Matthew Senate <[email protected]> writes: >Will you two be at the Free Culture summit? I pitched a meeting topic >called "read/write Definitions" on the theoretical underpinnings and >definitions of the FC movement (which is indebted to the Free Software >movement). I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I'd be excited to >facilitate a meeting with folks of various levels of familiarity and >experience. Check it out here and thumb-up if you think it's a good >idea: http://backchan.nl/meetings/view/1545 > >Note, from a practical point of view, the goal of this meeting could >be to normalize interpretations of language and map the delicate, yet >critical nuances at play in the FC space, which is (IMHO) the hugest >barrier to entry for new folks and also critical for >communication-based goals within the movement.
Unfortunately, no, I can't make it this time, though I wish I could. At the risk of perhaps oversimplifying... While there are certainly some communications / PR issues to be figured out, I feel the theoretical underpinnings are pretty solid these days. http://freedomdefined.org/ pretty much lays it out, as do other sites. Basically: The free culture licenses are CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC0, Public Domain (PD isn't a license, but you know what I mean), all the free software / open source licenses, and the GNU FDL as long as certain optional clauses aren't invoked. Anything -ND or -NC is not a free culture license. (There may be some other free culture licenses out there, of course; I'm just listing the most popular / widely-known ones.) Furthermore, the above list is not arbitrary, but is based on the same freedoms as free and open source software, which extend pretty naturally to non-software works. Simply put, if you are free to examine, make copies, share copies, make modifications, share modified copies, and use/perform/display/record/etc for any purpose, then you are dealing with Free Culture. If you are missing any of those freedoms, then you are not dealing with Free Culture. Of course, a free culture license *may* impose certain non-onerous attribution requirements, and/or place limitations on your ability to restrict others' freedom to redistribute, but none of that interferes with the key freedoms listed above. Is there more to it than that? Are we missing any theoretical underpinnings at this point? I feel like the job now is explanation, not research. Or perhaps that's what you were proposing too -- I couldn't be sure from your paragraph. I guess I decided to make my contribution to the meeting now, since I can't be there in person :-). Have a great time! -Karl >On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Karl Fogel ><[email protected]> wrote: > > Danny Piccirillo <[email protected]> writes: > >There is a debate within the free culture and free software > >communities (presented within the scope of software, where it is > most > >relevant): > > > >Permissive vs Copyleft > > > >Permissive licensing is mostly hands off, and allows for > proprietary > >software to be made from free software. The argument here is that > free > >software should be made by choice, or at least that the law > shouldn't > >be relied upon to keep software free. > > > I realize most of your email was humorous or meant as provocation > :-), > but I wanted to address seriously something in what you say above: > > We hear this "choice" argument all the time: that free culture and > free > software are all very well and good, but shouldn't it be the > producer's > "choice" whether or not to release their work under a free > license? > > When people ask the question that way, they forget that everyone > has the > potential for choice. We need to explain that a creator > exercising such > a "choice" is thus taking choices away from others. That is, if I > choose to (say) publish a book under a non-free license, I am > thereby > *taking away* everyone else's choices to share it, translate it, > make > derivative works from it, etc. (And it's worse than a zero-sum > game, > since so many more people's choices are being limited in that > scenario.) > > Of course, taking away those choices is currently the default > under law. > The state not only grants, but actively encourages, that > particular > monopoly -- so much so that many people don't even think of this > as > reducing others' choices, even though that is its main effect. > > So when you encounter the "choice" argument, please point out to > your > interlocutor that choice goes both ways. > > -Karl > > > > >Copyleft protects free software by preventing it from being > >appropriated to restrict users' freedom. One of the greatest > opponents > >to free software is Apple, and they probably wouldn't be around > (at > >least not as they are today) without taking free code (from BSD) > and > >making it non-free. The argument here is clear: copyright can be > a > >tool to protect free software. > > > >Industry forces > > > >This section isn't very articulate, sorry. Probably unnecessary > as > >well, skip if it if you're busy and you can come back to it > later. > > > >So long as we live in a capitalist society (disregarding any > judgement > >of it), money drives business and production. There is no reason > that > >giving things away for free is good for a business. It might not > be > >bad, and it may be made to work for many businesses, but is it > really > >the case that a particular business is better off financially by > >making all the software they produce free? It may be better that > the > >industry/economy/world as whole would be better off, but > businesses > >tend to do what's best for them, and best for them in the short > term > >(hence privatizing everything, stocking up on IP, all sorts of > stupid > >wasted energy that genuinely keeps the particular business in its > >position but holds everyone back collectively). > > > >Free software, IMHO, is produced in "enlightened self-interest", > but > >if the open source (business friendly, better software, better > >development, etc) view is wrong, and free software isn't > inherently > >better for business, then copyright is an excellent tool to > protect > >free software (through copyleft licensing). > > > >Direct action > > > >What if we throw this framework out the window? Many grassroots > social > >movements have depended on civil disobedience. Free software has > no > >real form of protest. We, as users, can beg developers and > companies > >to play nice and free their code (which makes no sense for > businesses > >who make a killing off of proprietary software business models), > and > >we can boycott, refuse to use proprietary software (as I think we > >should), but this is an extremely slow and painful way to get > everyone > >using free software, truly impractical to expect from people. > > > >We can work within this scope of trying to fix laws and prevent > worse > >laws from being enacted, but this is also slow and odds are not > tilted > >in our favor. We can keep making free software, since we need > that, > >but that's just enough to keep the dream alive. What can we do > that > >truly disrupts the non-free media industry? > > > >Traditional tactics: > > > >Just to bang out a few of the worst... > > > > >* Murder (just using Wikipedia's list of tactics): Certainly > > > disruptive. Could yield results. In cases where software > freedom is > > a matter of life and death (life and death is a bizarre > > construction, because everything impacts human lives to varying > > degrees, and sometimes the most indirect causes have the most > > profound impacts), this could be an attempt to save more lives > than > > cost. On the other hand, it could just be murder. > > > > >* Assault: Scare tactic similar to murder. > > > >* Property destruction: If so much can be destroyed that it is no > > > longer profitable to make non-free works, then this could be an > > effective tactic, even if it is marked as terrorism. On the > other > > hand, it would take a shit-ton of destruction and the type of > people > > willing to do that for...software. > > > > >* Sabotage: Usually requires insiders. Very risky. Similar effect > on > > > perceived legitimacy. > > > >Okay, so even when applied tactically (cutting off power or > internet > >connection rather than burning down a building) we're probably > all in > >agreement that those aren't good/feasible/sensible tactics. Let's > move > >on... > > > > >* Sit ins, human barricades, etc: Could disrupt a business but in > the > > > unbelievable event that people would actually participate in > such an > > event, large market forces will dismiss the demand for free > code as > > communist, etc. > > > > >* Disruptive pranks: Make a mess or padlock gates to keep people > from > > > working might have some impact, but again, this is probably > stupid. > > > > >* Strikes, workplace occupations: Yeah, programmers are going to > > > demand their employers make code free and destroy the stable > > business model that results in a paycheck? > > > >These traditional tactics tend to be successful for issues more > in the > >public eye. Are there no tactics that are particularly good at > >disrupting the business of proprietary software and non-free > works? > >Does it really just boil down to educating users, begging > non-free > >producers, and cheerleading for free ones? Are any of these > tactics > >actually useful (or would they be, if we did a better job of > educating > >people on free culture issues)? > > > >So, what ideas do you have for direct action techniques > specifically > >to further free software and free culture? > > > >Here are some: > > > > >* Piracy: but it doesn't make proprietary software free. > > > >* Leak source code: Illegal to use, any software which does will > > > likely have a tough time getting mass-adoption, but still > awesome > > for reverse engineering formats and protocols. > > > > >* Hacktivism: These are cool, but usually not very democratic. > Either > > > a capable person/group to deface a web page, or masses of > people > > would be required to DDoS one. Still, how cool would it be to > have > > the Sony website showing some images about DRM and suing > hackers? > > > > >* Email bombing: Maybe, difficult to get mass participation. > > > >* Your idea here! > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
