Final de revisión 6
This commit is contained in:
parent
21c15a6f80
commit
24dfc366cd
|
|
@ -6,10 +6,9 @@ give open access. I guess we should say… thanks?
|
|||
In my opinion it was a good +++PR+++ maneuver, who doesn't like
|
||||
companies when they do _good_? This pandemic has shown its capacity
|
||||
to fortify public and private institutions, no matter how poorly
|
||||
they have done their job and how these new policies are
|
||||
normalizing surveillance. But who cares, I can barely make a
|
||||
living publishing books and I have never been involved in
|
||||
government work.
|
||||
they have done their job and how these new policies are normalizing
|
||||
surveillance. But who cares, I can barely make a living publishing
|
||||
books and I have never been involved in government work.
|
||||
|
||||
An interesting side effect about this “kind” and _temporal_ openness
|
||||
is about authorship. One of the most relevant arguments in favor
|
||||
|
|
@ -28,32 +27,33 @@ 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
From copyfight, copyleft and copyfarleft movements, a lot of people
|
||||
have argued that this argument hides the fact that most authors
|
||||
can't make a living, whereas publishers and distributors profit a lot.
|
||||
Some critics claim governments should give
|
||||
more power to “creators” instead of allowing “reproducers” to
|
||||
do whatever they want. I am not a fan of this way of doing things
|
||||
because I don't think anyone should have more power, including authors,
|
||||
From copyfight, copyleft and copyfarleft movements, a lot of
|
||||
people have argued that this argument hides the fact that most
|
||||
authors can't make a living, whereas publishers and distributors
|
||||
profit a lot. Some critics claim governments should give more
|
||||
power to “creators” instead of allowing “reproducers” to do whatever
|
||||
they want. I am not a fan of this way of doing things because
|
||||
I don't think anyone should have more power, including authors,
|
||||
and also because in my world government is synonymous with corruption
|
||||
and death. But diversity of opinions is important, I just hope
|
||||
not all governments are like that.
|
||||
|
||||
So between copyright, copyfight, copyleft and copyfarleft defenders
|
||||
there is usually a mysterious assent about producer relevance.
|
||||
The disagreement comes with how this overview about cultural production
|
||||
is or should translate into policies and legislation.
|
||||
The disagreement comes with how this overview about cultural
|
||||
production is or should translate into policies and legislation.
|
||||
|
||||
In times of emergency and crisis we are seeing how easily it is
|
||||
to “pause” those discussions and laws---or fast track [other ones](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/06/us-internet-bill-seen-as-opening-shot-against-end-to-end-encryption).
|
||||
In times of emergency and crisis we are seeing how easily it
|
||||
is to “pause” those discussions and laws---or fast track [other
|
||||
ones](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/06/us-internet-bill-seen-as-opening-shot-against-end-to-end-encryption).
|
||||
On the side of governments this again shows how copyright and
|
||||
authors' rights aren't natural laws nor are they grounded beyond
|
||||
our political and economic systems. From the side of copyright
|
||||
defenders, this phenomena makes it clear that authorship is an argument
|
||||
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)
|
||||
defenders, this phenomena makes it clear that authorship is an
|
||||
argument 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
|
||||
libraries and open access are today and how they can't be replaced
|
||||
|
|
@ -61,54 +61,54 @@ by (online) bookstores or subscription-based research.
|
|||
|
||||
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
|
||||
and distributors to opt for openness or paywalls---who cares about the authors?…
|
||||
So next time you defend copyright as authors' rights to make a living, think
|
||||
twice, only few have been able to earn a livelihood, and while
|
||||
you think you are helping them, you are actually making third parties
|
||||
richer.
|
||||
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 and distributors to opt for openness
|
||||
or paywalls---who cares about the authors?… So next time you
|
||||
defend copyright as authors' rights to make a living, think twice,
|
||||
only few have been able to earn a livelihood, and while you think
|
||||
you are helping them, you are actually making third parties richer.
|
||||
|
||||
In the end the copyright holders are not the only ones who defend
|
||||
their interests by addressing the importance of people---in their
|
||||
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.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
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 these? 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
|
||||
to one person, no matter if he's the founder or how smart or
|
||||
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. 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
|
||||
behavior---, why don't we just accept that?
