Dear Hellekin,
i support your proposal to Open Sorce Technology, the condition for a real technical development. And your strong answer to Moritz.
Moritz is a german boy. And in Germany all governments groups on any level look for money flow. This is the base for the big corruption in Germany in the political spheres. And this is the base for his thinking.
The Free Software results are used for private interests. They are not interested to extend the space for activity over the software space. And they are not interested to analyse, what is the most powerfull way for technical development.
We know it from the beginning. Software in general was an open space. And in this time in the USA, all developed software with support from public fonds have to be Open Source software.
Therefore, like Matthias wrote, it is very easy to understand. We see in Muenchen how the moneyflow from Microsoft change the situation and start a big campaign of lies. This to place the responsibility for public space under private interests.
We have to extend this discussion to the FSFla in spanish.
many greetings, willi Asuncion, Paraguay
Am 26/8/2017 um 13:00 schrieb hellekin:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:30:12 +0200 Moritz Bartl moritz@headstrong.de wrote:
choices. For instance, a small country might want to take advantage of further improvements by others to its software and would be more inclined to fund open source projects with licenses that limit commercial utilization, such as the General Public License.
This argument needs to be killed once and for all. As long as it is used by the enemies of freedom, it will be believed and taken into account as a problem by institutions.
I don't know of a really good answer already formulated to dispel this fallacy though, do you?
I would look at reformulating "commercial utilization" as what it is: vendor-locking and anti-competitive behavior. The GPL limits vendor-locking, and favors competition by providing an even playground for all industrial actors regardless of their size and capacity to produce code; considering public code as infrastructure, like language. Nobody would argue that limiting access to language is a genuine business practice (although promoters of 'intellectual property' would certainly disagree.)
== hk
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign Datum: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:59:02 +0200 Von: hellekin how@gnu.org An: discussion@lists.fsfe.org
- Erik Albers [2017-08-01 14:09 +0200]:
[...]
Hi Erik, Mathias, all,
I've been working on a philosophical argument that distinguishes free technologies from proprietary technologies on a technical basis. This offers a foundation to argue, along with the PMPC campaign, that European institutions, and more generally public institutions, should prefer open technical systems to closed technical systems (respectively: free software to privative software) not for ideological reasons, but on technical grounds. Petites Singularités already successfully used that argument to expel a proprietary software company from an European consortium to the benefit of a free software project (ongoing MURIQUI project, see [0]).
A first approach of this argument can be found in "Good bye 'open-source'; hello 'free software'" from January 2013, and was discussed abundantly during the last Libre Software Meeting in Saint-Etienne, France, the first week of July (RMLL 2017). I'm preparing a report on this covering interventions of Coline Ferrarato, Stéphane Couture, Thiago Novaes, Natacha Roussel, and Yann Moulier-Boutang. The conversation will continue in the form of articles and hopefully a review on free technologies.
I would like to propose that this effort is linked to the PMPC campaign so that when the EU software project coverage is complete, the campaign can evolve and push the technical argument. In a nutshell, French philosopher Gilbert Simondon distinguished open and closed technical systems that promote different ethics and aesthetics: the former embrace diversity, evolution, perennity, and cooperation, while the latter push univocity, control (vendor-lock), specialization. The key argument is that the path taken to produce a technology conditions the resulting technique.
This conversation will happen on the Petites Singularités discourse platform [2], and I would like to invite people interested in the PMPC to experiment with this platform as a campaign tool. I wish the FSFE would provide support towards this endeavor: I can provide the platform and sysadmin effort to sustain it (i.e. no FSFE sysadmin will be required), but I can't otherwise spend more time organizing the campaigning effort.
What do you think? How can these two approaches (philosophical / technical argument and EU assets identification with FOIA requests) can create synergies to amplify the PMPC campaign? Who would be interested in supporting such an endeavor, and with which means?
Thank you for your attention,
== hk
[0]: https://ps.zoethical.com/t/singular-technologies-the-third-technoscape/333 [1]: https://ps.zoethical.com/t/good-bye-open-source-hello-free-software/344 [2]: https://ps.zoethical.com/