularly since I imagine that a lot of stuff going up on GitHub isn't actually Free Software, as you'll agree if you've ever seen repositories just used for file uploads, which I have. And thus GitHub starts to share a number of characteristics with YouTube, dealing in the kind of material that got the copyright cartels so upset with these companies in the first place.
But beside this, the FSFE has to decide whether the organisation should stand against centralising, coercive proprietary services or not. People are being "asked" to sign up for these services all the time, like I recently had to do as part of my work. It is just like peer pressure making people join the likes of Facebook and its many wholly-controlled brands.
All of this is damaging to interoperability, choice, and ultimately to Free Software, regardless of how nice Facebook, GitHub, Google and Microsoft are supposedly being to Free Software projects. The FSFE is supposed to be in favour of the former qualities and should remain uninfluenced by the latter apparent generosity of entities who inevitably want something in return.
It is of no help to independent code-sharing, collaboration, communication, and other Free Software projects if they end up being impossible to deploy because the Internet has been effectively reconfigured to exclude them. The claim that it is easier or "normal" to just get an account with one of the providers in a big-name cartel may satisfy the impatient consumer, but it has serious consequences for their privacy, and the exclusion of independent Free Software from general deployment has serious social and economic consequences for Free Software developers.
Free Software developers and users would all suffer from the directive if the exception for code sharing platforms hadn't be adopted. So lobbying towards that direction seems like a very meaningful (and successful) way for safeguarding the interests of the Free Software community.
And another point I made was that it is all very well getting narrow exemptions for Free Software, for which I suppose we should be grateful, but what do we then say to other, natural partners of the Free Software movement when they do not receive the same exemptions? It feels like abandoning those other partners of a broader coalition so that certain corporations can continue their business as usual.
Paul