|
||||
_Dudes_, at least from here we don't reduce the free software
|
||||
movement to one person, no matter if he's the founder or how
|
||||
smart or 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.
|
||||
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 behavior---, why don't we just accept that?
|
||||
|
||||
But I don't really care about him. For me and the people I work with,
|
||||
the free software movement is a wildcard that joins efforts related
|
||||
to technology, politics and culture for better worlds. Nevertheless,
|
||||
the +++FSF+++, the +++OSI+++, +++CC+++, and other big copyleft
|
||||
institutions don't seem to realize that a plurality of worlds
|
||||
implies a diversity of conceptions about freedom. And even worse,
|
||||
they have made a very common mistake when we talk about freedom:
|
||||
they forgot that “freedom wants to be free.”
|
||||
But I don't really care about him. For me and the people I work
|
||||
with, the free software movement is a wildcard that joins efforts
|
||||
related to technology, politics and culture for better worlds.
|
||||
Nevertheless, the +++FSF+++, the +++OSI+++, +++CC+++, and other
|
||||
big copyleft institutions don't seem to realize that a plurality
|
||||
of worlds implies a diversity of conceptions about freedom. And
|
||||
even worse, they have made a very common mistake when we talk
|
||||
about freedom: 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,
|
||||
it is problematic to bind others to your own definitions,
|
||||
mainly when you say the movement is about and for them.
|
||||
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, it is
|
||||
problematic to bind others to your own definitions, mainly when
|
||||
you say the movement is about and for them.
|
||||
|
||||
Among all concepts, freedom is actually very tricky to define.
|
||||
How can you delimit a concept in a definition when the concept
|
||||
|
|
@ -120,53 +120,54 @@ 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
|
||||
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
|
||||
to get a common principle.
|
||||
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 to get a common principle.
|
||||
|
||||
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 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.
|
||||
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 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
|
||||
access to the technology or tuition. And even worse, I wasn't
|
||||
able to look to a wider and more complex horizon without all this
|
||||
learning.
|
||||
execute many projects or ideas only because I didn't have access
|
||||
to the technology or tuition. And even worse, I wasn't able to
|
||||
look to a wider and more complex horizon without all this 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
|
||||
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
|
||||
manly, hierarchical and meritocratic this movement tends to be.
|
||||
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 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_ from using software.
|
||||
This is a very common criticism of any copyfarleft license. And
|
||||
it is also a very paradoxical one.
|
||||
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 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.
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
|
@ -186,16 +187,15 @@ strong opinion against the usual legal reductionism among this
|
|||
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 define and what the definition
|
||||
of freedom implies.
|
||||
the definition of software freedom has inherited the philosophical
|
||||
problem of how we define and what the definition of freedom implies.
|
||||
|
||||
That doesn't mean I don't care about this discussion. Actually,
|
||||
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.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
According to _Open Source Software & The Department of Defense_
|
||||
(+++DoD+++), The +++U.S. DoD+++ is one of the biggest consumers
|
||||
|
|
@ -206,11 +206,11 @@ Android to direct airstrikes or _the use_ of Linux for the ground
|
|||
stations that operates military drones like the Predator and
|
||||
Reaper.
|
||||
|
||||
 civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria or Yemen in order to deliver +++U.S. DoD+++ notion of freedom.](../../../img/p006_i002.png)
|
||||
 civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen in order to deliver +++U.S. DoD+++ notion of freedom.](../../../img/p006_i002.png)
|
||||
|
||||
Before you argue that this is a problem about open source software
|
||||
and not free software, you should check out the +++DoD+++
|
||||
[+++FAQ+++ section](https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ).
|
||||
and not free software, you should check out the +++DoD+++ [+++FAQ+++
|
||||
section](https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ).
|
||||
There, they define open source software as “software for which
|
||||
the human-readable source code is available for use, study, re-use,
|
||||
modification, enhancement, and re-distribution by the users of
|
||||
|
|
@ -225,9 +225,9 @@ and agenda](https://www.cnas.org/mission) is “designed to shape
|
|||
the choices of leaders in the +++U.S.+++ government, the private
|
||||
sector, and society to advance +++U.S.+++ interests and strategy.”
