[AktiviX-discuss] Re: GPL for the AktiviX wiki?

[mp at fsc.cc]

Quoting Chris <chris at aktivix.org>:

> The sub title on every page, "AktiviX, Free software for a
> Free world." does give the impression that this is the
> main topic, if it isn't then what is?

Well, I has the impression that AktiviX was about building a bridge between the
world of hacker and the world of political aktivists for the benefit not just
of these particular communities, but society at large by implication of the
potential strenghtening of each through such collaboration. Software is one
aspect and the jurisprudential dimensions (Copyleft) of the GPL is another.
Another important aspect would be the exchange of political strategies and
tactics around the issues of ICT.

> > Most of the claims otherwise seem to be muddling the
> > ideas of form and function. Here's a quote I like about
> > why: "We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing
> > one bitstream from another in order to figure out which
> > rules apply." Eben Moglen, FSF's general counsel, in
> > "Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of
> > Copyright"
> > http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_8/moglen/index.html

So form and content is now one in all cases? The GPL applies to all possible
kinds of information? The Creative Commons project is thus redundant, and, in
effect, if we take this view on board also damaging to the wider "commons
project"?


> Two reasons why I like the idea of using the GPL are:
>
> 1. We would be "putting our money where out mouths are",
>    "doing as we preach" etc, blah... you know what I
>    mean...

A reason why I am engaging in this discussion, apart from the usual idea of
learning through critical exchange:

- if we consider that part of the AktiviX bridge building project is to include
people and to bring to the wider public the concept of Copyleft: community
building and collaboration, then it seems to me that we cannot so eaily just
tell people that the GPL is the solution to all problems, that all things are
bitstreams of information and just run along with our license. The four
freedoms of free software talks about "programs" - what are programs? a film, a
text?

> > Text can be software, the same as text can be ink on
> > paper. It's just a form, an instance.

ink is the form, the text is the content, I should think.

Form and content is not the same, is it?
> Hmm, this reminds me of what Stallman says when asked
> about things other than software...
>
> I think that the manner in which Free software is produced
> is something that can and should be spread to other
> realms, the thing to spead being the new mode of
> production.

The "thing" that makes Fre Software different is that it socially organises its
production through a configuration of property rights that circumscribes a
community by basing those property rights on distribution, as opposed to
exclusion in the capitalist economy. This is the idea that is at the heart of
Free Software and RMS called it Copyleft. This is also the basis of CC.

As I see it, the GPL and the concept of Copyleft stands stronger by being
complimented by permutations that appeal to and reach a wider audience than
hackers and political coders.

The FSF seems to recommend GNU FDL for stuff like a Wiki:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses

How we get to the GPL for licensing text is beyond my comprehension, and seems
like a step backwards for the wider movement into some sort of esoteric
techno-determined reality of exclusion.

However, this is just a discussion to learn from, and I am fine using the GPL -
it won't keep me from contributing, I think.

In any case: to few ppl contribute to this ..... speak up!

/mp

ps: sorry about stzrange mails and "reply to all" doubles - i am in windows
webbased email from afar..