On 21.01.2013, at 21:01, Richard Stallman <[email protected]> wrote: > It needs to start by stating the range of situations or cases > that it applies to. > > The data that someone directly or indirectly creates belongs to > the person who created it. > > Please don't use "belongs to". It has the same problem as "owmed".
O.K. Sorry. What word would you suggest here? The idea is that this is the stuff that I type into my computer before I consciously decide to release it under a specific license or share it with someone. It should be clear that the administrator of my machine or the administrator or operator of the server where I store my files has zero right on my files even if physical access is possible. This is a problem with current cloud services. > > 2. Know where the data is stored > Everybody should be able to know: where their personal data is physically > stored, how long, on which server, in what country, and what laws apply. > > "On which server" may be too much to ask. True. Let's leave the server out. > > Everybody should always be able to migrate their personal data to > a different provider, server or their own machine at any time > without being locked in to a specific vendor. It is recommended to > have the personal server for the personal data in the long term. > > To migrate data from X to Y consists of > 1. Extracting a copy from X. > 2. Entering it in Y. > 3. Deleting it from X. > > Whether you can enter it in Y is a matter between you and Y. > So the two rights you should have are: > > 1. To extract your data from X when you wish. > 1. To delete your data from X when you wish. Perfect! :-) > > 4. Control access > > Everybody should be able to know, choose and control who has > access to their personal data to see or modify it. > > If you have published some data, you won't be able to control who can make > copies. So this needs some conditions. That's true. What would you suggest? > > 5. Choose the conditions > > If someone chooses to share their personal data, then the user > selects the sharing license and conditions. > > 1. "Share" is strange usage in this context. Say "let others access". Great. > > 2. This rule has two very bad consequences: > > a. If "personal data" is a program, it implies the author > should be allowe to make it nonfree. We can't endorse that! That's true. Should we make it clear that this is not about programs? Perhaps we can add a sentence. > > b. If the person can choose _any_ conditions, he can choose > conditions that exploit him. Lots of services demand users agree > to unfair conditions. For instance, Facebook demands users agree > that Facebook can use their photos in ads. That's an interesting point. It's true that a user can choose bad or stupid conditions. (Like many on Facebook do.) But what would be the alternative? We can't force conditions on the users to protect them from themselfs. I think it is freedom that the users can decide for themselves even if stupid people do stupid things. > So this needs to be changed a lot. Do you have a suggestion? :-) > > 8. Server software transparency > > Server software should be free software so that the source code of > the software can be inspected to confirm that it works as > specified. > > There is a misunderstanding here. If the program is free software, > that does not imply you can get a copy of it. > > Thus, if the goal is to make sure you can get a copy of it, > we need to require more. For instance, "should be free software and > its code should be published". Perfect. I forgot that aspect because I always have AGPL in mind here. Thanks a lot for the great feedback. Cheers Frank > > -- > Dr Richard Stallman > President, Free Software Foundation > 51 Franklin St > Boston MA 02110 > USA > www.fsf.org www.gnu.org > Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. > Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call >
