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

Redacción de entrada

This commit is contained in:
perro tuerto 2020-03-25 12:13:51 -06:00
parent 00a26b4960
commit 97d9f86c57
1 changed files with 373 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

373
content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,373 @@
# The Copyleft Pandemic
It seems we needed a global pandemic so finally some publishers
decided to 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 badly
they have done their job and no matter these new policies are
normalizing surveillance. But who cares, I can barely made a
living by publishing books and I have never being involve on
government work.
An interesting side effect about this “kind” and _temporal_ openness
is about authorship. One of the most relevant arguments in favor
of intellectual property (+++IP+++) is the defense of authors'
rights to made a living with their work. The utilitarian and
labor justifications of +++IP+++ are very clear in that sense.
For the former, +++IP+++ laws confers an incentive for cultural
production and, thus, for the so-called creation of wealth. For
the latter, author's “labour of his body, and the work of his
hands, we may say, are properly his.”
But also in personal-based justifications the author is a primordial
subject for +++IP+++ laws. Actually, this justification wouldn't
exists if the author doesn't have an intimate and qualitatively
distinctive relationship with her own work. Without some metaphysics
or theological conceptions about cultural production, this special
relation it's difficult to prove---but that is another story.
From copyfight, copyleft and copyfarleft movements a lot of people
has arguing that this argument hides the fact that most authors
can't made a living whereas publishers and distributors made
a lot of profits. Some critics claim governments should give
more power to “creators” instead of allowing “reproducers” to
do whatever they want. I am not fan of this way of doing things
because I think nobody should have more power, including authors,
and also because in my world government is synonymous of 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 in 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 is
to “pause” those discussions and laws---or fast track other ones.
On the side of governments this again shows how copyright and
authors' rights aren't natural laws nor they are grounded beyond
our political and economic systems. From the side of copyright
defenders, this phenomena makes clear how authorship is an argument
that doesn't rely on the actual producers.
There isn't bureaucratic and constitutional way to ignore copyright
law so quickly and so broadly without at least one of two elements.
Or publishers and distributors were already the copyright holders
of all those books---even though they defend +++IP+++ “in favor
of” the authors---so it doesn't matter what authors think about
it; or these “reproducers” doesn't really care about authors
interests---as they so vehemently defend.
Yeah, I would find it very pretentious if some author isn't agree
with this temporal openness of her work. But lets not miss the
point: either way authors doesn't have any right on their own
works and this global pandemic has shown how easily is for publishers
and distributors to opt for openness or paywalls… So next time
you defend copyright as authors' rights for made a living think
twice, only a few have been able to have a livelihood and while
you think you are helping them you actually are doing third parties
richer.
At 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 holders that
hacked copyright laws---also defend 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 different between each other, 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 wouldn't
because of two issues.
Some copyleft holders were so annoying by defending Stallman.
_Dudes_, at least from here we don't reduce free software movement
to one person, not matter if he is the founder or how smart or
important he is or was. Criticizing his actions wasn't a synonymous
to throw away what this movement has do---what we have done!---,
as a lot of you tried to mitigate the issue: “Oh, but he is not
the movement, we shouldn't made a big issue about that.” His
and your attitude is the fucking issue. He and you have made
very clear how narrow is both guys view. Stallman fucked it up
and he was behaving so immaturely by thinking the movement is
or was thanks to him---we also have our own stories about his
behavior---, why don't just accept that?
But I don't really care about him. For me and the people I work,
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 doesn't seem to realize that a plurality of worlds
implies a diversity of conceptions about freedom. And even worst,
they have made a very common mistake when we talk about freedom:
they forgot that “freedom wants to be free.”
Instead of that, 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 make people to attach 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
itself claims the inability of, perhaps, any restraint? It is
not that freedom can't be defined---I am actually assuming a
definition of freedom---, but about how general and static it
could be. If the world changes, if people change, if the world
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.
In freedom different meanings we can try to reduce its diversity
so it can be embed in any context or we could try something else.
I dunno, maybe we could made software freedom an interoperable
concept that fits each of our worlds or we can just stop trying
to get a common principle.
The copyleft institutions I mentioned or many others companies
that are proud to support 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
part of my work. Instead of having support from representatives
of this institutions, I first received warnings: “That freedom
you are talking about it isn't freedom.” Afterwards, when I seek
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 first of all, duh.
Thanks to a lot of Latin Americans 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 a lot of projects or ideas just because I didn't have
access to the technology or tuition. And even worst, I wasn't
able to look a wider and more complex horizon without all this
learning.
(There is a pedagogical deficiency in free software movement
that made people think that by writing documentation and by praising
self-taught learning is enough. From my point of view is more
the production of a self-image about how a hacker or a pirate
_should be_. Plus, it's fucking scaring 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 avoids _people_ to use software.
This is a very common criticism to any copyfarleft license. And
it is also a very paradoxical one.
Between free software movement and open source initiative there
has been a disagreement about the ought to inherit the same type
of license, like the General Public License. For the free software
movement this clause ensures that software will be always 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 also it isn't very attractive for enterprise
entrepreneurship. Lets not forget that both sides agrees that
the market and its corporations are essential for technology
development.
Free software supporters tend to vanish the discussion by declaring
open source defenders doesn't understand the social implication
of this hereditary clause or that they have different interests
and ways to change technology development. So it is 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
development in its insolation, but in its relationship with politics,
