<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> <!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> <title>Who Does That Server Really Serve? - GNU Project - Free SoftwareFoundation (FSF)</title>Foundation</title> <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.translist" --> <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> <h2>Who does that server really serve?</h2> <p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p><p>(First<blockquote><p>(The first version was publishedbyin <ahref="http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/stallman.php">href="http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM"> BostonReview</a>.)</p>Review</a>.)</p></blockquote> <p><strong>On the Internet, proprietary software isn't the only way to lose your freedom.SoftwareService as aServiceSoftware Substitute, or SaaSS, is another way toletgive someone elsehavepower over your computing.</strong></p> SaaSS means using a service implemented by someone else as a substitute for running your copy of a program. The term is ours; articles and ads won't use it, and they won't tell you whether a service is SaaSS. Instead they will probably use the vague and distracting term “cloud”, which lumps SaaSS together with various other practices, some abusive and some ok. With the explanation and examples in this page, you can tell whether a service is SaaSS. <h3>Background: How Proprietary Software Takes Away Your Freedom</h3> <p>Digital technology can give you freedom; it can also take your freedom away. The first threat to our control over our computing came from <em>proprietary software</em>: software that the users cannot control because the owner (a company such as Apple or Microsoft) controls it. The owner often takes advantage of this unjust power by inserting malicious features such as spyware, back doors, and <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org">Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)</a> (referred to as “Digital Rights Management” in their propaganda).</p> <p>Our solution to this problem is developing <em>free software</em> and rejecting proprietary software. Free software means that you, as a user, have four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program as you wish, (1) to study and change the source code so it does what you wish, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to redistribute copies of your modified versions. (See the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software definition</a>.)</p> <p>With free software, we, the users, take back control of our computing. Proprietary software still exists, but we can exclude it from our lives and many of us have done so. However, we are nowface a new threatoffered another tempting way toourcede control over our computing:SoftwareService as aService.Software Substitute (SaaSS). For our freedom's sake, we have to reject that too.</p> <h3>HowSoftwareService as aServiceSoftware Substitute Takes Away Your Freedom</h3><p>Software<p>Service as aService (SaaS)Software Substitute (SaaSS) means using a service as a substitute for running your copy of a program. Concretely, it means that someone sets up a network server that does certain computingtasks—running spreadsheets, word processing,tasks—for instance, modifying a photo, translating text into another language, etc.—then invites users to dotheircomputingonvia that server.UsersA user of the server would sendtheirher data to the server, which doestheir computing<em>her own computing</em> on the data thus provided, then sends the results back to her or acts directly onthem directly.</p>her behalf.</p> <p>The computing is <em>her own</em> because, by assumption, she could, in principle, have done it by running a program on her own computer (whether or not that program is available to her at present). In cases where this assumption is not so, it isn't SaaSS.</p> <p>These servers wrest control from the users even more inexorably than proprietary software. With proprietary software, users typically get an executable file but not the source code. That makes it hardfor programmersto study the code that is running, so it's hard to determine what the program really does, and hard to change it.</p> <p>WithSaaS,SaaSS, the users do not have even the executablefile:file that does their computing: it is onthesomeone else's server, where the users can't see or touch it. Thus it is impossible for them to ascertain what it really does, and impossible to change it.</p> <p>Furthermore,SaaSSaaSS automatically leads toharmfulconsequences equivalent to the malicious features of certain proprietarysoftware.software.</p> <p> For instance, some proprietary programs are “spyware”: the program <a href="/philosophy/proprietary-surveillance.html"> sends out data about users' computingactivities.activities</a>. Microsoft Windows sends information about users' activities to Microsoft. Windows Media Playerand RealPlayer reportreports what each user watches or listensto.</p>to. The Amazon Kindle reports which pages of which books the user looks at, and when. Angry Birds reports the user's geolocation history.</p> <p>Unlike proprietary software,SaaSSaaSS does not require covert code to obtain the user's data. Instead, users must send their data to the server in order to use it. This has the same effect as spyware: the server operator gets thedata. He gets it withdata—with no special effort, by the nature ofSaaS.