Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes: > I mostly agree with your wider points, however couple of nitpicks below.
Here's some nitpicks on your nitpicks :) > 45mg <45mg.wri...@gmail.com> writes: > >> [..] >> >> For those of us without the werewithal to self-host our email on our own >> hardware (which includes me, and I would assume the majority of us, >> despite the overall power-user bent of this community), we have to >> create an account with an email provider, and agree to their Terms of >> Service. Even people who operate their own mail server are probably >> running it on a VPS or something, and I'm pretty sure there are going to >> be ToS involved there as well. > > Depends, I host my email at VPSFree.cz, which is (roughly speaking) a > non-profit, where I do not pay a subscription, but a membership fee. > And I get full voting rights, per the applicable Czech laws for this > type of non-profit. So if I would not like something in our Charter, I > could put forward a motion for the next annual meeting, and get it voted > upon (but sure, the vote might not pass). > > I do not have that option on GitHub, Hetzner, or, for that matter, > Codeberg. That sounds like a very nice setup. I'm a bit jealous :) But I doubt such arrangements are available and/or affordable to people around the world (I certainly don't know of any in my region). Which was my larger point. >> That said, I do somewhat agree with the points you made earlier about >> Codeberg's specific ToS. I doubt Codeberg is going to go evil anytime >> soon, but some of those clauses do seem a bit scary. Then again, we >> already have our infrastructure (repos, mailing lists) run by the FSF >> (Savannah is an FSF project), so we're very much at /their/ mercy right >> now; and I've heard more negative opinions of them than I've ever heard >> about Codeberg. > > The difference I see here is that for Savannah only Guix as a project > needs to be aware of the legalese, however for Codeberg every > contributor (even non-committers) has to be (due to need to create an > account). Worth noting that Savannah does have hosting requirements: https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php Nothing to the extent of Codeberg's ToS, but there is a strict requirement to follow the FSDG, upto and including banning all references to nonfree software, which was something that came up as a point of contention during the survey. And as long as Guix uses Savannah it has to enforce that requirement, or any further requirements imposed the FSF, even against the wishes of the community if it comes to that. My point here is - the fact that users are not directly exposed to the policies (or conduct!) of the service provider does not mean they are unaffected by them. Also, I'm assuming that even participating in this discussion requires us to follow Guix's Code of Conduct, which could be enforced against us were we to violate it. And without intending to state any particular position and/or start yet another inflammatory CoC flame war, I just want to point out that not everyone is going to be fully comfortable with the terms there either. But it's not hard to imagine why the project needs them. And similarly it's not hard to imagine why Codeberg would word its ToS to give them as much leverage as possible; from their perspective, they're better safe than sorry. At some point, it comes down to how much you trust the organization to act in your (and everyone's) best interests. Personally, I trust the Guix project, and I trust Codeberg; I can't really say the same for the FSF. (Tried to avoid bringing that up, but here we are...) > I also do not expect Codeberg to go evil (at least soon ^_^), but I > would still like to have point-by-point reaction to the concerns I have > raised about their current ToS (they call it Terms of Use (ToU)). I > believe it is a necessary debate if the Codeberg is the center piece of > this proposal. Agreed. > Have a nice day, > Tomas > > -- > There are only two hard things in Computer Science: > cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
