perrotuerto.blog/old/content/md/005_hiim-master.md

# How It Is Made: Master Research Thesis

> @published 2020/02/13, 20:00 {.published}

Uff, after six months of writing, reviewing, deleting, yelling
and almost giving up, I finally finished the Master's research
thesis. You can check it out [here](http://maestria.perrotuerto.blog).

The thesis is about intellectual property, commons and cultural
and philosophical production. I completed the Master's of Philosophy
at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (+++UNAM+++).
This research was written in Spanish and it consists of almost
27K words and ~100 pages.

Since the beginning, I decided not to write it with a text processor
such as LibreOffice nor Microsoft Office. I made that decision
because:

* Office software was designed for a particular kind of work,
  not for research purposes.
* Bibliography managing or reviewing the writing could be very very
  messy.
* I needed several outputs which would require heavy clean up if
  I wrote the research in +++ODT+++ or +++DOCX+++ formats.
* I wanted to see how far I could go by just using [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown),
  a terminal and [+++FOSS+++](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software).

In general the thesis is actually an automated repository where
you can see everything---including the entire bibliography, the
site and the writing history. The research uses a [rolling release](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_release)
model---“the concept of frequently delivering updates.” The methodology
is based on automated and multiformat standardized publishing,
or as I like to call it: branched publishing.

This isn't the space to discuss the method, but these are some
general ideas:

* We have some inputs which are our working files.
* We need several outputs which would be our ready-to-ship files.
* We want automation so we only focus on writing and editing,
  instead of losing our time in formatting or having nightmares
  with layout design.

In order to be successful, it's necessary to avoid any kind of
[+++WYSIWYG+++](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG) and [Desktop
Publishing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_publishing)
approaches. Instead, branched publishing employs [+++WYSIGYM+++](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYM)
and typesetting systems.

So let's start!

## Inputs

I have two main input files: the content of the research and
the bibliography. I used Markdown for the content. I decided
to use [BibLaTeX](https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Articles/Getting_started_with_BibLaTeX)
for the bibliography.

### Markdown

Why Markdown? Because it is:

* easy to read, write and edit
* easy to process
* a lightweight format
* a plain and open format

Markdown format was intended for blog writing. So “vanilla” Markdown
isn't enough for research or scholarly writing. And I'm not a
fan of [Pandoc's Markdown](https://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html#pandocs-markdown).

Don't get me wrong, [Pandoc](https://pandoc.org) _is_ the Swiss
knife for document conversion, its name suits it perfectly. But
for the type of publishing I do, Pandoc is part of the automation
process and not for inputs or outputs. I use Pandoc as a middleman
for some formats as it helps me save a lot of time.

For inputs and output formats I think Pandoc is a great general
purpose tool, but not enough for a fussy publisher like this
_perro_. Plus, I love scripting so I prefer to employ my time
on that instead of configuring Pandoc's outputs---it helps me
learn more. So in this publishing process, Pandoc is used when
I haven't resolved something or I'm too lazy to do it, +++LOL+++.

Unlike text processing formats as +++ODT+++ or +++DOCX+++, +++MD+++
is very easy to customize. You don't need to install plugins,
rather you just generate more syntax!

So [Pecas' Markdown](http://pecas.perrotuerto.blog/html/md.html)
was the base format for the content. The additional syntax was
for citing the bibliography by its id.

![The research in its original +++MD+++ input.](../../../img/p005_i001.png)

### BibLaTeX

Formatting a bibliography is one of the main headaches for many
researchers. It requires a lot of time and energy to learn how
to quote and cite. And no matter how much experience one may
have, the references or the bibliography usually have typos.

I know it by experience. Most of our clients' bibliographies
are a huge mess. But 99.99% percent of the time it's because
they do it manually… So I decided to avoid that hell.

They are several alternatives for bibliography formatting and
the most common one is BibLaTeX, the successor of [BibTeX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX).
With this type of format you can arrange your bibliography as
an object notation. Here is a sample of an entry:

```
@book{proudhon1862a,
  author    = {Proudhon, Pierre J.},
  date      = {1862},
  file      = {:recursos/proudhon1862a.pdf:PDF},
  keywords  = {prio2,read},
  publisher = {Office de publicité},
  title     = {Les Majorats littéraires},
  url       = {http://alturl.com/fiubs},
}
```

At the beginning of the entry you indicate its type and id. Each
entry has an array of key-value pairs. Depending on the type
of reference, there are some mandatory keys. If you need more,
you can just add them in. This could be very difficult to edit
directly because +++PDF+++ compilation doesn't tolerate syntax
errors. For comfort, you can use some +++GUI+++ like [JabRef](https://www.jabref.org).
With this software you can easily generate, edit or delete bibliographic
entries as if they were rows in a spreadsheet.

So I have two types of input formats: +++BIB+++ for bibliography
and +++MD+++ for content. I make cross-references by generating
some additional syntax that invokes bibliographic entries by
their id. It sounds complicated, but for writing purposes it's
just something like this:

> @textcite[someone2020a] states… Now I am paraphrasing someone
> so I would cite her at the end @parencite[someone2020a].

When the bibliography is processed I get something like this:

> Someone (2020) states… Now I am paraphrasing someone so
> I would cite her at the end (Someone, 2020).

This syntax is based on LaTeX textual and parenthetical citations
styles for [BibLaTeX](http://tug.ctan.org/info/biblatex-cheatsheet/biblatex-cheatsheet.pdf).
The at sign (`@`) is the character I use at the beginning of
any additional syntax for Pecas' Markdown. For processing purposes
I could use any other kind of syntax. But for writing and editing
tasks I found the at sign to be very accessible and easy to find.

The example was very simple and doesn't fully explore the point
of doing this. By using ids:

* I don't have to worry if the bibliographic entries change.
* I don't have to learn any citation style.
* I don't have to write the bibliography section, it is done
  automatically!
* I _always_ get the correct structure.

In a further section I explain how this process is possible.
The main idea is that with some scripts these two inputs became
one, a Markdown file with an added bibliography, ready for automation
processes.

## Outputs

I hate +++PDF+++ as the only research output, because most of
the time I made a general reading on screen and, if I wanted
a more detailed reading, with notes and shit, I prefer to print
it. It isn't comfortable to read a +++PDF+++ on screen and most
of the time printed +++HTML+++ or ebooks are aesthetically unpleasant.
That's why I decided to deliver different formats, so readers
can pick what they like best.

Seeing how publishing is becoming more and more centralized,
unfortunately the deployment of +++MOBI+++ formats for Kindle
readers is recommendable---by the way, +++FUCK+++ Amazon, they
steal from writers and publishers; use Amazon only if the text
isn't in another source. I don't like proprietary software as
Kindlegen, but it is the only _legal_ way to deploy +++MOBI+++
files. I hope that little by little Kindle readers at least start
to hack their devices. Right now Amazon is the shit people use,
but remember: if you don't have it, you don't own it. Look what
happened with [books in Microsoft Store](https://www.npr.org/2019/07/07/739316746/microsoft-closes-the-book-on-its-e-library-erasing-all-user-content)…

What took the cake was a petition from my tutor. He wanted an
editable file he could use easily. Long ago Microsoft monopolized
ewriting, so the easiest solution is to provide a +++DOCX+++
file. I would prefer to use +++ODT+++ format but I have seen
how some people don't know how to open it. My tutor isn't part
of that group, but for the outputs it's good to think not only
in what we need but in what we could need. People barely read
research, if it isn't accessible in what they already know, they
won't read.

So, the following outputs are:

* +++EPUB+++ as standard ebook format.
* +++MOBI+++ for Kindle readers.
* +++PDF+++ for printing.
* +++HTML+++ for web surfers.
* +++DOCX+++ as editable file.

### Ebooks

![The research in its +++EPUB+++ output.](../../../img/p005_i002.png)

I don't use Pandoc for ebooks, instead I use a publishing tool
we are developing: [Pecas](pecas.perrotuerto.blog). “Pecas” means
“freckles,” but in this context it's in honor of a pinto dog
from my childhood.

