Re: Sound freezes

Alex Efros posted on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:29:08 +0300 as excerpted:

> Hi!
>=20
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:17:54PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> skype considers itself master over users and refuses to give them the
>> right to see and modify the code running on their own systems, there's
>> little that can be done, except to choose not to run code from people
>> who refuse to recognize my rights as a user, which is exactly what I
>> do.
>=20
> I'm 100% agree. I hate Skype and successfully avoided it for years.
> But, thing is, some of my customers and co-workers use it, it's
> "corporate standard" for them, so only choice I have is either lose som=
e
> interesting work projects and ability to talk with several friends or
> start using Skype. :(

While I recognize people need to be able to take their own position and=20
that mine won't work for everyone, my own solution to that is simple=20
enough -- I simply /can't/ install the proprietary stuff, at least not=20
legally, since I can no longer agree to, among other things, various bits=
=20
of most EULAs as well as the liability waiver that's standard for most=20
software (including the GPL), when it's applied to "black box" binary-
only software.

Specifically, most software (including GPLed software) essentially makes=20
the user responsible for any damage or harm that the software may cause,=20
including damage to the system it runs on, etc.  While there's legally a=20
good reason for that and I don't begrudge the right of authors to ask=20
that users assume that sort of responsibility, especially in the=20
freedomware case where user patches that the software developers=20
obviously have no control over are specifically supported and encouraged,=
=20
I simply cannot and will not assume legal responsibility for black-box=20
software I do not have either the legal right or the literal availability=
=20
of code to examine, in ordered to give me a fair basis of determining=20
whether it's reasonable for me to agree to that waiver in the first place=
.

IOW, it seems to me that software authors who choose to include that=20
waiver language should equally be required to make their sources=20
available so people can actually determine what the software does and=20
whether a user can in all legal sanity actually determine the viability=20
of signing those liability rights away.  For me it's relatively simple,=20
if I don't have the sources, I don't agree to transfer that liability to=20
me.  End of story.

And in all fairness, in the absence of such an agreement, I expect the=20
authors wouldn't be comfortable with me running their software anyway.  I=
=20
know I'd not be comfortable with it, were I in their position, anyway.

There actually IS software available that has far stricter proofs of=20
functionality applied against it, where such waivers are not asked and=20
where they likely wouldn't be granted in any case.  This is the type of=20
software used in, for example, flight control systems on commercial jets,=
=20
and for control systems of nuclear reactors and the like.  But this sort=20
of software tends to have a **MUCH** higher cost, two orders of magnitude=
=20
higher at least, and the hardware it runs on has similar function-
verification certification requirements.

"In my ideal world" I wouldn't ban proprietary software, I'd simply=20
demand a "fair is fair" equality in these liability waiver agreements,=20
etc, such that any such agreement or demand for it would be illegal=20
unless the sources were actually available under fair terms (that means=20
at minimum, no NDAs on sources, no required agreement not to work on=20
competing software, etc) for users to examine, before they were asked to=20
sign those liability waivers.

The practical effect of such a fairness policy would be to price=20
proprietaryware out of practical competition range, since proving and=20
insuring the software to such high legal liability standards would price=20
them well out of the common market range.  A few proprietary products=20
might remain in fringe areas, and of course single-user (including single=
=20
corporate user) software wouldn't be affected as such single-user=20
software is either used by the same people who authored it, or the author=
=20
was hired or contracted and such for-hire or for-contract produced=20
software normally already has the sources and liabilities questions=20
resolved as part of the conditions of the employment or contract.  The GP=
L=20
similarly doesn't normally affect those cases either, for much the same=20
reason.

