perro
/
perrotuerto.blog
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Seguimos con cambios en 6

This commit is contained in:
perro tuerto 2020-04-06 17:24:27 -05:00
parent 2172748b83
commit 21c15a6f80
1 changed files with 49 additions and 45 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

94
content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md
View File

@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ distinctive relationship with her own work. Without some metaphysics
or theological conceptions about cultural production, this special
relation is difficult to prove---but that is another story.
![Locke and Hegel drinking tea while discussing about several topics on Nothingland… Except +++IP+++, that is a contemporary topic far different to what they talked about.](../../../img/p006_i001.png)
![Locke and Hegel drinking tea while discussing several topics on Nothingland… Except +++IP+++, that is a contemporary topic far different to what they talked about.](../../../img/p006_i001.png)
From copyfight, copyleft and copyfarleft movements, a lot of people
have argued that this argument hides the fact that most authors
@ -56,10 +56,10 @@ that doesn't rely on the actual producers, cultural phenomena or world issues…
And it also shows that there are [librarians](https://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/internet-archive-responds-why-we-released-the-national-emergency-library)
and [researchers](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-03/covid-19-open-science)
fighting in favor of public interests; +++AKA+++, how important
are libraries and open access today and how they can't be replaced
libraries and open access are today and how they can't be replaced
by (online) bookstores or subscription-based research.
I find it very pretentious if [some authors](https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-archives-uncontrolled-digital-lending)
I would find it very pretentious if [some authors](https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-archives-uncontrolled-digital-lending)
and [some publishers](https://publishers.org/news/comment-from-aap-president-and-ceo-maria-pallante-on-the-internet-archives-national-emergency-library)
didn't agree with this _temporal_ openness of their work. But let's not miss the
point: this global pandemic has shown how easily it is for publishers
@ -75,12 +75,12 @@ case the authors, but more generally and secularly the producers.
The copyleft holders---a kind of cool copyright holder that
hacked copyright laws---also defends their interest in a similar
way, but instead of authors, they talk about users and instead
of profits they supposedly defend freedom.
of profits, they supposedly defend freedom.
There is a huge difference between each of them, but I just want
to denote how they talk about people in order to defend their
interests. I wouldn't put them in the same sack if it wasn't
because of two issues.
because of these? two issues.
Some copyleft holders were so annoying in defending Stallman.
_Dudes_, at least from here we don't reduce the free software movement
@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ important he is or was. Criticizing his actions wasn't synonymous with
throwing away what this movement has done---what we have done!---,
as a lot of you tried to mitigate the issue: “Oh, but he is not
the movement, we shouldn't have made a big issue about that.” His
and your attitude is the fucking issue. He and you have made it
and your attitude is the fucking issue. Together you have made it
very clear how narrow both views are. Stallman fucked it up
and was behaving very immaturely by thinking the movement is
or was thanks to him---we also have our own stories about his
@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ they forgot that “freedom wants to be free.”
Instead, they have tried to give formal definitions of
software freedom. Don't get me wrong, definitions are a good
way to plan and understand a phenomenon. But besides its formality
way to plan and understand a phenomenon. But besides its formality,
it is problematic to bind others to your own definitions,
mainly when you say the movement is about and for them.
@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ is actually an array of worlds and if people sometimes behave
one way or the other, of course the notion of freedom is gonna
vary.
With freedom's different meanings we could try to reduce its diversity ? > The diversity of freedom definitions.
With freedom's different meanings we could try to reduce its diversity
so it could be embedded in any context or we could try something else.
I dunno, maybe we could make software freedom an interoperable
concept that fits each of our worlds or we could just stop trying
@ -130,15 +130,15 @@ The copyleft institutions I mentioned and many other companies
that are proud to support the copyleft movement tend to be blind
about this. I am talking from my experiences, my battles and
my struggles when I decided to use copyfarleft licenses in most
parts of my work. Instead of having support from representatives
of this institutions, I first received warnings: “That freedom
parts of my work. Instead of receiving support from institutional
representatives, I first received warnings: “That freedom
you are talking about isn't freedom.” Afterwards, when I sought
infrastructure support, I got refusals: “You are invited to use
our code in your server, but we can't provide you hosting because
your licenses aren't free.” Dawgs, if I could, I wouldn't look
for your help in the first place, duh.