Pecas allows me to deploy +++EPUB+++ and +++MOBI+++ formats from
+++MD+++ plus document statistics, file validations and easy
metadata handling. Each Pecas project can be heavily customized
since it allows Ruby, Python or shell scripts. The main objective
behind this is the ability to remake ebooks from recipes. Therefore,
the outputs are disposable in order to save space and because
you don't need them all the time and shouldn't edit final formats!

Pecas is rolling release software with +++GNU+++ General Public
License, so it's open, free and _libre_ program. For a couple
months Pecas has been unmaintained because this year we are going
to start all over again, with cleaner code, easier installation
and a bunch of new features---I hope, we need [your support](https://perrotuerto.blog/content/html/en/_donate.html).

### PDF

For +++PDF+++ output I rely on LaTeX and LuaLaTeX. Why? Just
because it is what I'm used to. I don't have any particular argument
against other frameworks or engines inside the TeX family. It's
a world I still have to dig more into.

Why don't I use desktop publishing instead, like InDesign or
Scribus? Outside of its own workflow, desktop publishing is hard
to automate and maintain. This approach is great if you just
want a +++PDF+++ output or if you desire to work with a +++GUI+++.
For file longevity and automated and multiformat standardized
publishing, desktop publishing simply isn't the best option.

Why don't I just export a +++PDF+++ from the +++DOCX+++ file?
I work in publishing, I still have some respect for my eyes…

Anyway, for this output I use Pandoc as a middleman. I could
have managed the conversion from +++MD+++ to +++TEX+++ format
with scripts, but I was lazy. So, Pandoc converts +++MD+++ to
+++TEX+++ and LuaLaTeX compiles it into a +++PDF+++. I don't
use both programs explicitly, instead I wrote a script in order
to automate this process. In a further section I explain this.

![The research in its +++PDF+++ output; I don't like justified text, it's bad for your eyes.](../../../img/p005_i003.png)

### HTML

The +++EPUB+++ format is actually a bunch of compressed +++HTML+++
files plus metadata and a table of contents. So there is no reason
to avoid a +++HTML+++ output. I already have it by converting
the +++MD+++ with Pecas. I don't think someone is gonna read
25K words in a web browser, but you never know. It could work
for a quick look.

### DOCX

This output doesn't have anything special. I didn't customize
its styles. I just use Pandoc via another script. Remember, this
file is for editing so its layout doesn't really matter.

## Writing

Besides the publishing method used in this research, I want to
comment on some particularities about the influence of the technical
setup over the writing.

### Text Editor

I never use word processors, so writing this thesis wasn't an
exception. Instead, I prefer to use text editors. Between them
I have a particular taste for the most minimalist ones like [Vim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vim_(text_editor))
or [Gedit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedit).

Vim is a terminal text editor. I use it on a regular basis---sorry
[Emacs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs) folks. I write almost
everything, including this thesis, with Vim because of its minimalist
interface. No fucking buttons, no distractions, just me and the
black-screen terminal.

Gedit is a +++GUI+++ text editor and I use it mainly for [RegEx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression)
or searches. In this project I utilized it for quick references
to the bibliography. I like JabRef as a bibliography manager,
but for getting the ids I just need access to the raw +++BIB+++
file. Gedit was a good companion for that particular job because
its lack of “buttonware”---the annoying tendency to put buttons
everywhere.

### Citations

I want the research to be as accessible as possible. I didn't
want to use a complicated citation style. That's why I only used
parenthetical and textual citations.

This could be an issue for many scholars. But when I see typos
in their complex citations and quotations, I don't have any empathy.
If you are gonna add complexity to your work, the least you can
do is to do it right. And let's be honest, most scholars add
complexity because they want to make themselves look good---i.e.
they conform with formation rules for research texts in order
to be part of a community or gain some objectivity.

### Block Quotations

You are not going to see any block quotes in the research. This
isn't only because of accessibility---some people can't distinguish
these types of quotes---but the ways in which the bibliography
was handled.