Anyway, when I explain that I /can't/ legally run most proprietary=20
software, explaining why in the level of detail required by the context=20
(so many time's it's simply that I can't legally run it because I can't=20
agree to the EULAs, etc, and that's that, no detail needed), the question=
=20
almost always resolves itself.  Few feel themselves in a position to=20
advocate that I put myself in legal jeopardy, and even the BSA and=20
similar proprietary software boosters find themselves at a loss when=20
faced with such reasoning, effectively using their own arguments of legal=
=20
legitimacy against them, much as the GPL uses copyright law to boost=20
copyleft.  And "friends" that don't see the problem there and drop the=20
subject concerning what I run, regardless of what personal decisions they=
=20
make about what they themselves choose to run and how they resolve their=20
own legal choices, really aren't friends at all.


Of course it's worth pointing out that it's not an employment issue, as=20
long as /the/ /employer/ assumes legal responsibility for making those=20
sorts of agreements in the context of anything I'm required to use in the=
=20
course of my employment.  If it's the employer's systems running whatever=
=20
software they've assumed legal responsibility for, fine.  And if they=20
want to buy hardware for me to run whatever software they might require,=20
and then as their representative I am told to agree to whatever EULAs,=20
etc, in sufficient detail that it's them assuming liability and I'm=20
simply acting as their agent, that's fine too.  As long as they don't=20
expect me to install proprietary software on BYOD devices I've paid for=20
with my own money, and otherwise myself assume the liability for the=20
functionality of, because again, if it's black-box software, I can't see=20
/what/ it does, and thus I cannot and will not assume liability for it. =20
Should that be required, I couldn't in good conscience work there=20
anyway.  There's other places I can work.


So explained in that way, it generally ceases to be a problem.  And where=
=20
it doesn't cease to be a problem, the people involved are obviously=20
asking me to either break the law or at minimum, bend my own ethics, so=20
it's in my interest to cease being involved with them anyway.

Of course as a practical matter, it does in fact end up being a bit more=20
difficult to communicate with some people, and the relationship will=20
either survive that reality or it'll ultimately cease to be a problem=20
simply due to the hassle factor, but again, either they'll respect me for=
=20
the position I've taken and the relationship will be the stronger for it,=
=20
or... on balance it's better that the relationship eventually goes away=20
anyway.  (Note that it's not an exclusive-or.  They can respect me for my=
=20
position, but still find it enough of a hassle that the relationship=20
eventually ceases anyway.  Oh, well... such things happen.  Sometimes=20
life brings around a second opportunity years later, too, after=20
circumstances have changed.)

> I just hope people will start moving from Skype soon, maybe to Tox.im o=
r
> some other open and secure alternative (I just hope it won't be
> Hangouts).

Again, no attempt to make other people's decisions for them here, but=20
it's worth noting that such "social apps" have a usefulness geometrically=
=20
related to the number of people that use them, such that by choosing to=20
use skype you're another user making it that much more useful to=20
everybody else, thus directly supporting its usefulness to others and=20
working against the rise of an equally useful competitive alternative. =20
It's called the network effect.

Skype is as useful as it is precisely /because/ so many people use it. =20
And precisely because so many less people use alternatives, they're not=20
as useful.  So if you want an open alternative to skype that's as useful=20
as skype is, be sure that at mimimum you're running that alternative in=20
addition to skype, thus boosting the alternative's usefulness to others=20
via the network effect.  Even better tho not necessarily practical for=20
some, stop using skype, so its usefulness to others via the network=20
effect goes down.  One person alone doesn't do much, but it's something=20
one person alone CAN do, and in combination with many others acting=20
similarly, that "not much" can suddenly be a *MUCH* bigger effect than=20
originally considered.  That network effect is what boycotts are built on=
=20
as well, and why they work or don't work, depending on how successful=20
people are at getting others to make similar decisions, even when the few=
=20
who started the boycott would have been unlikely to use those services=20
much anyway.

My vote doesn't count for much alone, but politically it counts enough=20
for me to continue to vote, and for the same reason tho my own dollars=20
don't count for much alone, I very deliberately vote with them too, as=20
well as my online views and what I link, the social apps I use (or not),=20
etc.

But that's just my own policy and why I have it.  What others choose to=20
do with their own policies and why they have them is up to them.

--=20
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman