Free as in free speech web services?

Seeing so many of us using pro­pri­etary soft­ware for some of our most trea­sured pos­ses­sions (our pic­tures, in flickr) has bugged me deeply this week. Just as bad, it strikes me as a fairly large and self-​sustainable busi­ness opportunity- a small but growing number of people are willing to pay for ser­vices which give them the kind of control that flickr and others can’t or won’t give. Further, 37 Signals and other things has con­vinced me that it is pos­si­ble to build small, basi­cally self-​financed web busi­nesses. We now have mil­lions of GNOME users out there; just 100,000 (hell, 10,000) GNOME users paying $5 a month for hard­ware, band­width and some soft­ware would finance a lot of soft­ware devel­op­ment. So I believe firmly there is a big oppor­tu­nity out there for someone to do a free soft­ware based for-​pay web service that inte­grates well with tools like f-spot, gnome-​blog, evo, gossip, ekiga, nau­tilus, etc. It should be easy for GNOME users to sign up for one account, pay a small monthly or yearly fee, and be able to easily (no further con­fig­u­ra­tion) publish their photos, blogs, etc., and com­mu­ni­cate via email/jabber/voip/etc. Could be a small for-​profit (like 37 Signals) or it could be the funding source for the first free-​software coop­er­a­tive. Either way, the oppor­tu­nity is there for someone to do some agile, rapid devel­op­ment and have this in place soon.

Luis Villa’s Blog » guadec thoughts #3: where is .gnome?

This is too some­thing I’ve been think­ing about a lot recently. We have an awesome oper­at­ing system for all areas of com­put­ing but when it comes to social inter­ac­tions over the inter­net I don’t par­tic­u­larly want to go through pro­pri­etary lines of com­mu­ni­ca­tion that I cannot trust.

Since the O’Reily guys coined the term Web 2.0, there has been an explo­sion of awesome new tech­nolo­gies that you and I can make use of. To name some of them, off the top of my head: del.ic.ious, Flickr, all the blogger portals (ie. Blogger, MSN Spaces, …), Last.fm, Face­book, Live­jour­nal, Hi5 and so and so forth. But the problem is I don’t want to use a free soft­ware oper­at­ing system and the operate through pro­pri­etary lines of com­mu­ni­ca­tion over the Inter­net for an inte­gral part of my online social­is­ing. In fact this is the main reason why I have not signed up to a Flickr account.

15 years ago we needed a free soft­ware oper­at­ing system. Back then we did not check our email, chat to friends, write to our blogs and upload photos of our good times. Now with the Inter­net - the single largest and most effi­cient com­mu­ni­ca­tion network in human history - we really need to make sure we also have free soft­ware online ser­vices that allow it’s users to socialise and com­mu­ni­cate freely, again just like with free/open source soft­ware not just in terms of free beer but also in terms of free speech.

I cer­tainly won’t be looking at the code of a free blog­ging portal. That is not the most impor­tant part in this. The inte­gral part of the need for free oneline ser­vices is an issue of trust - an issue of where does your data go - an issue of who does what with the infor­ma­tion of your online activ­i­ties, an issue of your privacy and and rights to your content.


tech­no­rati tags:, , , , ,

4 comments

  1. 1. Nicholas FitzRoy-Dale
    Jul 30, 04:32

    Hi!

    I find this a bit con­fus­ing. You talk about how Flickr is not OSS, and that there­fore you don’t have an account. But then you talk about how the real issue is your privacy and trust. I don’t really under­stand how the two are related.

    How does a Website’s privacy policy relate to whether their backend is OSS? To phrase this ques­tion another way, how is Flickr, to use this spe­cific example again, with its easy-​to-​find privacy policy (to sum­marise: “We won’t spam you but we some­times set cookies”) and clear-​cut intel­lec­tual prop­erty policy (“You own all rights to your photos”), more con­fus­ing or sus­pi­cious in this regard because you can’t down­load the soft­ware that is running it?

    I’m sure that I am missing the point here, because no matter what the backend is, if you are upload­ing data to someone’s server, you need a clear-​cut agree­ment as to who owns what, regard­less of the nature of the code running the site.

  2. 2. Pascal
    Jul 30, 13:21

    Sorry, the Flickr example doesn’t work well in this. There are a few other reasons as to why I cur­rently don’t have an account with Flickr - or rather I should say Yahoo! Inc. - and I guess they all sort of add up to the point where I say I could do without it.

    All of the service providers - well almost all (*cough: MSN Spaces*) - have rea­son­ably decent privacy and IP terms and poli­cies that aren’t usually too long to read. However to me also comes down to the point that I am using a service pro­vided to me by some company rather than by a com­mu­nity project run by the people, for the people. I guess my more social­ist views come to play there.

    I’d really like to see a blog­ging network brought to us on free soft­ware, top to bottom with privacy and terms of use/service poli­cies giving maximum rights to the users and only taking anony­mous sta­tis­ti­cal data for any pos­si­ble use. I suppose to the very large major­ity of people the idea for some­thing like this wouldn’t man­i­fest itself for more than half a minute if at all because they couldn’t care less but I suppose I have a dis­con­tent for a lot of the ser­vices brought to use by com­mer­cial groups seeking ulti­mately to make a profit - not that this is a bad thing - I just would like to see a com­mu­nity run service.

    How does a Website’s privacy policy relate to whether their backend is OSS? To phrase this ques­tion another way, how is Flickr, to use this spe­cific example again, with its easy-​to-​find privacy policy (to sum­marise: “We won’t spam you but we some­times set cookies”) and clear-​cut intel­lec­tual prop­erty policy (”You own all rights to your photos”), more con­fus­ing or sus­pi­cious in this regard because you can’t down­load the soft­ware that is running it?

    Nah, it was me. I didn’t mean to draw such a hard con­nec­tion between the terms of use / privacy poli­cies of a service and the backend tech­nolo­gies.

    […] no matter what the backend is, if you are upload­ing data to someone’s server, you need a clear-​cut agree­ment as to who owns what, regard­less of the nature of the code running the site.

    Def­i­nitely.

    Thanks for point­ing out where I messed up. :)

  3. 3. tbuitenh
    Aug 01, 21:00

    Inte­grat­ing web­ser­vices into gnome… Anyone remem­ber a company named Eazel? I guess it was six years too early.

  4. 4. Pascal
    Aug 01, 21:30

    Inter­est­ing company - they made Nau­tilus 1.0. :)
    I guess if I was for this web thing - which I am - it would however have to be desktop inde­pen­dant and not dis­crim­i­nate against the users of pro­pri­etary soft­ware. The three chief goals are to be oper­ated on free soft­ware, by the com­mu­nity for the com­mu­nity and cater for free soft­ware users.

    That’s the idea I guess - might be some­thing for me some­time down the track… ;)

Post a comment

Please share your thoughts or add a note if I missed something.

Required fields are marked by an asterisk (*). Your e-mail address is never published nor shared. You can use common text formatting XHTML elements (e.g. a, acronym, blockquote, code, em, strong, …). If you’d like to directly respond and link to another comment, you can do that using the Twitter-style @reply (i.e., @Randy Bender: …).

*
*