109 lines
6.6 KiB
Markdown
109 lines
6.6 KiB
Markdown
# From publishing with free software to free publishing
|
|
|
|
This blog is about “free publishing” but, what does that means?
|
|
The term “free” it isn't only problematic in English. May be more
|
|
than in others languages because of the confusion between “free as in beer”
|
|
and “free as in speech.” But by itself the concept of freedom is so ambiguous
|
|
than even in Philosophy we are very careful in its use. Even though it is
|
|
a problem, I like that the term doesn't have a clear definition---at the
|
|
end, how free could we be if freedom is well defined?
|
|
|
|
Some years ago, when I started to work hand-in-hand with Programando Libreros
|
|
and Hacklib I realized that we weren't just doing publishing with free
|
|
software. We are doing free publishing. So I attempted to defined it in
|
|
[a post](https://marianaeguaras.com/edicion-libre-mas-alla-creative-commons/)
|
|
but it doesn't convince me anymore.
|
|
|
|
The term was floating around until December, 2018. At Contracorriente---yearly
|
|
fanzine fair celebrated in Xalapa, Mexico---Hacklib and me were invited to give
|
|
a talk about publishing and free software. Between all of us we made a poster
|
|
of everything we talked that day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The poster was very helpful because in a simple Venn diagram we were
|
|
able to distinguish several intersections of activities that involves our work.
|
|
Here you have it more readable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm not gonna define what is publishing, free software or politics---it
|
|
is my fucking blog so I can write whatever I want xD and you can
|
|
[duckduckgo](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=I+dislike+google) it without a
|
|
satisfactory answer. But as you can see, there are at least two very familiar
|
|
intersections: cultural policies and hacktivism. I dunno how it is in your
|
|
country, but in Mexico we have very strong cultural policies for
|
|
publishing---or at least that is what publishers _think_ and are comfortable,
|
|
not matter that most of the times they go against open access and readers.
|
|
“Hacktivism” is a fuzzy term, but it could be clear if we realized that
|
|
code as property is not the only way we can define it. Actually it is very
|
|
problematic because property isn't a natural right, but one that is produced
|
|
by our societies and protected by our states---yeah, individuality isn't the
|
|
foundation of rights and laws, but a construction of the self produced society.
|
|
So, do I have to mention that property rights isn't as fair as we would want?
|
|
|
|
Between publishing and free software we get “publishing with free software.”
|
|
What does that implies? It is the activity of publishing using software that
|
|
accomplish the famous---infamous?---[four freedoms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition).
|
|
For people that use software as a tool, this means that, firstly, we aren't
|
|
force to pay anything in order to use software. Secondly, we have access to
|
|
the code and do whatever we want with it. Thirdly---and for me the most
|
|
important---we can be part of a community, instead of be treated as a consumer.
|
|
|
|
It sounds great, isn't it? But we have a little problem: the freedom only
|
|
applies to software. As publisher you can benefit from free software and that
|
|
doesn't mean you have to free your work. Penguin Random House---the
|
|
Google of publishing---one day could decided to use TeX or Pandoc, saving
|
|
tons of money at the same time they keep the monopoly of publishing.
|
|
|
|
Stallman saw that problem with the manuals published by O'Reilly and he
|
|
proposed the GNU Free Documentation License. But by doing so he trickly
|
|
distinguished [different kinds of works](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.en.html).
|
|
It is interesting see texts as functionality, matter of opinion or aesthetics
|
|
but in the publishing industry nobody cares a fuck about that. The distinctions
|
|
works great between writers and readers, but it doesn't problematize the fact
|
|
that publishers are the ones who decide the path of almost all our text-centered
|
|
culture.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, that's dangerous at least. So I prefer other tricky distinction.
|
|
Big publishers and their mimetic branch---the so called “indie”
|
|
publishing---only cares about two things: sells and reputation. They want to
|
|
live _well_ and get social recognition from the _good_ books they publish.
|
|
If one day the software communities develop some desktop publishing or
|
|
typesetting easy-to-use and suitable for all their _professional_ needs,
|
|
we would see how “suddenly” publishing industry embraces free software.
|
|
|
|
So, why don't we distinguish published works by their funding and sense of
|
|
community? If what you publishing has public funding---for your knowledge,
|
|
in Mexico practically all publishing has this kind of funding---it would be
|
|
fair to release the files and leave hard copies for sell: we already pay for
|
|
that. This is a very common argument among supporters of open access in science,
|
|
but we can go beyond that. Not matter if the work relies on functionality,
|
|
matter of opinion or aesthetics; if is a science paper, a philosophy essay or a
|
|
novel and it has public funding, we have pay for the access, come on!
|
|
|
|
You can still sell publications and go to Messe Frankfurt, Guadalajara
|
|
International Book Fair or Beijing Book Fair: it is just doing business with
|
|
the _bare minium_ of social and political awareness. Why do you want more money
|
|
from us if we already gave it to you?---and you get almost all the profits,
|
|
leaving the authors with just the satisfaction of seeing her work published…
|
|
|
|
The sense of community goes here. In a world where one of the main problems is
|
|
artificial scarcity---paywalls instead of actual walls---we need to apply
|
|
[copyleft](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html) or, even better,
|
|
[copyfarleft](http://telekommunisten.net/the-telekommunist-manifesto/) licenses
|
|
in our published works. They aren't the solution, but they are a support to
|
|
maintain the freedom and the access in publishing.
|
|
|
|
As it goes, we need free tools but also free works. I already have the tools
|
|
but I lack from permission to publish some books that I really like. I don't
|
|
want that happen to you with my work. So we need a publishing ecosystem where
|
|
we have access to all files of a particular edition---our source code and
|
|
binary files--- and also to the tools---the free software---so we can improve,
|
|
as a community, the quality and access of the works. Who doesn't want that?
|
|
|
|
With these politics strains, free software tools and publishing as a way of
|
|
living as a publisher, writer and reader, free publishing is a pathway.
|
|
With Programando Libreros and Hacklib we use free software, we invest time in
|
|
activism and we work in publishing: _we do free publishing, what about you?_
|