Re: [libreplanet-discuss] My First of Five

[Julien Kyou]

On April 5, 2016 7:43:34 AM AST, Fabio Pesari <fabiop@gnu.org> wrote:
>>Hi Julien,
>
>I am sorry but your post isn't really clear or easy to follow, 
Sorry about that. I should have clarified, this is the last of an email
exchange between him and myself. I left his email unchanged I didn't
want to misconvey any of his thoughts.

But he top posted all of that so I fixed it.
>
>> -FSF was suggesting that a central server that runs a program for you is a 
>> bad idea. Although their point is good (that it is dangerous to have this), 
>> it nonetheless has its advantages:
>>
>> --Multiplayer games could not run without this happening
>
>That's not always true: many multiplayer games nowadays use what is
>called "matchmaking", which is a way to play online without dedicated
>servers (the game is hosted by one or more of the players).
>
>> --Secure databases that must be protected from tampering (ex bank accounts, 
>> multiplayer games, cloud storage) could not work without this happening
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_database

Thankyou excellent point 

>
>Compared to what? A native program consumes _zero_ bandwidth compared
>to
>its SaaSS counterpart (unless you want it to).
>
I believe his issue was if you needed to download the program for a one time use
vs SaaSS which is convenient (if you are ignorant to freedom and privacy 
concerns)

>This is harder to deal with. Considering how real-life libraries work
>(each transaction is logged, there are only a few copies for every
>book,
>books must be given back), then to me DRM looks like a reasonable
>implementation.
>
>Do I think it's fair? No, it isn't. But rationally, it makes sense,
>and
>I can't think of many other ways to achieve this without angering the
>publishers (who don't want DRM-free PDFs floating around), and since
>it's their books it's also their rules.
>
>DRM is bad for a number of reasons, mainly that it requires users to
>blindly trust proprietary code. If said users don't have a problem
>with
>that (and judging by the percentage of Windows, iOS and Android users,
>they don't), there is no reason for them to dislike DRM.
>
>DRM in hardware is a whole another issue: monitors and CPUs are bad
>enough, but think about self-driving cars or medical implants. Those
>things can decide who lives and who dies and DRM in them is frankly
>dangerous. But again, it's their devices and their rules. What must be
>prevented is DRM becoming legally obligatory, which I think could
>happen
>in some fields (3D printing comes to my mind).

Another great point.  
Thank you again

Sorry for the double send