Thanks to a lot of Latin Americans hackers and pirates, I am little
Thanks to a lot of Latin American hackers and pirates, I am little
by little building my and our own infrastructure. But I know
this help is actually a privilege: for many years I couldn't
execute many projects or ideas only because I didn't have
@ -148,33 +148,34 @@ learning.
(There is a pedagogical deficiency in the free software movement
that makes people think that writing documentation and praising
self-taught learning is enough. From my point of view it is more
self-taught learning is enough. From my point of view, it is more
about the production of a self-image in how a hacker or a pirate
_should be_. Plus, it's fucking scary when you realize how ? > It is scary to see that copyleft movement is manly, hierarchical and so on.
manly, hierarchical and meritocratic this movement tends to be.)
_should be_. Plus, it's fucking scary when you realize how
manly, hierarchical and meritocratic this movement tends to be.
According to copyleft folks, my notion of software freedom isn't
free because copyfarleft licenses prevents _people_ to use software. ? > Prevents, yep!
free because copyfarleft licenses prevents _people_ from using software.
This is a very common criticism of any copyfarleft license. And
it is also a very paradoxical one.
Between the free software movement and open source initiative there
has been a disagreement about the ought to inherit the same type ? > Free software implies to use the same license in your software that the free software you are using for its development.
of license, like the General Public License. For the free software
movement this clause ensures that software will always be free.
According to the open source initiative this clause is actually
Between the free software movement and open source initiative, there
has been a disagreement about who ought to inherit the same type of
license, like the General Public License. For the free software
movement, this clause ensures that software will always be free.
According to the open source initiative, this clause is actually
a counter-freedom because it doesn't allow people to decide which
license to use and it also isn't very attractive for enterprise
entrepreneurship. Let's not forget that both sides agree that
the market is are essential for technology development.
Free software supporters tend to vanish the discussion by declaring
that open source defenders don't understand the social implication
of this hereditary clause or that they have different interests
and ways to change technology development. So it's kind of paradoxical
that these folks see the anti-capitalist clause of copyfarleft
licenses as a counter-freedom. Or they don't understand its implications
or they don't perceive that copyfarleft doesn't talk about technology
or perceive that copyfarleft doesn't talk about technology
development in its insolation, but in its relationship with politics,
society and economy.
@ -186,7 +187,7 @@ debate. Third, I think we should focus on the ways we can work
together, instead of paying attention to what could divide us.
Finally, I don't think these criticisms are wrong, but incomplete:
the definition of software freedom has inherited the philosophical problem
of how we can define and what the definition
of how we define and what the definition
of freedom implies.
That doesn't mean I don't care about this discussion. Actually,
@ -194,7 +195,7 @@ it's a topic I'm very familiar with. Copyright has locked
me out with paywalls for technology and knowledge access, copyleft has
kept me away with “licensewalls” with the same effects. So let's take a moment
to see how free the freedom is that the copyleft institutions
are preaching
are preaching.
According to _Open Source Software & The Department of Defense_
(+++DoD+++), The +++U.S. DoD+++ is one of the biggest consumers
@ -250,7 +251,7 @@ freedom relies on strong institutions and the capacity of own
property or capitalize knowledge. The same ones which have been
trying to explain that the economic models they try to “teach”
us don't work or we doubt them because of their side effects.
Crowdfunding isn't easy because our cultural production here
Crowdfunding isn't easy here because our cultural production
is heavily dependent on government aids and policies, instead
of the private or public sectors. And donations aren't a good idea
because of the hidden interests they could have and the economic
@ -273,21 +274,25 @@ and its economic models.
