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.
-----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of holger krekel Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 8:49 AM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 07:43 -0400, Robert Tischer wrote: > Redecentralizers: > > > > Please check out my decentralized dev and runtime platform called > Hiveware at www.hiveware.com which stands for Hyperstructured > Interactive Virtual Environment softWare. I have been working on it > for many years. I expect to launch the engine by the end of the year > called the Hiveware Big Bang. See the prototype using Microsoft Word > that gets rid of the need for Tracking Changes and makes GoogleDocs > and Office 365's cloud-based destructive collaborative editing look more like jungle warfare than group authoring. > (see www.hivewareforword.com, also see YouTube and search under 'Hiveware' > to see a Hiveware for Word video) > > > > I am looking for C++ entrepreneurs who would like to build > decentralized apps on top of it. Just think of some topic area you > love to do, then think of an app you would build (or adapt or > interface with if there is an API), and sharpen your C++ skills. Think > co-operative applications from the ground up (collaborative is good, > but cooperative is better). The code will eventually be open read-only source. How's that for innovation! A long-time FOSS developer myself, i am critical but not fundamentally opposed to "open read-only source". What is your reasoning behind it? 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. Nor could we think of owning a house without a lock on its front door. Nope, creative ownership to my way of thinking as a psycholinguist, is conveyed along with the creation of said item be it material or virtual like code, music or digital art. You can give it away without compensation for the time, materials and effort you have expended on the item, which is what the forced philosophy of "open source" espouses. And you can have it practically stolen from you as is done in the fine print in contracts with corporations for which you work. You can also sell it just like you would a painting, but that is not directly supported in today's Internet. And you can share it with responsibility and mutual respect undergirded by interlocking software structures. This is what Hiveware does. It creates the potential for a new Internet where cooperative sharing can take place while maintaining ownerships (there are many different kinds it turns out). Imagine the ability to sell someone a digital item and repossess it if some part of the payment fails? And I haven't even written yet about linguistic meaning which takes a hit when data is copied away from its creator. This is why IMO Google Search will eventually fail. /RT> IMO technical decentralization needs to be accompanied by decentralized, collective forms of ownership as long as ownership is a determining category in our societies. Otherwise Google, Twitter, FB and the likes could claim to be decentralized because they operate large distributed CDNs and other technical decentralization techniques. Clearly, as soon as an entity commercially captures interactions between humans and their machines there is a centralization of power and an excellent point of surveillance and control. RT>I agree. But the Google, Twitter, and FB (NSA?) server farms don't have to be privy to the contents of the created material. 'A' who sends content to 'B' via a server 'S' where the content is 2048-bit end-to-end encrypted, still creatively owns his digital item where 'B' owns a legal copy of same. This is the conversation currently taking place between the public and the government's security agencies who want de-encryption backdoors always available. Once this debate resolves on encryptions side, the debate will naturally become, "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. Servers can go back to being a commodity that delivers computing power and ease of setup/maintenance to end users. Meta (Big) Data analysis of A->S->B data transport is another discussion which would also theoretically disappear with piecemeal direct A->B encrypted transport. Not disappear really, but rather properly owned, meaning folk's notions of privacy and possession would automatically be honored. The real problem is how to organize piecemeal encrypted transport. Again, that is what Hiveware is attempting to do. /RT> best, holger > > > Hope to get an email from you soon. > > > > Robert Tischer > > Hiveware, Inc > > "You Can't Hack What Doesn't Exist" (meaning centralized servers) > > firstname.lastname@example.org > > > > Congratulations on your upcoming conference. > -- about me: http://holgerkrekel.net/about-me/ contracting: http://merlinux.eu