[AktiviX] Free Software Act, Strategy and the problem of 'Monoculture'

[mp]

An exchange on the intersections of political strategy and free
software. Reflection on an article published in Wired:
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62307,00.html/wn_ascii

Relevant also, perhaps, for http://freesoftwareact.fsc.cc


On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 02:55, Taran Rampersad wrote:
> We must be careful. By calling Microsoft a 'monoculture', we demean what 
> we do by saying we do not exist.

FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE:

This is a particular kind of reasoning which has its advantages, but
which also has a conceptual problem: the idea of monoculture is a very
serious issue in terms of agriculture and that is whence it is
metaphorically borrowed in this context.

Now, does that mean that saying that industrial agriculture is a
monoculture amounts to a denigration of bio-dynamic-organic-ecological
farming practices? I don't think so, in fact it would appear, I believe,
that the term monoculture has been very instrumental in the
environmental movement's efforts to bring happy vegetables to the
mainstream consumer's supermarkets (in Northern Europe, at least).

In other words, this is not about reason or wrong and right, but about
strategy. The term monoculture carries with it a lot of connotations
that can help people who are NOT so knowledgable about the software
industry to better understand the issues at hand.

In strategical terms there is possibly no better term to complement
monoculture than diversity, and that is what we offer. Hence the Free
Software Act is structurally analogous to the Convention on
Biodiversity. I think that it can indeed be helpful to 'know thy enemy',
whether it is Monsanto or Microsoft.

We can of course discuss whether the environmental movement has been or
will be successful or not, but what I generally want to say with this
email is that there is one particular aspect from which the free
software movement can learn: the political strategies that has emerged 
as a consequence of grass-roots struggles (- as a collaboratively
created set of knowledge(s)-,)

Any movement has a history, but few movements has as short a history as
the free software movement, simply because software is almost of
yesterday. In those histories lessons are to be found. 

If you ask me, but why would you?, I would say that monoculture is a
great term to carry the message, to designate/indicate what the obstacle
to our diverse culture is. A very simple aciton pkan could look like
this:

Step 1: Identify problem (proprietary software)

Step 2: Conceptualise problem (monoculture)

Step 3: Conceptualise solution (diversity)

Step 4: Provide solution (FS ACT / political economy of free software)

I am not sure whether this is resonating with anyone, but I would like
to continue to discuss these issues. There is a mailinglist for such
political/strategical discussion:
http://www.burngreave.net/mailman/listinfo/aktivix - to which I have
CC'ed - and also to RMS.

I do not think that i am neither right not wrong, but I think that the
questions that can be extracted from our exchange are important to the
success of free software.

/mp


On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 02:55, Taran Rampersad wrote:
> We must be careful. By calling Microsoft a 'monoculture', we demean what 
> we do by saying we do not exist.
> 
> We exist. Sometimes when people write things like this, they weaken our 
> position while they weaken the position of what many consider to be our 
> opponent. Everybody loses.
> 
> Microsoft is not an opponent. Microsoft is an obstacle. By saying 
> Microsoft is a monoculture, I lose my liberty because I have no freedom 
> of choice.
> 
> I have a freedom of choice.
> 
> So does the rest of the world.
> 
> Liberty is the ability to have choice. Freedom is the result of the 
> right choice.
> 
> I'm ready to toss the gauntlet to Microsoft: Bring me your best 
> arguments, in person. I'll debate them. Publicly. But they fear that. 
> That's why they never went head to head with RMS.
> 
> I am prepared to fly anywhere and debate with *any* subject of Microsoft 
> on their issues. My paper on intellectual usability nears completion. 
> The Free Software Consortium sees no 'monoculture'. We see society. We 
> see community. We see Freedom. Why?
> 
> We *are* society. We *are* community. We *are* Free. And they only try 
> to emulate what we are.
> 
> There is no monoculture. We exist. And we *are* the choice. ;-)
> 
> Taran
> 
> mp wrote:
> 
> >further to our microsoft exchange
> >
> >-----Forwarded Message-----
> >  
> >
> >>From: Paul Mobbs <mobbsey at gn.apc.org>
> >>To: ir-l at gn.apc.org, aktivix at burngreave.net
> >>Subject: [AktiviX] Warning: Microsoft 'Monoculture'
> >>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:53:04 +0000
> >>
> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62307,00.html/wn_ascii
> >>
> >>Warning: Microsoft 'Monoculture' 
> >>
> >>Associated Press
> >>WIRED: 12:57 PM Feb. 15, 2004 PT
> >>
> >>    
> >>
>