Re: Dependence on nonfree software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > "A different case is when the program talks across a network with
   > a server running on another machine, and the server is proprietary or
   > has an unknown license; unless the two pieces of software make a
   > single program (for example because they exchange complex data
   > structures intimately), the client does not really depend on the server.
   > In such scenario the user is not required to install nor run any
   > proprietary software on per computer, so there's no dependency of
   > the client on the server, even if the server's responses are needed for
   > the program's main functionalities; said client program is therefore
   > eligible for hosting."

   This can become dangerous: the free software ecosystem may begin to 
   depend on software that talks with proprietary servers with no 
   documentation about how they work, other than the properly licensed 
   free source code.

That is why we avoid using the term "ecosystem"
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Ecosystem) --
software doesn't become able to talk to other software by osmosis, we
as programmers must take care so that our software always respsects
the users freedom.


   This may become more difficult if the proprietary server API changes
   quickly, nearly every day. This becomes a problem: while it does not
   force the users to run proprietary software, their existing free
   clients for this server may break easily, and not all maintainers will
   be able to resolve this quickly.

That software changes is not an issue of ethics for, this can occur
with free software too.

   Does this seem similar to "service as software substitute"? How to
   quantify this or what barriers would need to be added?

I do not see what the similarity is, just talking over a network (no
matter the complexity of a protocol) doesn't automatically make
something a SaSS -- what happens on the other side is what makes SaSS.