CPP Original Discussion

[gnrp]

@decentral1se

I think it’s important to clarify this point. A lot of cultural institutions might function like this and there will be similar questions on whether they “fit” or not. It should be easy to see if you should join the network or not. Thoughts?

I think this is a crucial question. It is like the copyleft discussion (BSD vs GPL). Do you want to have enforced growth or not? I actually think a self-sufficient provider should be able to be part of the network as well. Seeking out to expand entails a certain aggressiveness.
I also think it might be quite some high expectations to not only provide the administrational and technical work, but also the social one. And also somewhat uncomfortable and unproductive for some…

---

And for the actual topic, first a disclaimer: I really like the idea of the project, but the shape right now is something I heavily criticize. Take this text as a proof-reading and commenting on it.

First, the very concrete remarks I have:

@decentral1se

An objective of this network is to gather initiatives of various online service providers offering free software based solutions, enabling the public to choose services according to their needs.

Other objectives include sharing of infrastructure, knowledge and techniques, co-learning and helping participants transition from user to service provider.

The formulation is a bit weird for such a document. Not “an objective” and “other objectives” or including something… Everything should be formulated as an intention:

This network gathers initiatives of various online service providers offering free software based solutions, enabling the public to choose services according to their needs.
The network aims at sharing of infrastructure, knowledge and techniques, co-learning and helping participants transition from user to service provider.

@decentral1se

• Librehosters cultivate self-reflection by nurturing ongoing dialogue and active listening.

As much as I like this as a general concept in life, and also for running services, I have a really bad feeling in writing such a thing into the principles. I actually think such a point would mainly help people who want to cause trouble and annoy others.

@decentral1se

• Librehosters respect the terms of the free software licenses they use (including mentioning these licenses, linking to the source code, etc.).

That is a legal requirement anyway, isn’t it? If the licence is not respected, the authors can sue the provider.

@decentral1se

• Librehosters contribute to the free software ecosystems, communities and projects used.

And if a one-man project does not have the time or even the intention of doing this? Is it not a valid point to be simply a provider of some services and not more?

@decentral1se

• Librehosters publicly display a policy regarding the administration of user accounts.

What is meant by that? I would say it needs clarification.

@decentral1se

Librehosters can be non-profits, individuals, businesses, collectives or other legal forms.

I really like this point. In Germany, when founding a Verein, the definition of who is actually allowed as a member usually causes trouble.
And in international context it is even more problematic. I would just say “any legal entity by its country of origin”, without going into detail. Or not even requiring that. I guess there are many providers out there who are very well in agreement with the statutes, but have no legal status. It is just somebody hosting a service on a website. Looking at the free software world, the majority of the projects is not represented by a legal entity. I do not know how to formulate this in English, a native speaker would be helpful here.

---

More generally speaking, some issues I see in general:

1. I really see the “free software” part as problematic. Everybody knows about the actual problems to define the boundaries of software, or when blobs come into use, or when for some things simply no adequate free software is available (ubiquiti management anyone?). What would happen with a provider in such a case?
   Also, actually most of the small service providers which do not target businesses only of this world actually use free software anyway. It is simply a matter of practicability to use Linux with a free software mail toolchain, Apache for web, etc.

2. Decision making process. I do not know if this is supposed to be in the CPP, or if this actually belongs into the “rough consensus” thread, but I think this should be stated somewhere, or at least another document should be referenced that defines the working principles of working groups or the whole network.

3. (Non-)commerciality is a very difficult construct legally, but many seem to be very emotional on this topic and might see it as part of librehosters. I guess that should be addressed somehow (I know I was criticizing just that paragraph above), but do not have a clear idea yet, how.

4. Overall, I think some more reflection is required on what librehosters is supposed to be. This CPP reads in parts as “fair business rules”, in others as “anarchy for the world!!11”. The overall trouble the hacker scene has at the moment to find its place, somewhere in between big money funding security research, the maker scene, free software, hamradio, movie release crews and media piracy, etc. …
   Is it supposed to be an elite ascetic group of providers which fulfill all these goals? Is it a group of hosters which mainly want free software and some transparency? Or is it a group of hosters which just want to make sure that you know what you get?
   While writing this, I was actually thinking: What about the elite group, which then also has “labels” to describe the actual fulfillment of its own rules so that others can comply where they want (but not become part of the network)? A bit like CC, where a legal framework is provided and everybody can pick himself which labels he prefers.