We’ve had enough of digital monopolies and surveillance capitalism. We want an alternative world that works for everyone, just like the original intention of the web and net.

We seek a world of open platforms and protocols with real choices of applications and services for people. We care about privacy, transparency and autonomy. Our tools and organisations should fundamentally be accountable and resilient.


Robert Tischer [LibreList] RE: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 13:49:55 (5 years 8 days 06:57:00 ago)

-----Original Message-----
From: redecentralize@librelist.com [mailto:redecentralize@librelist.com] On
Behalf Of hellekin
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 12:07 PM
To: redecentralize@librelist.com
Subject: Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform
(as in no servers)

Hash: SHA512

On 09/02/2015 12:05 PM, Robert Tischer wrote:
> RT>"open source" for me is tantamount to promiscuous copying without
> regards to ownership of intellectual property rights. Only the early 
> days of communism believed this was an ideal. But no one but a thief 
> would dream of going into a retail store and walking out with someone 
> else's material property today.

Well, that's the point: "intellectual property" is not physical property.
Only a fool would sustain that their ideas and intellectual capacity comes
out of the blue.  As Isaac Newton famously wrote: "I'm sitting on the
shoulders of giants".  Before "intellectual property"
appeared, there was science and culture.  Even during wartime, as restricted
as exchange between intellectuals might be, scientists know no borders, and
build on each other's knowledge.  The free software movement can be
considered yet another contribution to human knowledge and culture, on par
with scientific knowledge.

The arts show that you can pay for a work and make it available to the
public without further fee.  Artists paid for their work don't complain that
they don't get a fee for each visitor.  Second-hand bookstore are not
illegal.  Public libraries either.

"Intellectual property" is a confusing legal construct that covers anything
from authorship rights to patent laws.  It would be akin to say that a
fence, a kitchen, and a book belong to the same "physical property".

RT2>I guess I forgot that IP was such a loaded term. Sorry I introduced it
into the discussion. Certainly what the legal profession has done with and
Corporations have used patents for are abominations. I don't, however, feel
that information is free, even if it is built on top of - and it all is I
think we agree - the shoulders of our forebears. I submit, though, that
there is such a thing as real contribution to knowledge that is not
combinatorial. Do you feel then that not-physical property is an oxymoron?
> my way of thinking as a psycholinguist

I don't have the pleasure to know the field of psycholinguistics, but I
certainly can understand how language can be used for psychological framing.
The narratives bring forth world views that shape reality in a way suitable
for understanding.  The narrative of "redecentralize", as far as I
understand it, is about redistributing power to the users of technologies,
to involve them in their creation, not only their consumption.  If you see,
as a psycholinguist, technological innovation as something coming from
experts and dependent on them, I'm sorry to tell you that it's a vision from
another Century.  The new narrative involves peer production and common
experimentation.  Products driven by commercial plans fail to address the
complexity of human life.
Complexity that we must embrace if we are to succeed in building a
sustainable society on this planet.  It is unfortunate but true that
economics is the politics of capital, and the new narrative must convey the
idea that economics should be pushed back to its original application of
serving human communities, not special interests.
"Redecentralization" is about empowering our communities, not shifting from
global masters to other global masters.  That is the process of
revolution: using the masses to help a ruling class overthrowing another
ruling class.  This won't help us achieve global sustainability in any case.
The power shift requires both global coordination and local autonomy.  Only
software freedom can achieve the latter.  As to the former, only politics
can do it.  Technology alone, especially proprietary technologies, cannot
provide the necessary empowerment for local communities to adapt it to their
actual needs, and no special committee can ever encompass in their vision
all the complexity of local situations.
RT2>Actually, I'm a trained and practicing computer scientist as well and
program 8 hours a day, so I in no way feel that technology is "coming from
experts and dependent on them" so may I please be allowed to discuss my
technology as part of the current P2P diaspora? My technology is anything
but proprietary in the traditional sense. Just because I maintain that I own
it, doesn't mean that it is non-seeable or non-usable by others. It's not
any more proprietary than several of my sub-vendors' libraries that I have
bought licenses to and use. I pay them for the license and I get a copy of
their library to use for that part of my program. Sometimes I get the source
code with it, and sometimes I don't. I don't really care because I'm not
planning on competing with them in that area. In that sense I and these
sub-vendors are cooperating, not collaborating, which is the Hiveware way
without software interlocking controls (ie, just the barebones library keeps
me from changing their code). In fact, I really don't want to know anything
about how they wrote the code because I need to concentrate on writing my
Hiveware code. BTW, I wouldn't dream of using so-called open source free
code in my production code precisely because nobody owns it. I can't go back
and ask them questions and have them be responsible for fixing bugs I
inevitably find. If by proprietary you mean not-changeable-by-someone-else?
Then yes, no one will be able to change MY source code of my engine without
my consent. And that is enforced. That material-possession-like trait is the
kind of ownership Hiveware wishes to contribute to. Furthermore, my
technology is already public. Anyone can get instructions on how to write a
cooperative engine like Hiveware if they wish. It's all online.

