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.
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!
Hope to get an email from you soon.
Robert Tischer
Hiveware, Inc
“You Can’t Hack What Doesn’t Exist” (meaning centralized servers)
Congratulations on your upcoming conference.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 09/02/2015 08:43 AM, Robert Tischer wrote: > > The code will eventually be open read-only source. How's that for > innovation! > Hi, I just subscribed to this list after watching an interview of the organizers of this project. I'm quite surprised to read, in the first message I receive from the list, the sentence above. How is "redecentralization" compatible with proprietary software at all? "open read-only source" sounds like you're trying to get free work (as in gratis) from your users, without letting them contribute changes to your software. How is that decentralized? Instead of decentralizing the process, you're simply changing the actors in control of the process. "open read-only source" is just a fancy word for proprietary software, or am I mistaken? In the interview, I had understood that the project was about "open source" solutions. Now, open source is already free software without ethics, but from there to "open read-only source", there's as huge a gap as between vegan food and McDonald's. Am I on the wrong list? Regards, == hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJV5uStXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9MIkP/3vxgEUORvn04wfMDUzHpWPI 6AxFBSuV+6gKEWa86pL0XEdNogtH9RE/VC3fUAGPo+SPXw3gqdW6OVAR9650No8T bwqGbQ+BxfsUIb3W58ddEF+T3nE4ajhmK5LhOpVUC3jwgyo0J431lZYJOYoHReYH 16FeVsSs0E7ECUAMAjBy7onjJBdvj5+CwyJ2gld9gdAF6jTMcdTPflDePOrIENG1 IYnp8/X0VcwSmq3PZ9bFK62k5V/esYOSJ5iLCkUrYQzViF/lcGdjauIO4Imh652t GOVcZz48qFB7XXVjcVTHFso4aLKftbSYStqpJClM5zEUzVJecOCheqUwwU584IMB vxL+pG8+CLHAFuekicYQ2NEEEp6V0TO1xNGKWeuEh2kfu4MeKCGrU/TlUhYwYUhx QTISX+RXGVSDAvRwgkDMmiIq4hI0NxN3HBLRVYOeopmxWJIekaUTT17seGfLaJg9 Ohdi+RbwtjR4OYehUbXwS1FUPDON5y+ZkHtkGJC2OqGnY56zhvQw/jykg+XJfILg a9pX1fTYfPAy8ncDKCYNM85s+KZN9j5WKfBhOOB2MTiw0hRc5Cw7nPzcLDZ+ykpN KBZuHhj9bDgSIzzBQn3hEXNTAZjG4pXCb62+69qQ7TkiaQvui7fXzvGhYQkuV0wK OxvNdoG1+J5KblrlAJAn =Cvih -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 09/02/2015 09:06 AM, Julien Rabier wrote: > > I think you're in the right place, people trying to sell proprietary > stuff are not. > > Welcome here hellekin ! > > taziden > Hey taziden! Glad to see you here. Is there a primer for the list that newcomers should read to get up to speed? Greetings from OpenLab, Augsburg == hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJV5ugHXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg92+cP/iyzKlMmhnocdb+62P7KP8+Y DKABf5HvoA9a38Res6vD7TJV+DuO9CwZ4T9TSU2iJAh53BsatSOF899UfPUrFZ/p fRmXNgtouEG7a3DV0Hw1PTcAST4EAl+5RkOq/UBs9Gw1gV4c/RGDXn3nfybZnBYX HRkT52JqhlG/LwLf7CTGuSod2jlYSBwZZpir1/v6SY089y1zdcITa11/yyHKOSVM g6bsFnnzT2v0XROcMRwEl0r3BiJquiFSNiLNQvSMugXrRp60C9aXVxf43htgthLK 3/YngjpkieQInM2hr//iwHauyIcCDzEDi2hg21uG3fjfvc8ySgjJJAgB3ozRbfIE +ClaEydogmMMxV8b68Trj4ZzuGiXlTDceYN5WZ3zDxQbZkotppa+aqgCQ/IyXA0e vdcRRbmRpMe3coKK8+euQDEB5zARnT76nFEf0+JgGgh7Mr9lKLH+p22RBCmHDdyd 9pTV9+GMTUjLeQrTIDaiywOQ//8z9aapmgNfAsnAJFfpQIItUtxAxQeemrhg57Bc 1NZTk/KdKLMEUh7YauAZN4zRDVePFCBFR5g3N2OP63lJZb4tnb1rhUv2vbMlgPsM IB4p/5GMrL+FZQBSHe/y3AtZAHn1KKTG3QfwnVHkwNrlVSutBKdoEVA2hG0LnaLw 82fxlfZJrDPtpo7qgnjy =V5yg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----Original Message----- From: redecentralize@librelist.com [mailto:redecentralize@librelist.com] On Behalf Of holger krekel Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 8:49 AM To: redecentralize@librelist.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) > > rtischer@hiveware.com > > > > Congratulations on your upcoming conference. > -- about me: http://holgerkrekel.net/about-me/ contracting: http://merlinux.eu
