382 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
382 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
# The Copyleft Pandemic
|
|
|
|
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 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 make a living with their work. The utilitarian and
|
|
labor justifications of +++IP+++ are very clear in that sense.
|
|
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
|
|
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 is difficult to prove---but that is another story.
|
|
|
|
![Locke and Hegel drinking tea while discussing several topics on Nothingland…](../../../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. 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.
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
(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 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free software supporters tend to vanish the discussion by declaring
|
|
that open source defenders don't understand the social implication
|
|
of this hereditary clause or that they have different interests
|
|
and ways to change technology development. So it's kind of paradoxical
|
|
that these folks see the anti-capitalist clause of copyfarleft
|
|
licenses as a counter-freedom. Or they don't understand its implications
|
|
or 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 a
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
![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 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).
|
|
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 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 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) 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 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
|
|
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 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
|
|
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,
|
|
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+++, 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
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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,” 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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
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 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 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
|
|
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 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 so that the software we are developing
|
|
is free as in “social freedom,” not only as in “free individual.”
|