[mikegerwitz]

No. You aren't being denied your freedoms on someone else's computer because you have no right to exercise them to begin with---it's not yours.

It's the same concept with the AGPL---I have no right to modify the source code on someone else's server; I'd need to install it on my own.

If you had to have access to the source code for everything you used, it'd be an almost impossible burden. rms takes public transportation in Boston, for example. Those terminals are interactive touchscreens, required for payment and printing tickets. He'd be unable to use the transit system.

From stallman.org:

> However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain to the local people why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don't push them hard, because annoying them is not the way to convince them.

> Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue, which would arise just the same even if they did use free software. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me.)

> That's my policy about using a machine once in a while. If I were to use it for an hour every day, that would no longer be "once in a while" — it would be regular use. At that point, I would start to feel the heavy hand of any nonfree software in that computer, and feel the duty to arrange to use a liberated computer instead.

> Likewise, if I were to ask or lead someone to set up a computer for me to use, that would make me ethically responsible for its software load. In such a case I insist on free software, just as if the machine were my own property.

https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

So using someone else's computer is a similar problem to SaaSS---you're relying on someone else for your computing:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

[OrganicMSG]

> You aren't being denied your freedoms on someone else's computer because you have no right to exercise them to begin with---it's not yours.

How about the freedom to refuse to use someone else's computer unless I can also see the source code?

[mikegerwitz]

That's orthogonal to the issue. Of course you have the freedom to refrain from use of any technology, unless you're somehow being mandated by law to use it.

[deadbunny]

And you have the same right with any SaaS.