I’m not a party to this, but I’ll bite. > On Jan 15, 2020, at 1:16 PM, Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote: > > Philippe Ombredanne dixit: > >> See >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UphruKKAlsoUEidPCwTF2LCcHFnQkvQCQ9luTXfDupw/edit#heading=h.p2d7mni4lrcu > > Why do you use Google services for OSS work?
I imagine because they offer compelling features that work well and are effective for collaborative sharing of information. I, too, use and even pay for services that help accelerate OSS work. > https://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html That is opinion commentary on Free Software, not OSS. I don’t know if I agree or disagree with their opinion, but it is consistent with other public statements by the Free Software Foundation. It’s however not consistent with the OSD or even with statements of the OSI. > It’s also questionable, GDPR-wise, A lack of evidence is not evidence. It’s FUD. I make no assertion of their GDPR compliance, but Google does in surprising detail: https://privacy.google.com/businesses/compliance/ > let alone in OSS spirit, I’m open to correction, but I do not see anywhere in the OSD that implies preferential consideration to OSS or disconsideration of proprietary offerings. If anything, the OSS spirit, to me, seems to be “live and let live, so long as the OSD is upheld” or perhaps simply “the Source must flow". > and not accessible, e.g. to lynx users. I’m okay with that. Even as a staunch lynx user of 20+ years, expectations are in check when I browse in text mode. Cheers! Sean _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
