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

Parent
hellekin [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 15:33:14 (4 years 1 mon 5 days 23:03:00 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-----
: