←back to thread

Local-first software (2019)

(www.inkandswitch.com)
863 points gasull | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.015s | source
Show context
GMoromisato ◴[] No.44473808[source]
Personally, I disagree with this approach. This is trying to solve a business problem (I can't trust cloud-providers) with a technical trade-off (avoid centralized architecture).

The problems with closed-source software (lack of control, lack of reliability) were solved with a new business model: open source development, which came with new licenses and new ways of getting revenue (maintenance contracts instead of license fees).

In the same way, we need a business model solution to cloud-vendor ills.

Imagine we create standard contracts/licenses that define rights so that users can be confident of their relationship with cloud-vendors. Over time, maybe users would only deal with vendors that had these licenses. The rights would be something like:

* End-of-life contracts: cloud-vendors should contractually spell out what happens if they can't afford to keep the servers running.

* Data portability guarantees: Vendors must spell out how data gets migrated out, and all formats must be either open or (at minimum) fully documented.

* Data privacy transparency: Vendors must track/audit all data access and report to the user who/what read their data and when.

I'm sure you can think of a dozen other clauses.

The tricky part is, of course, adoption. What's in it for the cloud-vendors? Why would they adopt this? The major fear of cloud-vendors is, I think, churn. If you're paying lots of money to get people to try your service, you have to make sure they don't churn out, or you'll lose money. Maybe these contracts come only with annual subscription terms. Or maybe the appeal of these contracts is enough for vendors to charge more.

replies(12): >>44473922 #>>44474074 #>>44474164 #>>44474231 #>>44474286 #>>44474367 #>>44474424 #>>44474450 #>>44474769 #>>44475861 #>>44476561 #>>44477275 #
WarOnPrivacy ◴[] No.44474164[source]
> End-of-life contracts: cloud-vendors should contractually spell out what happens if they can't afford to keep the servers running.

I'm trying to imagine how this would be enforced when a company shutters and it's principals walk away.

replies(3): >>44474245 #>>44474255 #>>44478728 #
1. GMoromisato ◴[] No.44474245[source]
It's a good question--I am not a lawyer.

But that's the point of contracts, right? When a company shuts down, the contracts become part of the liabilities. E.g., if the contract says "you must pay each customer $1000 if we shut down" then the customers become creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding. It doesn't guarantee that they get all (or any) money, but their interests are negotiated by the bankruptcy judge.

Similarly, I can imagine a contract that says, "if the company shuts down, all our software becomes open source." Again, this would be managed by a bankruptcy judge who would mandate a release instead of allowing the creditors to gain the IP.

Another possibility is for the company to create a legal trust that is funded to keep the servers running (at a minimal level) for some specified amount of time.

replies(2): >>44474339 #>>44476440 #
2. WarOnPrivacy ◴[] No.44474339[source]
> When a company shuts down, the contracts become part of the liabilities.

The asset in the contract is their customer's data; it is becoming stale by the minute. It could be residing in debtor-owned hardware and/or in data centers that are no longer getting their bills paid.

It takes time to get a trustee assigned and I think we need an immediate response - like same day. (NAL but prep'd 7s & 13s)

3. bigfatkitten ◴[] No.44476440[source]
No, not at all.

The entire point of Chapter 11 (and similar bankruptcy legislation internationally) is to allow companies to get out of contracts, so that they can restructure the business to hopefully continue on as a going concern.