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

Continuamos con la revisión de 6

This commit is contained in:
perro tuerto 2020-04-01 15:17:24 -06:00
parent f2bfaadebb
commit ce6dbbdb27
1 changed files with 52 additions and 43 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

95
content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md
View File

@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ 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)
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.
@ -45,27 +47,24 @@ 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.
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.
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
by (online) bookstores or subscription-based research.
There isn't a bureaucratic or constitutional way to ignore copyright
law so quickly and so broadly without at least one of two elements.
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” don't really care about authors
interests---as they so vehemently defend.
Yeah, I would find it very pretentious if some author didn't agree
with this temporal openness of her work. But let's not miss the
point: either way authors don't have any rights over their own
work and this global pandemic has shown how easily it is for publishers
and distributors to opt for openness or paywalls… So next time
you defend copyright as authors' rights to make a living, think
I 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.
@ -121,7 +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 ?
With freedom's different meanings we could try to reduce its diversity ? > The diversity of freedom definitions.
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
@ -151,24 +150,23 @@ learning.
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 ?
_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.)
According to copyleft folks, my notion of software freedom isn't
free because copyfarleft licenses cautions/prevents (?) _people_ to use software. ?
free because copyfarleft licenses prevents _people_ to use software. ? > Prevents, yep!
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 ?
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
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 and its corporations are essential for technology
development.
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
@ -199,7 +197,7 @@ 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
(+++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
@ -207,6 +205,8 @@ Android to direct airstrikes or _the use_ of Linux for the ground
stations that operates military drones like the Predator and
Reaper.
![A Reaper drone [incorrectly bombarding](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/nov/18/killer-drones-how-many-uav-predator-reaper) civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria or 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).
@ -273,17 +273,19 @@ 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 a right-wing think tank, one that declares the relevance
of +++FOSS+++ for warfare and authoritarian regimes, while these
institutions have been making many efforts in justifying
had to be right-wing think tanks, the ones that declares 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+++ whereas when they talk ?
about users, their policies are designed to defend _the use_:
objects before subjects.
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_.
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
favors their interests.
There is some sort of cognitive dissonance that influences many copyleft
supporters to treat others harshly, those who just want some kind ?
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
even embrace the adoption of +++FOSS+++ for any kind of corporation,
@ -311,14 +313,14 @@ 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 subjects.
the freedom of use 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 ?
of institutions which restricts access for some---like ?
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---translates to a restricted access _to
people_. Second, the assumption that freedoms over software
or surveil its users---which sometimes their policies restrict 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
@ -326,7 +328,7 @@ 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. But my main conflict is when
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
@ -360,14 +362,21 @@ 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. We could also make it difficult for them to thieve
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.
or murder.
We could also make it difficult for them to thieve our technology
development and deny access to our communication networks. Nowadays
+++FOSS+++ distribution models have confused open economy with
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.
Copyleft could be a global pandemic if we don't go against
its incorporation inside virulent technologies of destruction.
We need more organization. However, the software we are developing
We need more organization so that the software we are developing
is free as in “social freedom,” not only as in “free individual.”