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? 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. 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) > > rtischer@hiveware.com > > > > Congratulations on your upcoming conference. > -- about me: http://holgerkrekel.net/about-me/ contracting: http://merlinux.eu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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". > 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. 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? > 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 conversation. == hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJV5x6BXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9/b4QALCwk3sF24faV4DnjgpAI9wu 9Qs0H7vrtId7Z792gMUEciBwtIxZc7m7p/cojneUMcnIUq8qh6YMItd1rZC1WcKV arUrM/G8OReSpexYvt89tcUFHvBA8jHxXjNIoWscd4MBqeAWp/idirs3RkcDepdY bHHfVtjSOl2t5recnOlyZLMhCkzeZfOZtSgGM0jtkERUXuE8BQhqMqNxCQ6bNdhV Q4NsK59QHXGDlItdFD2PJkq57tu5C8kTkK9MaIxJwA0SF9bXMFVyZYCum+A7TvEU MsJCwOSnrasb0NjjU9aA2jJasHzG4GgrBngtOJgbojg+oF7XpKHiIdlcSjtpg/CD ARxEaJULyHLlTT4iKHuC3gsynw7GUyLDcbsj3c9CVsGg8EMj0dSAQ3YSFK3ZoxhD DXWs1uHg7971AJzzCUkuO8DvmAiK+makMT0Fu13QT9+qHDlug8w1BWlkDAUu6Xkp Xcw5RlHaetM1xX1qbhcfhaZGifECk4RB593IDyArBM2jeWiK/SiJ1gDhcQYCAj17 iIsVlhyU1EEY7woActH4q4qN4NOmnOMgPYmyy5Q0AhA4NGR/xHj77XQRXC9yRkbc TADcvJ6cwaFwtMr8xB6Iw4e45cg6p4Kirx9+d8gXh8EBXFynvCTmSQ2FKqwziPQx RkWXot088lakXOqFprYx =1cz8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----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) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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? /RT2> > 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. RT2> 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 conversation. == hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJV5x6BXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9/b4QALCwk3sF24faV4DnjgpAI9wu 9Qs0H7vrtId7Z792gMUEciBwtIxZc7m7p/cojneUMcnIUq8qh6YMItd1rZC1WcKV arUrM/G8OReSpexYvt89tcUFHvBA8jHxXjNIoWscd4MBqeAWp/idirs3RkcDepdY bHHfVtjSOl2t5recnOlyZLMhCkzeZfOZtSgGM0jtkERUXuE8BQhqMqNxCQ6bNdhV Q4NsK59QHXGDlItdFD2PJkq57tu5C8kTkK9MaIxJwA0SF9bXMFVyZYCum+A7TvEU MsJCwOSnrasb0NjjU9aA2jJasHzG4GgrBngtOJgbojg+oF7XpKHiIdlcSjtpg/CD ARxEaJULyHLlTT4iKHuC3gsynw7GUyLDcbsj3c9CVsGg8EMj0dSAQ3YSFK3ZoxhD DXWs1uHg7971AJzzCUkuO8DvmAiK+makMT0Fu13QT9+qHDlug8w1BWlkDAUu6Xkp Xcw5RlHaetM1xX1qbhcfhaZGifECk4RB593IDyArBM2jeWiK/SiJ1gDhcQYCAj17 iIsVlhyU1EEY7woActH4q4qN4NOmnOMgPYmyy5Q0AhA4NGR/xHj77XQRXC9yRkbc TADcvJ6cwaFwtMr8xB6Iw4e45cg6p4Kirx9+d8gXh8EBXFynvCTmSQ2FKqwziPQx RkWXot088lakXOqFprYx =1cz8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Le 02 sept. - 08:59, hellekin a écrit : > How is "redecentralization" compatible with proprietary software at all? It is not. I think this is the first message of this kind received on the list. > In the interview, I had understood that the project was about "open > source" solutions. Now, open source is already free software without > ethics, but from there to "open read-only source", there's as huge a gap > as between vegan food and McDonald's. Am I on the wrong list? I think you're in the right place, people trying to sell proprietary stuff are not. Welcome here hellekin ! taziden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 09/02/2015 02:49 PM, Robert Tischer wrote: > Robert, the fact you're using non-standard ways to quote email and that you don't edit replies makes it quite difficult to follow. The "> " prefix is something most email software understand. > Do you feel then that not-physical property is an oxymoron? > What I feel about it is seldom interesting to this discussion. However I can tell you that private property in general does not make much sense to me. > 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. > Well, it's non-modifiable and non-distributable, so it's proprietary, by definition. There are quite a number of free software projects that don't allow any modification that they don't like. But they still allow people to propose such modifications, and fork the project if they like. The Linux kernel is such