Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Repository response to takedown notices

[Ian Jackson]

Mike Gerwitz writes ("Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Repository response to 
takedown notices"):
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 16:48:49 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I. roskomnadzor.
...
> Richard Stallman's opinion is that GitHub could have chosen to stand up
> to the Russian government.

This is a rather awkward response.  Do you agree with Richard ?

> You are right in that they are in a bad situation---when I described it
> to rms, he called it a "hostage situation"; Russia is using their
> citizens to demand that GitHub uphold its "tyrannical rule" (quotes
> his).  I agree with him: GitHub could have done the right thing,
> and---being such a popular service---cause an outcry that might have the
> Russian government reconsider.  Instead, they've played along.

The possible outcomes of this scenario can indeed be debated.  My
point is that Github's behaviour on this point is a long way from
being clearly wrong.

> These criteria are for acceptable hosts for GNU projects; we hope that
> others will adopt them and take them into consideration for their own
> services, but we cannot possibly endorse a service that might
> potentially block users from accessing GNU's software, no matter what
> the reason.

What matters is not some kind of abstract notion of whose fault it is
when a user cannot get GNU software.

What matters is that actual real people should be able, in practice,
to get GNU software (and interact with our hosting platforms) when
they want to.

Users might be unable to get GNU software because the hosting platform
accedes to censorship; or because the hosting platform has been
blocked by a national government.

What to do about this is a question of tactics for the hosting
platform, which can have more than one reasonable answer.

More widely:

All hosting platforms are vulnerable to legal attack of one kind or
another.  Hosting platforms in the US are especially vulnerable to
copyright, trademark and DMCA nonsense.  Should we reject all hosting
platforms in the US on the grounds that they must comply with odious
US laws on tools which allow users to reclaim their freedom by
defeating DRM ?

In this context the actual things blocked by github are, of course,
not software.  They are information about suicide methods (several
cases) and political material about Crimea (one case).

Thanks,
Ian.