society and economy.
I won't defend copyfarleft against those criticisms. First, I
don't think I should defend anything because I am not saying
everyone should grasp our notion of freedom. Second, I have an
strong opinion against the usual legal reductionism among this
debate. Third, I think we should focus in the ways we can work
together, instead of putting attention on what could divide us.
Finally, I don't think this criticism are wrong, but incomplete:
software freedom definition has inherit the philosophical problem
about how we can define and what does it implies the definition
of freedom.
That doesn't mean I don't care about this discussion. Actually,
it is a topic I have very present because if copyright has put
me paywalls for technology and knowledge access, copyleft has
put me “licensewalls” with the same effects. So lets take a moment
to see how free is the freedom 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
of open source. To put it in perspective, all tactical vehicles
of the +++U.S.+++ Army employs at least one piece of open source
software in its programming. Other examples are _the use_ of
Android to direct airstrikes or _the use_ of Linux for the ground
stations that operates military drones like the Predator and
Reaper.
Before you argue this is a problem about open source software
and not free software, you should check it 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
that software.” Does it sound familiar? Of course!, they include
+++GPL+++ as an open software license and they even rule that
“an open source software license must also meet the +++GNU+++
Free Software Definition.”
This report was publish on 2016 by the Center for a New American
Security (+++CNAS+++), a right-wing think tank which [mission
and agenda](https://www.cnas.org/mission) are “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 [+++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. For my surprise this isn't an
anomaly.
The intention of +++CNAS+++ report is to convince +++DoD+++ to
adopt more open source software because its “generally better
than their proprietary counterparts […] because they can _take
advantage_ of the brainpower of larger teams, which leads to
faster innovation, higher quality, and superior security for
_a fraction of the cost_.” This report has its origins by the
“justifiably” concern “about the erosion of +++U.S.+++ military
technical superiority.”
Who would think that this could happen to +++FOSS+++? Well, all
of us that from this part of the world we have being saying that
the type of freedom endorsed by many copyleft institutions it's
to 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 being
trying to explain that the economic models they try to “teach”
us doesn't work or we doubt them because of their side effects.
Crowdfunding isn't easy because here our cultural production
is heavily dependent on government aids and policies, instead
of the private or public sectors. And donations aren't good idea
because of the hidden interests they could have and the economic
dependence they generate.
But I guess it has to happen to their bubble in order to get
the point. For example, the Epstein controversial donations to
+++MIT+++ Media Lab and his friendship with some folk 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 that 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 to Latin America and other regions
their right to self-determinate its freedom, its software policies
and its economic models.
Those copyleft institutions that take care so much about “user
freedoms” in fact they haven't being explicit about how +++FOSS+++
is helping to shape a world where a lot of us doesn't fit. It
had to be a right-wing think tank the one who declares the relevance
of +++FOSS+++ for warfare and authoritarian regimes, while this
institutions have been putting a lot of efforts in justifying
its way of understanding cultural production as a commodification
of its political capacity. In their seek of government and corporate
adoption of +++FOSS+++ they have shown that whereas they talk
about users, their policies are designed to defend _the use_:
objects before subjects.
There is some sort of cognitive dissonance that made many copyleft
supporters to be very harsh with people that just want some kind
of aid over the argument of 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 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
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,” this four freedoms aren't directly
related to users. Instead, they are four different use cases.
The difference isn't minor thing. An _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
bans the use of a program for selfish, slayer or authoritarian
uses. And neither it 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 of a
mechanism that improves welfare and democracy. But because this
four freedoms doesn't relate to any user interest and instead
they 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 subjects.
So the argument that copyfarleft denies people to use software
it only have sense between two confusions. First, the personification
of institutions which the restricted access for some of them---like
the ones that feed authoritarian regimes, perpetuate labor exploitation
or surveil its users---translates to a restricted access _to
people_. Second, the assumption where 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 very hard to defend
that I support freedom if my work enable some uses that could
go against other people freedoms. This is of course the freedom
dilemma about paradox of tolerance. But my main conflict is when
copyleft supporters boast about their defense of users freedoms
while they micromanage other people software freedom definitions
and, in the meantime, they turn their backs to the gray, dark
or red areas of what it's implicit in the freedom they safeguard.
Or they don't care about us or their privileges doesn't allow
them to have empathy.
Since the _+++GNU+++ Manifesto_ is clear the relevance of industry
among software developers. I don't have a reply that could calm
them down. It is becoming more clear that technology isn't just
a broker that could be use or abuse. 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 to disarticulate structural power or we could induce civil
disobedience. By prohibiting our work from being used by military,
police or oligarchic institutions, we could force them to stop
_taking advantage_ and increase their maintenance costs. They
could even reach the point where they couldn't operate anymore
or at least they couldn't be as affective as our communities.
I know it sounds like a utopia because in practice we need the
effort of a lot of people involved on technology development.
But we already did it once: we used copyright law against itself
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
or kills people. These institutions need our “brainpower,” we
can try by refuse them to use it. Some explorations could be
software licenses that explicitly ban surveillance, exploitation
or murder. We could also made difficult for them the theft of
our technology development---nowadays +++FOSS+++ distribution
models have confused open economy with gift economy---or the
access to our communication networks---end-to-end encryption
is important, we should extend its use instead of allowing governments
to ban it.
Copyleft could be a global pandemic if we don't do anything against
its incorporation inside virulent technologies of destruction.
We need more organization. However, the software we are developing
is free as in “social freedom,” not only as in “free individual.”