a project. The "current P2P diaspora" depends on free software, because without access to the source code, you can't ensure that the software actually does what it claims to do. It's really not about property. > I pay them for the license and I get a copy of their library to use > for that part of my program. > Free software, at least released under the GPL, does not allow vendors to sell licenses, but it certainly does not prevent vendors to sell their software. Why would users pay for software that they can get the source code of without payment? Well, to sustain its development, because someone else is doing the right job, and also because maybe they're not themselves programmers and still want to use the software, so they'd better ensure that it remains sustainable. Funding of free software is indeed an important issue, but it's not a blocking issue when the software is needed. The recent issue with GRSecurity patches demonstrates that proprietary vendors abuse the fact that source code is available without fee: but the fact Google, Apple, etc. avoid paying taxes demonstrates that solidarity is not built-in the economy: it's a voluntary contribution (when you have an army of lawyers and accountants that can play around the common rule). If you think your software requires barriers to access, you're free to apply appropriate licensing, but you cannot claim you're part of the free software movement then, including "the current P2P diaspora". > nobody owns it. > Nobody or everybody, it depends on your point of view. Nobody owns the air we breathe, yet some abuse this fact to pollute it without restraint. Free software is a commons, it's made for humans. Proprietary software is made for vendors. > If by proprietary you mean not-changeable-by-someone-else? > No, I mean it's not free software: it does not uphold user's freedom to use, study, modify, and share the software, for which access to the source code is required. >> 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> > I think that software should be modular, and not "interlocked". It makes sense within a system, like the Linux kernel. But when software become dependent on other software, without alternative, all kinds of problems can arise. This is yet another discussion. :) == hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJV50DiXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9lr4QALp72q5VLLGsJRXlZA9HyKIq +25UmEueH0+Eifkfbe6OR3dNisDnoR1EuiGqeHTCQjL4nCIPu089E6SgI0lxYxKC bl/GfPiYhHOPVgmO1iD6yQFCPmZLx2jCJ2XFQo0ccWvpNCaLYvwOd08y1UOsiaGo mFTd/9qsesPXe4htcXWoQ250zwYwi+J4QPQtP3EAyyKeyMLsaRRu93h4BUfjlIMQ L2AqXe/3ATmFHqYoF6TGaEAvU9xNplay055/ps5RRgO30XOLqplH27sqfyrIz9Fl VAzLxKjOvftP7xG7rTh1zAK1NzDwRkDmpb9bd9zpvujZQhrMAsGl6XG1bXnPyUFx uyLPDT9Y0xaRDiF/xq0ync9MQRxhVgitWwHPYTQrhBB+E3XK4x0ghZmz0fmdDtPF ffSnmSsX5LSzC7sfpeQ8tuPTAopkDj0SZNDCZzDNRlq2/AZGzWzk99P/wfXRnx6L 0Dpx+ccqJjTm0gMEER7LqlOw68iLjAGbH1AT3jP8cUuD4EgUHwRb/IUfqPucCm5M EoiNSh2E9wyUrLuVym2XQw92Tus3a3KJ1ch3bkwTMPn+T/LokzN3S75NZut6ZgFR ph1cnkfMcRERq1VL/56jn6Ne/8IK805ABw6H5ml7MRU/U7lcKh8TTns+aRT+z350 4AMeCklIpBhhpIeOA2Ba =F3Vd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thanks for the honest interchange. I'm going on vacation now for a week, but send me an email and perhaps we can stay in touch as things develop. Regardless of our varying definitions of free and their importance with respect to the society's future, I think the world would be a better place if a lot more people tossed ideas (and yes, implementations) w/r/t these subjects around. Sorry about the non-standard replies. I guess I got in the habit of marking replies manually when my partner and I were designing together and we had to keep track of our comments and their depths. best regards, Robert rtischer@hiveware.com -----Original Message----- From: redecentralize@librelist.com [mailto:redecentralize@librelist.com] On Behalf Of hellekin Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 2:33 PM To: redecentralize@librelist.com