One of the main purposes for block quotations is to provide a
first and extended hand of what point a writer is making. But
sometimes it's also used as text filling. In a common way to
do research in Philosophy, the output tends to be a “final” paper.
That text is the research plus the bibliography. This format
doesn't allow to embed any other files, like papers, websites,
books or data bases. If you want to provide some literal information,
quotes and block quotes are the way to go.

Because this thesis is actually an automated repository, it contains
all the references used for the research. It has a bibliography,
but also each quoted work for backup and educational purposes.
Why would I use block quotes if you could easily check the files?
Even better, you could use some search function or go over all
the data for validation purposes.

Moreover, the university doesn't allow long submission. I agree
with that, I think we have other technical capabilities that
allow us to be more synthetic. By putting aside block quotes,
I had more space for the actual research.

Take it or leave it, research as repository and not as a file
gives us more possibilities for accessibility, portability and
openness.

### Footnotes

Oh, the footnotes! Such a beautiful technique for displaying
side text. It works great, it permits metawriting and so on.
But it works as expected if the output you are thinking of is,
firstly, a file and secondly, a text with fixed layout. In other
types of outputs, footnotes can be a nightmare.

I have the conviction that most footnotes can be incorporated
into the text. This is due to three personal experiences. During
my undergraduate and graduate studies, as a Philosophy student
we had to read a lot of fucking critical editions, which tend
to have their “critical” notes as footnotes. For these types
of text I get it, people don't want to confuse their words for
someone else's, less if it's between a philosophical authority
and a contemporary philosopher---take note that it's a personal
taste and not a mandate. But this is a shitty Master's research
thesis, not a critical edition.

I used to hate footnotes, now I just dislike them. Part of my
job is to review, extract and fix other peoples' footnotes. I
can bet you that half of the time footnotes aren't properly displayed
or they are missing. Commonly this is not a software error. Sometimes
it's because people do them manually. But I won't blame publishers
nor designers for their mistakes. The way things are developing
in publishing, most of the time the issue is the lack of time.
We are being pushed to publish books as fast as we can and one
of the side effects of that is the loss of quality. Bibliography,
footnotes and block quotes are the easiest way to find out how
much care has gone into a text.

I do blame some authors for this mess. I repeat, it is just a
personal experience, but in my work I have seen that most authors
put footnotes in the following situations:

* They want to add shit but not to rewrite shit.
* They aren't very good writers or they are in a hurry, so footnotes
  are the way to go.
* They think that by adding footnotes, block quotes or references
  they can “earn” objectivity.

I think the thesis needs more rewriting, I could have written
things in a more comprehensive way, but I was done---writing
philosophy is not my thing, I prefer to speak or program (!)
it. That is why I took my time on the review process---ask my
tutor about that, +++LMFAO+++. It would have been easier for
me to just add footnotes, but it would have been harder to read
that shit. Besides that, footnotes take more space than rewriting.

So, with respect to the reader and in agreement with the text
extension of my university, I decided not to use footnotes.

## Programming

As you can see, I had to write some scripts and use third party
software in order to have a thesis as an automated repository.
It sounds difficult or perhaps like nonsense, but, doesn't Philosophy
have that kind of reputation, anyway? >:)

### MD Tools

The first challenges I had were:

* I needed to know exactly how many pages I had written.
* I wanted an easier way to beautify +++MD+++ format.
* I had to make some quality checks in my writing.

Thus, I decided to develop some programs for these tasks: [`texte`](https://gitlab.com/snippets/1917485),
[`texti`](https://gitlab.com/snippets/1917487) and [`textu`](https://gitlab.com/snippets/1917488),
respectively.

These programs are actually Ruby scripts that I put on my `/usr/local/bin`
directory. You can do the same, but I wouldn't recommended it.
Right now in Programando +++LIBRE+++ros we are refactoring all
that shit so they can be shipped as a Ruby gem. So I recommend
waiting.

With `texte` I am able to know the number of lines, characters,
characters with spaces, words and three different page sizes:
by every 1,800 characters with spaces, by every 250 words and
an average of both---you can set other lengths for page sizes.

The +++MD+++ beautifier is `texti`. For the moment it only works
well with paragraphs. It was good enough for me, my issue was
with the disparate length of lines---yeah, I don't use line wrap.

![`texti` sample help display.](../../../img/p005_i004.png)

I also tried to avoid some typical mistakes while using quotation
marks or brackets: sometimes we forget to close them. So `textu`
is for this quality check.

These three programs were very helpful for my writing, that is
why we decided to continue in its development as a Ruby gem.
For our work and personal projects, +++MD+++ is our main format,
so we are obligated to provide tools that help writers and publishers
also using Markdown.

### Baby Biber

If you are into TeX family, you probably know [Biber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biber_(LaTeX)),
the bibliography processing program. With Biber we are able to
compile bibliographic entries of BibLaTeX in +++PDF+++ outputs
and carry out checks or clean ups.

I started to have issues with the references because our publishing
method implies the deployment of outputs in separate processes
from the same inputs, in this case +++MD+++ and +++BIB++ formats.
With Biber I was able to add the bibliographic entries but only
for +++PDF+++.

The solution I came to was the addition of references in +++MD+++
before any other process. In doing this, I merged the inputs
in one +++MD+++ file. This new file is used for the deployment
of all the outputs.

This solution implies the use of Biber as a clean up tool and
the development of a program that processes bibliographic entries
of BibLaTeX inside Markdown files. [Baby Biber](https://gitlab.com/snippets/1917492)
is this program. I wanted to honor Biber and make clear that
this program is still in its baby stages.

What does Baby Biber do?

* It creates a new +++MD+++ file with references and bibliography.
* It adds references if the original +++MD+++ file calls to @textcite or
  @parencite with a correct BibLaTeX id.
* It adds the bibliography to the end of the documents according to the
  called references.

One headache with references and bibliography styles is how to
customize them. With Pandoc you can use [`pandoc-citeproc`](https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc)
which allows you to select any style written in Citation Style
Language (+++CSL+++). These styles are in +++XML+++ and it is
a serious thing: you should apply these standards. You can check
different +++CSL+++ citation styles in its [official repo](https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles).

Baby Biber still doesn't support +++CSL+++! Instead, it uses
[+++YAML+++](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAML) format for [its
configuration](https://gitlab.com/snippets/1917513). This is
because of two issues:

1. I didn't take the time to read how to implement +++CSL+++ citation styles.
2. My University allows me to use any kind of citation style as long as
   it has uniformity and displays the information in a clear manner.

So, yeah, I have a huge debt here. And maybe it will stay like
that. The new version of Pecas will implement and improve the
work done by Baby Biber---I hope.

![Baby Biber sample config file.](../../../img/p005_i005.png)

### PDF exporter

The last script I wrote is for the automation of +++PDF+++ compilation
with LuaLaTeX and Biber (optionally).

I don't like the default layouts of Pandoc and I could have read
the docs in order to change that behavior, but I decided to experiment
a bit. The new version of Pecas will implement +++PDF+++ outputs,
so I wanted to play around a little with the formatting, as I
did with Baby Biber. Besides, I needed a quick program for +++PDF++
outputs because we publish sometimes [fanzines](http://zines.perrotuerto.blog/).

So, [`export-pdf`](https://gitlab.com/snippets/1917490) is the
experiment. It uses Pandoc to convert +++MD+++ to +++TEX+++ files.
Then it does some clean up and injects the template. Finally,
it compiles the +++PDF+++ with LuaLaTeX and Biber---if you want
to add the bibliographic entries this way. It also exports a
+++PDF+++ booklet with `pdfbook2`, but I don't deploy it in this
repo because the +++PDF+++ is letter size, too large for a booklet.

I have a huge debt here that I won't pay. It is cool to have
a program for +++PDF+++ outputs that I understand, but I still
want to experiment with [ConTeXt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConTeXt).