|
||||
|
||||
I found this report after I read about how the [+++U.S.+++ Army scrapped
|
||||
one billion dollars for its “Iron Dome” after Israel refused
|
||||
to share code](https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-army-scraps-1b-iron-dome-project-after-israel-refuses-to-provide-key-codes).
|
||||
I found this report after I read about how the [+++U.S.+++ Army
|
||||
scrapped one billion dollars for its “Iron Dome” after Israel
|
||||
refused to share code](https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-army-scraps-1b-iron-dome-project-after-israel-refuses-to-provide-key-codes).
|
||||
I found it interesting that even the so-called most powerful
|
||||
army in the world was disabled by copyright laws---a potential
|
||||
resource for asymmetric warfare. To my surprise, this isn't an
|
||||
|
|
@ -243,60 +243,54 @@ _a fraction of the cost_.” This report has its origins by the
|
|||
technical superiority.”
|
||||
|
||||
Who would think that this could happen to +++FOSS+++? Well, all
|
||||
of us from this part of the world have been saying that
|
||||
the type of freedom endorsed by many copyleft institutions is
|
||||
too wide, counterproductive for its own objectives and, of course,
|
||||
inapplicable for our context because that liberal notion of software
|
||||
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 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
|
||||
dependence they generate.
|
||||
of us from this part of the world have been saying that the type
|
||||
of freedom endorsed by many copyleft institutions is too wide,
|
||||
counterproductive for its own objectives and, of course, inapplicable
|
||||
for our context because that liberal notion of software 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 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 dependence they generate.
|
||||
|
||||
But I guess it has to burst their bubble in order to get
|
||||
the point across. For example, the Epstein controversial donations to
|
||||
+++MIT+++ Media Lab and his friendship with some folks of +++CC+++;
|
||||
or the use of open source software by the +++U.S.+++ Immigration
|
||||
and Customs Enforcement. While for decades +++FOSS+++ has been
|
||||
a mechanism to facilitate the murder of “Global South” citizens;
|
||||
a tool for Chinese labor exploitation denounced by the anti-996
|
||||
movement; a licensewall for technological and knowledge access
|
||||
for people who can't afford infrastructure and the learning
|
||||
But I guess it has to burst their bubble in order to get the
|
||||
point across. For example, the Epstein controversial donations
|
||||
to +++MIT+++ Media Lab and his friendship with some folks of
|
||||
+++CC+++; or the use of open source software by the +++U.S.+++
|
||||
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While for decades +++FOSS+++
|
||||
has been a mechanism to facilitate the murder of “Global South”
|
||||
citizens; a tool for Chinese labor exploitation denounced by
|
||||
the anti-996 movement; a licensewall for technological and knowledge
|
||||
access for people who can't afford infrastructure and the learning
|
||||
it triggers, even though the code is “free” _to use_; or a police
|
||||
of software freedom that denies Latin America and other regions
|
||||
their right to self-determinate its freedom, its software policies
|
||||
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 declare the relevance
|
||||
of +++FOSS+++ for warfare, intelligence, security and authoritarian regimes,
|
||||
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 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 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 the user is or what it has been used for, if it
|
||||
favors their interests.
|
||||
THIS PARAGRAPH NEEDS WORK
|
||||
of its political capacity. They have shown that in their pursuit
|
||||
of government and corporate adoption of +++FOSS+++, when it favors
|
||||
their interests, they talk about “software user freedoms” but
|
||||
actually refer to “freedom of use software”, no matter who the
|
||||
user is or what it has been used for.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
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
|
||||
machine.
|
||||
it doesn't matter if it exploits its employees, surveils its
|
||||
users, helps to undermine democratic institutions or is part
|
||||
of a killing machine.