</p>SaaSS. Amy Webb, who intended never to post any photos of her daughter, made the mistake of using SaaSS (Instagram) to edit photos of her. Eventually <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/data_mine_1/2013/09/privacy_facebook_kids_don_t_post_photos_of_your_kids_on_social_media.html"> they leaked from there</a>. </p> <p>Theoretically, homomorphic encryption might some day advance to the point where future SaaSS services might be constructed to be unable to understand some of the data that users send them. Such services <em>could</em> be set up not to snoop on users; this does not mean they <em>will</em> do no snooping.</p> <p>Some proprietaryprograms can mistreat users under remote command.operating systems have a universal back door, permitting someone to remotely install software changes. For instance, Windows has a universal back door with which Microsoft can forcibly change any software on the machine.The Amazon Kindle e-book reader (whose name suggests it's intended to burn people's books) has an OrwellianNearly all portable phones have them, too. Some proprietary applications also have universal backdoor that Amazon used in 2009 to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html" >remotely delete</a> Kindle copies of Orwell's books <cite>1984</cite> and <cite>Animal Farm</cite> whichdoors; for instance, theusers had purchased from Amazon.</p> <p>SaaS inherently givesSteam client for GNU/Linux allows the developer to remotely install modified versions.</p> <p>With SaaSS, the server operatorthe power tocan change the software inuse, oruse on theusers' data being operated on. Once again, no special code is neededserver. He ought to be able to dothis.</p>this, since it's his computer; but the result is the same as using a proprietary application program with a universal back door: someone has the power to silently impose changes in how the user's computing gets done.</p> <p>Thus,SaaSSaaSS is equivalent tototalrunning proprietary software with spyware and agaping wideuniversal backdoor, anddoor. It gives the server operator unjust power over theuser. We can't accept that.</p> <h3>Untanglinguser, and that power is something we must resist.</p> <h3>SaaSS and SaaS</h3> <p>Originally we referred to this problematical practice as “SaaS”, which stands for “Software as a Service”. It's a commonly used term for setting up software on a server rather than offering copies of it to users, and we thought it described precisely the cases where this problem occurs.</p> <p>Subsequently we became aware that the term SaaS is sometimes used for communication services—activities for which this issue is not applicable. In addition, the term “Software as a Service” doesn't explain <em>why</em> the practice is bad. So we coined the term “Service as a Software Substitute”, which defines the bad practice more clearly and says what is bad about it.</p> <h3>Untangling the SaaSS Issue from the Proprietary Software Issue</h3><p>SaaS<p>SaaSS and proprietary software lead to similar harmful results, but thecausalmechanisms are different. With proprietary software, thecausemechanism is that you have and use a copy which is difficultorand/or illegal to change. WithSaaS,SaaSS, thecausemechanism is that youuse a copy youdon'thave.</p>have the copy that's doing your computing.</p> <p>These two issues are often confused, and not only by accident. Web developers use the vague term “web application” to lump the server software together with programs run on your machine in your browser. Some web pages installnontrivial ornontrivial, even large JavaScript programstemporarilyinto your browser without informing you. <a href="/philosophy/javascript-trap.html">When these JavaScript programs are nonfree</a>, theyare as badcause the same sort of injustice as any other nonfree software. Here, however, we are concerned with theproblemissue of using theserver softwareservice itself.</p> <p>Many free software supporters assume that the problem ofSaaSSaaSS will be solved by developing free software for servers. For the server operator's sake, the programs on the server had better be free; if they are proprietary, theirownersdevelopers/owners have power over the server. That's unfair to the server operator, and doesn't helpyouthe server's users at all. But if the programs on the server are free, that doesn't protectyou <em>as the<em>the server'suser</em>users</em> from the effects ofSaaS. They give freedom toSaaSS. These programs liberate the server operator, but notto you.</p>the server's users.</p> <p>Releasing the server software source code does benefit the community: it enables suitably skilled userscanto set up similar servers, perhaps changing the software.But<a href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html"> We recommend using the GNU Affero GPL</a> as the license for programs often used on servers.</p> <p>But none of these servers would give you control over computing you do on it, unless it's <em>your</em>server. The rest would all be SaaS. SaaS always subjectsserver (one whose software load youto the powercontrol, regardless of whether theserver operator, and the only remedy is, <em>Don't use SaaS!</em> Don't use someone else's servermachine is your property). It may be OK todotrust yourownfriend's server for some jobs, just as you might let your friend maintain the software on your own computer. Outside of that, all these servers would be SaaSS for you. SaaSS always subjects you to the power of the server operator, and the only remedy is, <em>Don't use SaaSS!</em> Don't use someone else's server to do your own computing on data provided by you.</p> <p>This issue demonstrates the depth of the difference between “open” and “free”. Source code that is open source <a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">is, nearly always, free</a>. However, the idea of an <a href="http://opendefinition.org/software-service">“open software” service</a>, meaning one whose server software is open source and/or free, fails to address the issue of SaaSS.</p> <p>Services are fundamentally different from programs, and the ethical issues that services raise are fundamentally different from the issues that programs raise. To avoid confusion, we <a href="/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html"> avoid describing a service as “free” or “proprietary.”</a></p> <h3>DistinguishingSaaSSaaSS from Other Network Services</h3><p>Does avoiding SaaS mean<p>Which online services are SaaSS? The clearest example is a translation service, which translates (say) English text into Spanish text. Translating a text for you is computing that is purely yours. You could do it by running a program on your own computer, if only you had the right program. (To be ethical, that program should be free.) The translation service substitutes for that program, so it is Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS. Since it denies you control over your computing, it does you wrong.</p> <p>Another clear example is using a service such as Flickr or Instagram to modify a photo. Modifying photos is an activity that people have done in their own computers for decades; doing it in a server yourefusedon't control, rather than your own computer, is SaaSS.</p> <p>Rejecting SaaSS does not mean refusing to use any network servers run by anyone other thanyou? Not at all.you. Most serversdoare notraise this issue,SaaSS because thejob youjobs they dowith them isn't yourare some sort of communication, rather than the user's owncomputing except in a trivial sense.</p>computing.</p> <p>The originalpurposeidea of web servers wasn't to do computing for you, it was to publish information for you to access. Even today this is what most web sites do, and it doesn't pose theSaaSSaaSS problem, because accessing someone's published information isn'ta matter ofdoing your own computing. Neither ispublishing your own materials viause of a blog site to publish your own works, or using a microblogging service such as Twitter oridenti.ca.StatusNet. (These services may or may not have other problems, depending on details.) The same goes for other communication not meant to be private, such as chatgroups. Socialgroups.</p> <p>In its essence, social networkingcan extend into SaaS; however, at root itisjustamethodform of communication and publication, notSaaS. If you use theSaaSS. However, a service whose main facility is social networking can have features or extensions which are SaaSS.</p> <p>If a servicefor minor editing of what you're going to communicate, thatis not SaaSS, that does not mean it is OK. There are other ethical issues about services. For instance, Facebook distributes video in Flash, which pressures users to run nonfree software; it requires running nonfree JavaScript code; and it gives users asignificant issue.</p>misleading impression of privacy while luring them into baring their lives to Facebook. Those are important issues, different from the SaaSS issue. </p> <p>Services such as search engines collect data from around the web and let you examine it. Looking through their collection of data isn't your own computing in the usual sense—you didn't provide that collection—so using such a service to search the web is notSaaS. (However,SaaSS. However, using someone else'ssearch engineserver to implement a search facility for your own site <em>is</em>SaaS.)</p> <p>E-commerceSaaSS.</p> <p>Purchasing online is notSaaS,SaaSS, because the computing isn'tsolely yours;<em>your own</em> activity; rather, it is done jointly by and for you andanother party. So there's no particular reason why you alone should expect to control that computing.the store. The real issue ine-commerceonline shopping is whether you trust the other party with your money and other personalinformation.</p>information (starting with your name).</p> <p>Repository sites such as Savannah and SourceForge are not inherently SaaSS, because a repository's job is publication of data supplied to it.</p> <p>Using a joint project's servers isn'tSaaSSaaSS because the computing you do in this way isn'tyours personally.your own. For instance, if you edit pages on Wikipedia, you are not doing your own computing; rather, you are collaborating in Wikipedia'scomputing.</p> <p>Wikipediacomputing. Wikipedia controls its own servers, butgroups can faceorganizations as well as individuals encounter the problem ofSaaSSaaSS if they do theirgroup activities oncomputing in someone else'sserver. Fortunately, development hostingserver.</p> <p>Some sitessuch as Savannahoffer multiple services, andSourceForge don't poseif one is not SaaSS, another may be SaaSS. For instance, theSaaS problem, because what groups do theremain service of Facebook ismainly publicationsocial networking, andpublic communication, rather than their own private computing.</p> <p>Multiplayer games are a group activity carried out on someone else's server, which makes them SaaS. But where the data involvedthat isjust the statenot SaaSS; however, it supports third-party applications, some ofplay and the score, the worst wrong the operator might commitwhich are SaaSS. Flickr's main service isfavoritism. You might well ignore that risk, sincedistributing photos, which is not SaaSS, but itseems unlikely and very littlealso has features for editing photos, which isat stake. On the other hand, when the game becomes more than just a game, the issue changes.</p> <p>“Backend asSaaSS. Likewise, using Instagram to post aService”, or BaaS,photo isa kind of SaaS, becausenot SaaSS, but using itinvolves running your own web service on top of software that you can't control. If you set up a service using BaaS,to transform theBaaS platform may well collect information about your users as well as you.</p> <p>Which online services are SaaS? Google Docsphoto is SaaSS.</p> <p>Google Docs shows how complex the evaluation of aclear example. Its basic activity is editing, and Google encouragessingle service can become. It invites people touseedit a document by running a large <a href="/philosophy/javascript-trap.html">nonfree JavaScript program</a>, clearly wrong. However, it offers an API fortheir own editing;uploading and downloading documents in standard formats. A free software editor can do so through this API. This usage scenario isSaaS. It offers the added feature of collaborative editing,not SaaSS, because it uses Google Docs as a mere repository. Showing all your data to a company is bad, butadding participants doesn't alter the factthateditingis a matter of privacy, not SaaSS; depending onthe servera service for access to your data isSaaS. (In addition, Google Docsbad, but that isunacceptable because it installsalarge <a href="/philosophy/javascript-trap.html"> nonfree JavaScript program</a> intomatter of risk, not SaaSS. On theuser's browser.) Ifother hand, usingathe service forcommunication or collaboration requires doing substantial parts ofconverting document formats <em>is</em> SaaSS, because it's something you could have done by running a suitable program (free, one hopes) in your owncomputing withcomputer.</p> <p>Using Google Docs through a free editor is rare, of course. Most often, people use ittoo, that computingthrough the nonfree JavaScript program, which isSaaS even ifbad like any nonfree program. This scenario might involve SaaSS, too; that depends on what part of thecommunicationediting isnot.</p> <p>Some sites offer multiple services,done in the JavaScript program andif one is not SaaS, another may be SaaS. For instance,what part in themain service of Facebook is social networking,server. We don't know, but since SaaSS andthat is not SaaS; however,proprietary software do similar wrong to the user, itsupports third-party applications, some of which may be SaaS. Flickr's main service is distributing photos, whichis notSaaS, but it also has features for editing photos, which is SaaS.</p> <p>Some sites whose main service is publication and communication extend it with “contact management”: keeping track of people you have relationships with. Sending mailcrucial tothose people for you isknow.</p> <p>Publishing via someone else's repository does notSaaS,raise privacy issues, butkeeping track of your dealings with them, if substantial, is SaaS.</p> <p>Ifpublishing through Google Docs has aservice is not SaaS, that does not meanspecial problem: it isOK. There are other bad thingsimpossible even to <em>view the text</em> of aservice can do. For instance, Facebook distributes videoGoogle Docs document inFlash, which pressures users to run nonfree software, and it gives usersamisleading impression of privacy. Those are important issues too, but this article's concern isbrowser without running theissuenonfree JavaScript code. Thus, you should not use Google Docs to publish anything—but the reason is not a matter ofSaaS.</p>SaaSS.</p> <p>The IT industry discourages users fromconsideringmaking these distinctions. That's what the buzzword “cloud computing” is for. This term is so nebulous that it could refer to almost any use of the Internet. It includesSaaS and it includes nearly everything else.SaaSS as well as many other network usage practices. In any given context, an author who writes “cloud” (if a technical person) probably has a specific meaning in mind, but usually does not explain that in other articles the term has other specific meanings. The termonly lends itselfleads people touselessly broad statements.</p> <p>The real meaning ofgeneralize about practices they ought to consider individually.