I think ConTeXt could be a useful tool while using +++XML+++
files for +++PDF+++ outputs. I defend Markdown as input format
for writers and publishers, but for automation +++XML+++ format
is way better. For the new version of Pecas I have been thinking
about the possibility of using +++XML+++ for any kind of standard
output like +++EPUB+++, +++PDF+++ or +++JATS+++. I have problems
with +++TEX+++ format because it creates an additional format
just for one output, why would I allow it if +++XML+++ can provide
me with at least three outputs?

![`export-pdf` Ruby code.](../../../img/p005_i006.png)

### Third parties

I already mentioned the third party software I used for this
repo:

* Vim as a main text editor.
* Gedit as a side text editor.
* JabRef as a bibliography manager.
* Pandoc as a document converter.
* LuaLaTeX as a +++PDF+++ engine.
* Biber as a bibliography cleaner.

The tools I developed and this software are all +++FOSS+++, so
you can use them if you want without paying or asking for permission---and
without warranty xD

## Deployment

There is a fundamental design issue in this research as automated
repository: I should have put all the scripts in one place. At
the beginning of the research I thought it would be easier to
place each script side by side its inputs. Over time I realized
that it wasn't a good idea.

The good thing is that there is one script that works as a [wrapper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrapper_function).
You don't really have to know anything about it. You just write
the research in Markdown, fill the BibLaTeX bibliography and
any time you want or your server is configured, call that script.

This is a simplified listing showing the places of each script,
inputs and outputs inside the repo:

```
.
├─ [01] bibliografia
│   ├─ [02] bibliografia.bib
│   ├─ [03] bibliografia.html
│   ├─ [04] clean.sh
│   ├─ [05] config.yaml
│   └─ [06] recursos
├─ [07] index.html
└─ [08] tesis
    ├─ [09] docx
    │   ├─ [10] generate
    │   └─ [11] tesis.docx
    ├─ [12] ebooks
    │   ├─ [13] generate
    │   └─ [14] out
    │       ├─ [15] generate.sh
    │       ├─ [16] meta-data.yaml
    │       ├─ [17] tesis.epub
    │       └─ [18] tesis.mobi
    ├─ [19] generate-all
    ├─ [20] html
    │    ├─ [21] generate
    │    └─ [22] tesis.html
    ├─ [23] md
    │   ├─ [24] add-bib
    │   ├─ [25] tesis.md
    │   └─ [26] tesis_with-bib.md
    └─ [27] pdf
        ├─ [28] generate
        └─ [29] tesis.pdf
```

### Bibliography pathway

Even with a simplified view you can see how this repo is a fucking
mess. The bibliography [01] and the thesis [08] are the main
directories in this repo. As a sibling you have the website [07].

The bibliography directory isn't part of the automation process.
I worked on the +++BIB+++ file [02] in different moments than
my writing. I exported it to +++HTML+++ [03] every time I used
JabRef. This +++HTML+++ is for queries from the browser. Over
there it's also a simple script [04] to clean the bibliography
with Biber and the configuration file [05] for Baby Biber. Are
you a data hoarder? There is an special directory [06] for you
with all the works used for this research ;)

### Engine on

In the thesis directory [08] is where everything moves smoothly
when you call to `generate-all` [19], the wrapper that turns
on the engine!

The wrapper does the following steps:

1. It adds the bibliography [24] to the original +++MD+++ file [25],
   leaving a new file [26] to act as input.
2. It generates [21] the +++HTML+++ output [22].
3. It compiles [28] the +++PDF+++ output [29].
4. It generates [13] the +++EPUB+++ [17] and +++MOBI+++ [18] according
   to their metadata [16] and Pecas config file [15].
5. It exports [10] the +++MD+++ to +++DOCX+++ [11].
6. It moves the analytics to its correct directory.
7. It refreshes the modification date in the index [07].
8. It puts the rolling release hash in the index [07].
9. It puts the +++MD5+++ checksum of all outputs in the index [07].

