From f2bfaadebbc79d93ee5d62f3f05abf972a8ba4a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Perro Tuerto Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:08:36 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Revisi=C3=B3n=20de=20De?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md | 306 ++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 153 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md b/content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md index 88e1fba..659b1e0 100644 --- a/content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md +++ b/content/md/006_copyleft-pandemic.md @@ -1,114 +1,114 @@ # 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? +It seems that we needed a global pandemic for publishers to finally +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 +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. 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 +rights to make 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 +For the former, +++IP+++ laws confer 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 +exist if the author didn'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. +relation is 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 +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 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 +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 in how this overview about cultural production +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 is +In times of emergency and crisis we are seeing how easily it 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 +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 clear how authorship is an argument +defenders, this phenomena makes it clear that authorship is an argument that doesn't rely on the actual producers. -There isn't bureaucratic and constitutional way to ignore copyright +There isn't a bureaucratic or 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 +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 +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 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 +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 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 +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. -At the end the copyright holders are not the only ones who defend +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 holders that -hacked copyright laws---also defend their interest in a similar +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 different between each other, but I just want +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 wouldn't +interests. I wouldn't put them in the same sack if it wasn'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!---, +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 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 +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 +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 just accept that? +behavior---, why don't we 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 +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 doesn't seem to realize that a plurality of worlds -implies a diversity of conceptions about freedom. And even worst, +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 of that, they have tried to give formal definitions of +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 make people to attach to your own definitions, +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. @@ -121,59 +121,59 @@ 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 +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 or many others companies -that are proud to support copyleft movement tend to be blind +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 -part of my work. Instead of having support from representatives +parts 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 +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 first of all, duh. +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 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 +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 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 +(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.) 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 +free because copyfarleft licenses cautions/prevents (?) _people_ to use software. ? +This is a very common criticism of 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 +Between the 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. +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 also it isn't very attractive for enterprise -entrepreneurship. Lets not forget that both sides agrees that +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. Free software supporters tend to vanish the discussion by declaring -open source defenders doesn't understand the social implication +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 is kind of paradoxical +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 @@ -182,21 +182,21 @@ 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 +everyone should grasp our notion of freedom. Second, I have a 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. +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 freedom implies. 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. +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 @@ -207,29 +207,29 @@ 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+++ +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). 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 +that software.” Does that 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 +This report was published in 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 +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 [+++U.S.+++ Army scrapped +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. For my surprise this isn't an +resource for asymmetric warfare. To my surprise, this isn't an anomaly. The intention of +++CNAS+++ report is to convince +++DoD+++ to @@ -242,52 +242,52 @@ _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 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, +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 being +property or capitalize knowledge. The same ones which have been 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 +us don't work or we doubt them because of their side effects. +Crowdfunding isn't easy because our cultural production here is heavily dependent on government aids and policies, instead -of the private or public sectors. And donations aren't good idea +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 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+++; +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 that can't afford infrastructure and the learning +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 to Latin America and other regions +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 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 +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 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 +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. -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 +There is some sort of cognitive dissonance that influences many copyleft +supporters to treat others harshly, those who just want some kind ? +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, -it doesn't matter it exploits its employees, surveils its users, +it doesn't matter if it exploits its employees, surveils its users, helps to undermine democratic institutions or is part of a killing machine. @@ -297,77 +297,77 @@ 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 +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 minor thing. An _use case_ neutralizes and +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 -bans the use of a program for selfish, slayer or authoritarian -uses. And neither it encourage them. By the romantic idea of +ban the use of a program for selfish, slayer or authoritarian +uses. Neither does 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 +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 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 +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 ? 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 +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 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 +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 copyleft supporters boast about their defense of users freedoms -while they micromanage other people software freedom definitions +while they micromanage others' 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 +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_ is clear the relevance of industry -among software developers. I don't have a reply that could calm +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 could be use or abuse. Technology or at least its -development is a kind of political praxis. The inability of legislation +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 to disarticulate structural power or we could induce civil +help 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 +could even reach a 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. +effort of a lot of people involved in 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 +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 made difficult for them the theft of +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. -Copyleft could be a global pandemic if we don't do anything against +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 is free as in “social freedom,” not only as in “free individual.”