</p> <p>If “cloud computing” has a meaning, it isto suggestnot a way of doing computing, but rather a way of thinking about computing: a devil-may-care approachtowards your computing. Itwhich says, “Don't askquestions, just trust every business without hesitation.questions. Don't worry about who controls your computing or who holds your data. Don't check fora hook hidden inside our service beforea hook hidden inside our service before you swallow it. Trust companies without hesitation.” In other words, “Be a sucker.” A cloud in the mind is an obstacle to clear thinking. For the sake of clear thinking about computing, let's avoid the term “cloud.”</p> <h3>Renting a Server Distinguished from SaaSS</h3> <p>If you rent a server (real or virtual), whose software load you have control over, that's not SaaSS. In SaaSS, someone else decides what software runs on the server and therefore controls the computing it does for you. In the case where you install the software on the server, you control what computing it does for you. Thus, the rented server is virtually your computer. For this issue, it counts as yours.</p> <p>The <em>data</em> on the rented remote server is less secure than if youswallow it.” In other words, “Think like a sucker.” I prefer to avoidhad theterm.</p>server at home, but that is a separate issue from SaaSS.</p> <h3>Dealing with theSaaSSaaSS Problem</h3> <p>Only a small fraction of all web sites doSaaS;SaaSS; most don't raise the issue. But what should we do about the ones that raise it?</p> <p>For the simple case, where you are doing your own computing on data in your own hands, the solution is simple: use your own copy of a free software application. Do your text editing with your copy of a free text editor such as GNU Emacs or a free word processor. Do your photo editing with your copy of free software such asGIMP.</p> <p>But whatGIMP. What if there is no free program available? A proprietary program or SaaSS would take away your freedom, so you shouldn't use those. You can contribute your time or your money to development of a free replacement.</p> <p>What about collaborating with otherindividuals?individuals as a group? It may be hard to do this at present without using a server, and your group may not know how to run its own server. If you useone,someone else's server, at least don't trust a server run by a company. A mere contract as a customer is no protection unless you could detect a breach and could really sue, and the company probably writes its contracts to permit a broad range of abuses.PoliceThe state can subpoena your data from the company along withless basis than requiredeveryone else's, as Obama has done tosubpoena them from you,phone companies, supposing the company doesn't volunteer them like the US phone companies that illegally wiretapped their customers for Bush. If you must use a server, use a server whose operators give you a basis for trust beyond a mere commercial relationship.</p> <p>However, on a longer time scale, we can create alternatives to using servers. For instance, we can create a peer-to-peer program through which collaborators can share data encrypted. The free software community should develop distributed peer-to-peer replacements for important “web applications”. It may be wise to release them under the <a href="/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html"> GNU Affero GPL</a>, since they are likely candidates for being converted into server-based programs by someone else. The <a href="/">GNU project</a> is looking for volunteers to work on such replacements. We also invite other free software projects to consider this issue in their design.</p> <p>In the meantime, if a company invites you to use its server to do your own computing tasks, don't yield; don't useSaaS.SaaSS. Don't buy or install “thin clients”, which are simply computers so weak they make you do the real work on a server, unless you're going to use them with <em>your</em> server. Use a real computer and keep your data there. Do yourworkown computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake.</p> <h3>See also:</h3> <p><a href="/philosophy/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html">The Bug Nobody is Allowed to Understand</a>.</p></div></div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> <div id="footer"><p> Please<div class="unprintable"> <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.<br /> Please send brokenBroken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <ahref="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>. </p> <p>Pleasehref="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, replace it with the translation of these two: We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of our web pages, see <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a>. --> Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.</p> </div> <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the document was modified, or published. If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> <p>Copyright ©20102010, 2013, 2015, 2016 RichardStallman <br /> ThisStallman</p> <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creativehref="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative CommonsAttribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>. </p>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --><p>Updated:<p class="unprintable">Updated: <!-- timestamp start --> $Date: 2016/01/01 22:04:33 $ <!-- timestamp end --> </p> </div> </div> </body> </html>