I have a feeling that the FLOSS movement in spirit was constructed in the previous centralised computing paradigm with timesharing systems, and in some sense is left there. I wonder what its corresponding movement of our time would be, now that the pendulum has swung back from the desktop computing paradigm and into dumb terminals over a document format?

@alcinnz I think so, but not just that. If they used copyright law and GPL, I think we need to do similar forays into other fields, but I'm still quite fuzzy on the details of what that means.

@albin over and above AGPL?

It's all very code-focused on the GNU side. What people seem to get interested in with cloud services is the fact that commercial exploitation of the code gets monopolised by those cloud services. So we get copyfarleft and weird stuff like the "commons clause" showing up.

Might actually be impossible to fix though.

@lupine For me the code is a means, not an end. The most interesting parts of the free software movement to me were always the slightly utopian visions (and I think they are very clearly widely different) about the societies around and through the code. I can imagine both communal centralised computing and individualised libertarian computing springing from the same roots, just to name two.

Do you have a good source on copy far left?

@albin CFL is http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft - it's not really written with software in mind, though.

re: visions of society, rms vs esr (or FSF vs OSI) was always an interesting tension. Corporate centralised computing squashes both flat at present, though.

@lupine Ah, Kleiner; I should have suspected. I'm slightly familiar with his work, if not this one. Thank you for the link!

@lupine OK; I have done my homework now. What Kleiner seems to be after is roughly the same thing as the Commons Clause people are trying to fix in some sense, that is the appropriation of labour from FLOSS by companies. It's an interesting side-effect that both of these proposals are violating some of the software freedoms specifically because they are formulated without any distinction of power, etc. (1/2)

@lupine I think this is to be expected? Anything reasonably different from the GLP (in terms of scope or intention) can be assumed to end up with incompatible rules in some sense. A more important question, I think, is if copyright law is even the best place to fight this battle. There ARE other options; blockades (DDoS?), campains, strikes, etc. It seems a bit...cargo-cultish to me to try a license just because it "worked before". (2/2)

@albin I touched on this a bit in a redecentralize talk, actually. Would twitter be terrible if its ownership model differed? What happens if it becomes a user-owned cooperative - does centralization even matter at that point?

I don't really see that denying the four software freedoms to our enemies must be a bad thing, but it does seem hella controversial from the experiments I've done.

@lupine I kind of like the form vs content argument inside of that, but I think the answer is "yes, but it wouldn't work the same if it was user-developed, depending on which user's needs developed it"

@lupine It would be interesting to investigate the source of that controversy. Is it: a) actual differing interests and/or perspectives and/or lived experiences, or is it a matter of semantics or cargo-culting FLOSS licenses?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!