Subject: Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 09/02/2015 02:49 PM, Robert Tischer wrote: > Robert, the fact you're using non-standard ways to quote email and that you don't edit replies makes it quite difficult to follow. The "> " prefix is something most email software understand. > Do you feel then that not-physical property is an oxymoron? > What I feel about it is seldom interesting to this discussion. However I can tell you that private property in general does not make much sense to me. > 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. > Well, it's non-modifiable and non-distributable, so it's proprietary, by definition. There are quite a number of free software projects that don't allow any modification that they don't like. But they still allow people to propose such modifications, and fork the project if they like. The Linux kernel is such a project. The "current P2P diaspora" depends on free software, because without access to the source code, you can't ensure that the software actually does what it claims to do. It's really not about property. > I pay them for the license and I get a copy of their library to use > for that part of my program. > Free software, at least released under the GPL, does not allow vendors to sell licenses, but it certainly does not prevent vendors to sell their software. Why would users pay for software that they can get the source code of without payment? Well, to sustain its development, because someone else is doing the right job, and also because maybe they're not themselves programmers and still want to use the software, so they'd better ensure that it remains sustainable. Funding of free software is indeed an important issue, but it's not a blocking issue when the software is needed. The recent issue with GRSecurity patches demonstrates that proprietary vendors abuse the fact that source code is available without fee: but the fact Google, Apple, etc. avoid paying taxes demonstrates that solidarity is not built-in the economy: it's a voluntary contribution (when you have an army of lawyers and accountants that can play around the common rule). If you think your software requires barriers to access, you're free to apply appropriate licensing, but you cannot claim you're part of the free software movement then, including "the current P2P diaspora". > nobody owns it. > Nobody or everybody, it depends on your point of view. Nobody owns the air we breathe, yet some abuse this fact to pollute it without restraint. Free software is a commons, it's made for humans. Proprietary software is made for vendors. > If by proprietary you mean not-changeable-by-someone-else? > No, I mean it's not free software: it does not uphold user's freedom to use, study, modify, and share the software, for which access to the source code is required. >> 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> > I think that software should be modular, and not "interlocked". It makes sense within a system, like the Linux kernel. But when software become dependent on other software, without alternative, all kinds of problems can arise. This is yet another discussion. :) == hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJV50DiXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9lr4QALp72q5VLLGsJRXlZA9HyKIq +25UmEueH0+Eifkfbe6OR3dNisDnoR1EuiGqeHTCQjL4nCIPu089E6SgI0lxYxKC bl/GfPiYhHOPVgmO1iD6yQFCPmZLx2jCJ2XFQo0ccWvpNCaLYvwOd08y1UOsiaGo mFTd/9qsesPXe4htcXWoQ250zwYwi+J4QPQtP3EAyyKeyMLsaRRu93h4BUfjlIMQ L2AqXe/3ATmFHqYoF6TGaEAvU9xNplay055/ps5RRgO30XOLqplH27sqfyrIz9Fl VAzLxKjOvftP7xG7rTh1zAK1NzDwRkDmpb9bd9zpvujZQhrMAsGl6XG1bXnPyUFx uyLPDT9Y0xaRDiF/xq0ync9MQRxhVgitWwHPYTQrhBB+E3XK4x0ghZmz0fmdDtPF ffSnmSsX5LSzC7sfpeQ8tuPTAopkDj0SZNDCZzDNRlq2/AZGzWzk99P/wfXRnx6L 0Dpx+ccqJjTm0gMEER7LqlOw68iLjAGbH1AT3jP8cUuD4EgUHwRb/IUfqPucCm5M EoiNSh2E9wyUrLuVym2XQw92Tus3a3KJ1ch3bkwTMPn+T/LokzN3S75NZut6ZgFR ph1cnkfMcRERq1VL/56jn6Ne/8IK805ABw6H5ml7MRU/U7lcKh8TTns+aRT+z350 4AMeCklIpBhhpIeOA2Ba =F3Vd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----