Login

Redecentralize

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.

Home
Robert Tischer [LibreList] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 07:43:26 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 12:24:00 ago)

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)

rtischer@hiveware.com

 

Congratulations on your upcoming conference.

hellekin [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 08:59:48 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 11:07:00 ago)
-----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
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=Cvih
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
hellekin [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 09:14:06 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 10:53:00 ago)
-----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
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=V5yg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Robert Tischer [LibreList] RE: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 11:05:11 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 09:02:00 ago)

-----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



holger krekel [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 12:49:04 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 07:18:00 ago)
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
hellekin [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 13:06:32 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 07:00:00 ago)
-----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
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=1cz8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pierre Ozoux [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 13:18:42 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 06:48:00 ago)
Robert Tischer [LibreList] RE: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 13:49:55 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 06:17:00 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)

-----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
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=1cz8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Julien Rabier [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 14:06:09 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 06:01:00 ago)
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
hellekin [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 15:33:14 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 04:34:00 ago)
-----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
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=F3Vd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Robert Tischer [LibreList] RE: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 16:36:16 (4 years 1 mon 4 days 03:31:00 ago)
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
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=F3Vd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



:
: