Bummer you can't make it. I think your message is a valuable contribution, and I'm up for doing either: nailing definitions (getting folks on the same page and possibly identifying any non-obvious loose ends), or focusing on communicating.
Also: language is dynamic, ever-changing, so have we (or others) forged new areas (constructions without names / classifications) or dreamt new dreams that have yet to be added to the cannon? I'm just a nerd, this stuff is exciting to me, it's very new and theoretical! On the other hand, I agree with you about "comm/PR" work--there's lots to be done still since the email you just sent would make no sense to most people! I see opportunity for a session, but seeking other folks who want to put their heads into it. Thanks again for the note! ;) // Matt On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
