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

[ana]

Hey, thanks for these links,

I'm preparing an essay on Free Software, for uni. i have downloaded most
of the Free Software Foundation's articles, would any one like to suggest
any other text on a subject that may not be included there, or you would
like to write/talk to me??

I might put it up on some website when it's finished...

ana-london
>
> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AktiviX mailing list
> AktiviX at burngreave.net
> http://www.burngreave.net/mailman/listinfo/aktivix
>


-- 
ana