Those copyleft institutions that care so much about “user
freedoms” actually haven't been explicit about how +++FOSS+++
is helping shape a world where a lot of us don't fit in. It
had to be right-wing think tanks, the ones that declares the relevance
had to be right-wing think tanks, the ones that declare the relevance
of +++FOSS+++ for warfare, intelligence, security and authoritarian regimes,
while these institutions have been making many efforts in justifying
its way of understanding cultural production as a commodification
of its political capacity. They have shown that in their pursuit of
government and corporate adoption of +++FOSS+++, they talk ? > They talk about “software user freedoms” but they actually refer to “freedom of use software”, no matter the objective.
about users whereas their policies are designed to defend _use_.
of its political capacity.
They have shown that in their pursuit of
government and corporate adoption of +++FOSS+++, they talk about “software user freedoms”
but actually refer to “freedom of use software”, no matter the objective.
..........about users whereas their policies are designed to defend _use_.
They aren't defending “software user freedom” but “freedom of use software”,
no matter who is the user and for what it is been used, if it
no matter who the user is or what it has been used for, if it
favors their interests.
THIS PARAGRAPH NEEDS WORK
There is some sort of cognitive dissonance that influences many copyleft
supporters to treat others harshly, those who just want some kind ? > They treat other users like shit if they don't use of fit in their conception of freedom.
of aid over the argument about which license or product is free
or not. But in the meantime, they don't defy and some of them
There is a sort of cognitive dissonance that influences many copyleft
supporters to treat others harshly, those who just want some aid
in the argument over which license or product is free
or not. But in the meantime, they don't defy, and some of them
even embrace the adoption of +++FOSS+++ for any kind of corporation,
it doesn't matter if it exploits its employees, surveils its users,
helps to undermine democratic institutions or is part of a killing
@ -304,23 +309,22 @@ related to users. Instead, they are four different use cases.
The difference isn't a minor thing. A _use case_ neutralizes and
reifies the subject of the action. In its dilution the interest
of the subject becomes irrelevant. The four freedoms doesn't
of the subject becomes irrelevant. The four freedoms don't
ban the use of a program for selfish, slayer or authoritarian
uses. Neither does it encourage them. By the romantic idea of
uses. Neither do they encourage them. By the romantic idea of
a common good, it is easy to think that the freedoms of run,
study, redistribute and improve a program are synonymous with a
mechanism that improves welfare and democracy. But because these
four freedoms don't relate to any user interest and instead
talk about the interest of using software and the adoption
of an “open” cultural production, it hides the fact that sometimes
the freedom of use goes against and uses subjects.
of an “open” cultural production, it hides the fact that
the freedom of use sometimes goes against and uses subjects.
So the argument that copyfarleft denies people the use of software
only makes sense between two confusions. First, the personification ? > They say they defend people freedom, but institutions aren't people.
of institutions---like ? > I really fucked it up here, right? I rewrote this shit.
the ones that feed authoritarian regimes, perpetuate labor exploitation
or surveil its users---which sometimes their policies restrict freedom
or access _to people_. Second, the assumption that freedoms over software
So the argument that copyfarleft denies people the use of software
only makes sense between two misconceptions. First, the personification
of institutions---like the ones that feed authoritarian regimes, perpetuate labor exploitation
or surveil its users---with their policies sometimes restricting freedom
or access _to people_. Second, the assumption that freedoms over software
use cases is equal to the freedom of its users.
Actually, if your “open” economic model requires software use
@ -328,8 +332,8 @@ cases freedoms over users freedoms, we are far beyond the typical
discussions about cultural production. I find it very hard to defend
my support of freedom if my work enables some uses that could
go against others' freedoms. This is of course the freedom
dilemma about the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). But my main conflict is when
copyleft supporters boast about their defense of users freedoms
dilemma about the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance).
But my main conflict is when copyleft supporters boast about their defense of users freedoms
while they micromanage others' software freedom definitions
and, in the meantime, they turn their backs to the gray, dark
or red areas of what is implicit in the freedom they safeguard.