I understand perfectly the need to secure one's own way of living.  But I
don't think that requires artificially restricting other people's initiative
to do so.  This is a colonialist vision, the still dominant vision of out
times.  Hegemony of a self-proclaimed superior class that knows better will
never help us pass this century.

> the forced philosophy of "open source"

There's no such thing as the philosophy of "open source", forced or not.
 Open source is a reduction of the free software philosophy to its
engineering aspect, specifically designed to tame corporate fears about
anything social.  It succeeded in bringing free software to the mainstream,
but it fails to inflect technological innovation towards inclusive goals
beyond the elite class of technologists.

> interlocking software structures. This is what Hiveware does.

I'm not sure that interlocking software structures can do any good.  Can you
expand on this aspect of your discourse?
RT2>Maybe another time. Got to get back to work. Maybe you would like to
examine the code to see how I did it? ;-) /RT2>

> Imagine the ability to sell someone a digital item and repossess it if 
> some part of the payment fails?

Imagine the ability to sell someone a computer, and be able to remove
contents from it that you deem inappropriate.  That's exactly what Amazon
did with books, what Apple does with its hardware, and what Lenovo does when
it prevents me from changing the network card to one that I prefer, that is
technically compatible with my computer, but didn't pass their commercial
vendor agreement specifications (i.e., it doesn't have a backdoor built-in).
Now, imagine if your car vendor would deem appropriate to prevent you from
driving certain roads that were not available when they sold you the car:
right, nobody would accept this.  Yet, many accept that hardware or software
vendors have a say on what you can do with "your own", legally purchased
items and "intellectual property".

Digital contents pose different issues than physical objects, and certainly
something must be done to enable content (and software) producers to receive
fair payment for their work.  But I don't think limiting availability is a
satisfactory way of doing so.

> "Why do I need to send data through a server?" Doesn't really make 
> much sense if you can guarantee un-eaves-droppable end-to-end 
> delivery.

But end-to-end delivery uses a multitude of servers and routers, so it's
just not about who owns the content.  The Internet infrastructure is not
virtual and it actually costs a lot to companies who don't get a dime of
royalty on your software.

> meaning folk's notions of privacy and possession

Possession and property are very distinct concepts.  I'm very fine with
people possessing stuff.  Owning property is another thing entirely, that
depends on the capacity to enforce such property.

> The real problem is how to organize piecemeal encrypted transport.

Well, besides the fact transport is only one part of the equations, there
are plenty of free software project addressing this need, and they have no
need to restrain use, modification, distribution, or access to their source
code in any way to do so.  Moreover, as you must know, peer-to-peer systems
work best when more people use it.  If the Internet Protocol was covered by
restrictive "intellectual property", we certainly wouldn't have this

Version: GnuPG v2