Incredible! Congratulations. Some of the most effective SFC activism
ever!
F
On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:38 PM, Adi Kamdar <[email protected]> wrote:
Update:
Just got word that Yale has delayed their Gmail/Gapps program, and
the administration will open up to the community for arguments and
concerns. Our actions made them realize they have more to think
about than they originally realized. Students + (angry) CS
professors = effective combo!
-Adi
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Senate <[email protected]
> wrote:
http://wiki.freeculture.org/FCX/Unconference/Google_eating_or_providing_University_services
will add more later. i encourage other attendees to do so as well.
> Hey Alex,
>
> Alex Kozak <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I'd love to have a conversation about this at the conference...
would be
>> interesting to hear everyone's perspective. I think this is a great
>> debate
>> to have.
>>
>
> Unfortunately I missed the conference this year. Did any
conversation
> about it happen?
>
>> John you know I agree with the ideals of free software, but I
think I
>> have a
>> more pragmatic view when it comes to Google. Does the increased
risk to
>> "corporate interference" and reduced autonomy outweigh the
potential
>> benefits of these technologies? For a school without any
collaboration
>> systems, and little capacity to deploy one, the Google option would
>> clearly
>> be a net win for education and the university's mission to
educate. And
>> it
>> would be a win for free culture in that the capabilities for
>> collaboration
>> and learning presented by the internet are being harnessed by the
>> institutions who could most benefit from their use.
>>
>
> I understand the appeal of this argument, but it accepts the
status quo
> as a given, ignoring the leadership role that universities have
> (imperfectly) had, and what they are capable of. The university
has the
> choice to either be part of the demand for freedom or to instead
support
> lack of freedom and expect someone else to take the leadership
role. I
> sure am glad universities continued the growth of the Internet and
> standardized email instead of going the direction of private AOL-
like
> networks.
>
> As Asheesh points out, to require Google Services is to require
student
> and faculty disclosure of their academic work and communications
to both
> the government and a corporation. This does strike me as a much more
> sinister kind of corporate interference than hanging sponsorship
banners
> up in the student union or the like. It also means relying on code
that
> no one at the university has ever seen, so it means simply
trusting a
> corporation to do the right thing.
>
> I think your way of framing this also creates a much wider
technology
> gap than there is. Google services obviously have features that add
> appeal, but let's be honest about what the actual damage to the
> university's mission from not making their use *mandatory* is, and
let's
> also remember that the largest successful collaborative writing and
> research project in history is run using exclusively free
software...
>
>> I definitely agree that other things being equal a floss solution
is
>> preferable over Google. And think it's even inevitable that free
>> software
>> will compete with Google apps-like services. But in the meantime
should
>> schools not be encouraging the use of new technology until the
floss
>> solution is as optimal as Google?
>>
>
> There's no "in the meantime" in the current way these decisions are
> being made -- to adopt Google services is to actively undercut and
work
> against the demand for free software solutions (which may or may
not be
> services in the traditional sense). Universities are large and
slow. If
> they change to Google now, they aren't going to want to change
again to
> a free software system in 3 years, even if an awesome one does
exist.
>
> We also can't impose the "in the meantime" rationale we wish were
there
> on the decision -- when the decision is made based on cost, that's
the
> rationale -- not this desire you're expressing to benefit
collaborative
> or free culture projects. Failing to oppose a decision made on a
poor
> rationale simply because an alternate rationale could justify it
better
> is a dangerous path to take. When a decision is at best pro-free-
culture
> because of incidental side effects, that's a deceptive and often
harmful
> kind of win.
>
> If universities were *actually* saying, "We're going to use Google
> services now, because we need that functionality to support
> collaboration, but we'll continue to support development of free
> software alternatives with an eye toward re-acquiring our academic
> independence in 2015," then this would be a much different
discussion.
>
> From what I've seen, that's not what they're saying. What they're
saying
> is more akin to, "It's cheaper, and software is just part of the
> infrastructure, like the air conditioning, and Google is popular."
> That's not something we should be okay with.
>
> --
> -John Sullivan
> -http://wjsullivan.net
> -GPG Key: AE8600B6
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