|
||||
|
||||
In my opinion, the term “use” is one of the key concepts that
|
||||
dilutes political capacity of +++FOSS+++ into the aestheticization
|
||||
|
|
@ -304,50 +298,52 @@ of its activity. The spine of software freedom relies in its
|
|||
four freedoms: the freedoms of _run_, _study_, _redistribute_
|
||||
and _improve_ the program. Even though Stallman, his followers,
|
||||
the +++FSF+++, the +++OSI+++, +++CC+++ and so on always indicate
|
||||
the relevance of “user freedoms,” these four freedoms aren't directly
|
||||
related to users. Instead, they are four different use cases.
|
||||
the relevance of “user freedoms,” these four freedoms aren't
|
||||
directly 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 don't
|
||||
ban the use of a program for selfish, slayer or authoritarian
|
||||
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
|
||||
the freedom of use sometimes goes against and uses subjects.
|
||||
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 don't ban
|
||||
the use of a program for selfish, slayer or authoritarian 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 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 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.
|
||||
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
|
||||
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
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Or they don't care about us or their privileges don't allow
|
||||
them to have empathy.
|
||||
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 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. Or they don't care about us or
|
||||
their privileges don't allow them to have empathy.
|
||||
|
||||
Since the _+++GNU+++ Manifesto_ the relevance of industry
|
||||
among software developers is clear. I don't have a reply that could calm
|
||||
them down. It is becoming more clear that technology isn't just
|
||||
a broker that can be used or abused. Technology, or at least its
|
||||
development, is a kind of political praxis. The inability of legislation
|
||||
for law enforcement and the possibility of new technologies to
|
||||
hold and help the _statu quo_ express this political capacity
|
||||
of information and communications technologies.
|
||||
Since the _+++GNU+++ Manifesto_ the relevance of industry among
|
||||
software developers is clear. I don't have a reply that could
|
||||
calm them down. It is becoming more clear that technology isn't
|
||||
just a broker that can be used or abused. Technology, or at least
|
||||
its development, is a kind of political praxis. The inability
|
||||
of legislation for law enforcement and the possibility of new
|
||||
technologies to hold and help the _statu quo_ express this political
|
||||
capacity of information and communications technologies.
|
||||
|
||||
So as copyleft hacked copyright law, with copyfarleft we could
|
||||
help disarticulate structural power or we could induce civil
|
||||
|
|
@ -364,9 +360,8 @@ and we introduced a new model of workforce distribution and means
|
|||
of production. We could again use copyright for our benefit,
|
||||
but now against the structures of power that surveils, exploits
|
||||
and kills people. These institutions need our “brainpower,” we
|
||||
can try by refusing their use. Some explorations could be
|
||||
software licenses that explicitly ban surveillance, exploitation
|
||||
or murder.
|
||||
can try by refusing their use. Some explorations could be software
|
||||
licenses that explicitly ban surveillance, exploitation or murder.
|
||||
|
||||
We could also make it difficult for them to thieve our technology
|
||||
development and deny access to our communication networks. Nowadays
|
||||
|
|
@ -374,13 +369,13 @@ development and deny access to our communication networks. Nowadays
|
|||
gift economy. Another think tank---Centre of Economics and Foreign
|
||||
Policy Studies---published a report---_Digital Open Source Intelligence
|
||||
Security: A Primer_---where it states that open sources constitutes
|
||||
“at least 90%” of all intelligence activities. That includes our
|
||||
published open production and the open standards we develop for
|
||||
transparency. It is why end-to-end encryption is important and
|
||||
why we should extend its use instead of allowing governments to
|
||||
ban it.
|
||||
“at least 90%” of all intelligence activities. That includes
|
||||
our published open production and the open standards we develop
|
||||
for transparency. It is why end-to-end encryption is important
|
||||
and why we should extend its use instead of allowing governments
|
||||
to ban it.
|
||||
|
||||
Copyleft could be a global pandemic if we don't go against
|
||||
its incorporation inside virulent technologies of destruction.
|
||||
We need more organization so that the software we are developing
|
||||
Copyleft could be a global pandemic if we don't go against its
|
||||
incorporation inside virulent technologies of destruction. We
|
||||
need more organization so that the software we are developing
|
||||
is free as in “social freedom,” not only as in “free individual.”
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue