Re: [ox-en] Re: Movement and Free Software and/vs. Open Source
- From: Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico.ca>
- Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:08:30 -0500
Stefan Merten wrote:
That all depends on how you define 'Movement'. Without wanting to go
into (yet another) discussion about terminology,
Certainly it depends. But AFAICS there is shared understanding of this
concept out there and to me it makes sense to use this. May be the
term should be looked up in Wikipedia, Webster and similar sources. In
any way I find it useful to at least have an idea of the meaning of
the terms we are using so I think discussions about terminology are
not useless.
I agree.
let me just say that
I find it not particularly meaningful to talk about 'Movement' here
because to me the term implies shared (conscious) goals, which, I think,
don't play a significant role here.
The point here is probably the term "conscious". I thought a bit about
this question. Certainly there is an identifiable conscious goal here:
To have Free Software - or Open Source Software for that matter. This
Heh, now that we are at it: Is the goal Free Software or Open Source Software ? :-)
I'm serious, actually: For some the goal is 'software that does not suck',
while for others it is 'freedom to use my computer however I please'. That's
hardly an agreed-upon goal.
is probably something we easily can agree on. And this means
something: You need to establish those tricky applications of
copyright called Free Software licenses for instance. So far that was
easy in a way and the more recents court tests of GPL certainly are
good signs. But it could have come differently.
There are also conscious goals shared by at least a big majority which
seek to protect the legal ground for Free Software: To fight software
patents. So far I saw not one FLOSS advocate who was in favor of
software patents.
What about IBM (say) ? Aren't they advocating FLOSS ? Don't they have one
of the biggest software patent portfolios in the whole industry ?
When I think of this - once again - I think of the movement which lead
to capitalism. In feudal times privileges were one important way to
regulate who may do something and who not. These clearly were not
useful for capitalism because they limited the freedom (of markets).
Consequently these privileges - who had regulated society for several
hundred years - were fought by capitalist movement.
OK, though, I believe, you are really stretching the term here. The term
'movement' doesn't come to my mind when thinking of the rise of capitalism.
(There were certainly many movements, i.e. people who openly shared interests
and fought for them, but, even though they contributed to the fall of feudalism,
it wasn't any of these which led to the transition on their own.)
FS has become a *means* for many, not a goal in itself.
I think there is a subconscious goal as well: To establish a new mode
of production - as it is analyzed by Oekonux. For this goal IMHO it
doesn't matter much whether the actors see the (various) products of
the movement as means for their own private goals or as a goal in
itself. That people can use it as means for their private goals to me
is even an indicator of the fundamental nature of this movement: They
simply benefit from the movement without any need for ideology :-) .
I'm not sure I completely understand your reasoning here: If a company
(such as IBM) embarks in FLOSS, it is hardly because it wants to establish
something new. Rather, it realizes a change it needs to adapt to. In doing
this it definitely contributes to the ongoing evolution of the mode of production,
but that's not the goal, only a side-effect. (Isn't this dynamics a typical
sign of a 'Keimform' ?)
On the other hand, there are players who really want to drive the process
(even within IBM; this is too huge a company to have a single homogeneous
will of its own). Think (again) Google with its 'Summer of Code' meta-project.
In *this* movement Free Software is only the earliest and most visible
example. So it is perhaps best to talk of a Free Software movement
with a couple of conscious goals outlined a few above. This Free
Software movement is then part of a bigger movement which has the
foundation of a new mode of production as a goal. IMHO Wikipedia and
Open Access are two other sub-movements in this bigger movement.
While I think I understand what you say (and I agree, to an extend), I do not
agree on the term 'movement' as well as your idea of 'conscious goals',
shared by everybody. The crowd is much too heterogeneous. Try asking Eric Raymond
about a new mode of production and you'll see what I mean. ;-)
Regards,
Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de