Boost this if you want to be part of an explicitly anticapitalist technology liberation movement.

I am drawn more and more towards simply "communal software". It is simple and to the point without needing to bring in a lot of loaded political baggage. Sure capitalists might fund some of it, but I think it would be significantly more difficult for capitalists to co-opt "communal software" than the nebulous "open source" which has had its meaning intentionally diluted and stretched to absurdity.

"Communal software" might not totally keep obnoxious libertarians away, but it I think it would do a pretty good job of preventing them from dominating the discourse.

@be "Software of the Commons" to directly invoke the Tragedy of the Commons? Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue though.

@splatt9990 I think "commons software" would be too easy for corporations to co-opt for precisely that reason.

@splatt9990 "Creative Commons" has been co-opted. @lightweight can tell you more about that if you're interested.

@lightweight @be @splatt9990 Yesterday, I went on a bit of a rant about this same topic ( if you want)

I'm all for "communal software". What I'm more concerned with, though, is how we define that.

Problem is, I *like* the four freedoms, I just don't think they are enough. The "communal" term suggests the right direction.

I struggle a bit to define the necessary other communal aspects in a similarly concise form.

@lightweight @be @splatt9990 I figure the UNIX approach of one tool, one job is closely related to the "toolkits over frameworks" kind of thinking. To me, both enable freedoms because they allow much more varied re-use, being less prescriptive to users.

But it's hard to put them into a license - not that I particularly want to - this would have to be more of a manifesto. And then it's still a fuzzy enough thing that people can interpret it differently.

@jens @lightweight @splatt9990 I don't think it's a great idea to mix engineering best practices into a political philosophy.

@be @lightweight @splatt9990 @jens This comment is what prompted me to think about how good engineering practices would contribute to user freedom and that's why I wrote the maturity model draft… basically just to see where I put them.

I put them last.

In Open Source, engineering practices basically come out on top, topped only by the licensing.

Little did I know you had already written your manifesto. I was shown to it after I finished my list and my chin fell to the floor. The zeitgeist is strong with this one.

I talked with a friend about these issues the other day just before I learned about the rms surprise.

@clacke @lightweight @splatt9990 @be I feel like there's a streamlined text waiting in between that manifesto and your list. I'm going to let both simmer for a bit, maybe I'll come up with something. Either way, highly interesting stuff.

@jens @clacke @lightweight @splatt9990 Yeah, I want to integrate @clacke 's list when I revise the essay, but do so from a perspective of presenting a set of guidelines for making the principles practically meaningful, not presenting absolute legalistic criteria handed down from the mountain that is treated as holy commandments which may never be modified to meet future developments.

@be @lightweight @splatt9990 @jens Yes, I blushed when I read that part of your manifesto and you are absolutely correct, haha.

But pretending that this gatekeeping framework is real has helpful for me to sort my thoughts at least.

@clacke @lightweight @splatt9990 @be I don't think a framework is bad, as long as it's clear enough that it's guidelines rather than rules. It helps people who want to do things right think about the bases they should cover.

@jens @lightweight @splatt9990 @be The level definitions are subjective enough that it should be fodder for internal discussion on what to work on enhancing rather than binary gates for certification.

But that also means maybe they aren't actually levels, but parallel aspects, as @bookwar hinted at in… .

@clacke @lightweight @splatt9990 @bookwar @be I do believe they're aspects, but not strictly parallel. Call them dimensions?

@jens @lightweight @splatt9990 @bookwar @be Is there some degree of foundational support from the lower numbers? So that maybe it makes sense to work on things in parallel, but maybe it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go sky high on aspect n+3 until you're pretty high on aspect n?

@clacke @lightweight @splatt9990 @bookwar @be Something like that. It's still a bit fuzzy to me while I think about other things. Entirely in the abstract, maybe we'll need to class items into less dependent dimensions, but find some order to them per class.

But I also don't want to overcomplicate things. It's just that sometimes that kind of structure makes sense.

Here, I really need to let it bubble a while.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Finkhäuser Social

A private instance for the Finkhäuser family.