And that's it. The process of developing a thesis as a automate
repository allows me to just worry about three things:

1. Write the research.
2. Manage the bibliography.
3. Deploy all outputs automatically.

### The legal stuff

That's how it works, but we still have to talk about how the
thesis can _legally_ be used…

This research was paid for by every Mexican through taxation.
The National Council of Science and Technology (abbreviated Conacyt)
granted me a scholarship to study a Master's in Philosophy at
+++UNAM+++---yeah, American and British folks, more likely than
not, we get paid here for our graduate studies.

This scholarship is a problematic privilege. So the least I can
do in return is to liberate everything that was paid for by my
homies and give free workshops and advice. I repeat: it is _the
least_ we can do. I disagree with using this privilege to live
a lavish or party lifestyle only to then drop-out. In a country
with many crises, scholarships are granted to improve your communities,
not only you.

In general, I have the conviction that if you are a researcher
or a graduate student and you already get paid---it doesn't matter
if it's a salary or a scholarship, it doesn't matter if you are
in a public or private university, it doesn't matter if you get
the money from public or private administrations---you have a
commitment with your community, with our species and with our
planet. If you wanna talk about free labor and exploitation---which
does happen---please look at the bottom. In this shitty world
you are on the upper levels of this [nonsense pyramid](https://es.crimethinc.com/posters/capitalism-is-a-pyramid-scheme).

As a researcher, scientist, philosopher, theorist, artist and
so on, you have an obligation to help other people. You can still
feed your ego and believe you are the shit or the next +++AAA+++
thinker, philosopher or artist. These two things doesn't overlap---but
it's still annoying.

That is why this research has a [copyfarleft](https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft)
license for its content and a copyleft license for its code.
Actually, it's the same licensing scheme of [this blog](https://perrotuerto.blog/content/html/en/_fork.html).

With Open and Free Publishing License (abbreviated +++LEAL+++,
that also means “loyal” in Spanish) you are free to use, copy,
reedit, modify, share or sell any of this content under the following
conditions:

* Anything produced with this content must be under some type of +++LEAL+++.
* All files---editable or final formats---must be publicly accessible.
* The content usage cannot imply defamation, exploitation or surveillance.

You could remove my name and put yours, it's permmited. You could
even modify the content and write that I +++LOVE+++ intellectual
property: there isn't a technical solution to avoid such defamation.
But +++MD5+++ checksum shows if the files were modify by others.
Even if the files differs by one bit, the +++MD5+++ checksum
is gonna be different.

Copyfarleft is the way---but not the solution---that suits our
context and our possibilities of freedom. [Don't come here with
your liberal and individualistic notion of freedom---like the
dudes from Weblate that kicked this blog out because its content
license “is not free,” even though they say the code, but not
the content, should use a “free” license, like the fucking +++GPL+++
this blog has for its code]{#weblate}. This type of liberal freedom
doesn't work in a place where no State or corporation can warrant
us a minimum set of individual freedoms, as it happens in Asia,
Africa and the other America---Latin America and the America
that isn't portrayed in the “American Dream” adds.

## Last thoughts

As a thesis works with a hypothesis, the technical and legal
pathway of this research works with the possibility of having
a thesis as an automated repository, instead of a thesis as a
file. In the end, the possibility became a fact, but in a limited
way.

I think that the idea of a thesis as a automated repo is doable
and could be a better way for research deployment rather than
uploading a single file. But this implementation contained many
leaks that made it unsuitable for escalation.

Further work is necessary to be able to ship this as a standard
practice. This technique could also be applied for automation
and uniformity among publications, like papers in a journal or
a book collection. The required labor isn't too much, and _maybe_
it's something I would engage with during a PhD. But for right
now, this is all that I can offer!

Thanks to @hacklib for pushing me to write this post and, again,
thanks to my +++S.O.+++ for persuading me to study a Master's
degree and for reviewing this post. Thanks to my tutor, Programando
+++LIBRE+++ros and Gaby for their academic support. I can't forget
to give thanks to [Colima Hacklab](https://hacklab.cc), [Rancho
Electrónico](https://ranchoelectronico.org) and [Miau Telegram
Group](https://t.me/miau2018) for their technical support. And
also thanks to all the people and organizations I mentioned in
the acknowledgment section of the research!