From 032046eaf275f6156e6f0a223e4d933dc72d9775 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Newbold Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 14:21:14 -0700 Subject: rename libre slug --- posts/2019/three_spirits_floss.md | 289 ----------------------------- posts/2019/three_spirits_libre_software.md | 289 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 289 insertions(+), 289 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 posts/2019/three_spirits_floss.md create mode 100644 posts/2019/three_spirits_libre_software.md diff --git a/posts/2019/three_spirits_floss.md b/posts/2019/three_spirits_floss.md deleted file mode 100644 index ecd12ff..0000000 --- a/posts/2019/three_spirits_floss.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,289 +0,0 @@ -Title: Three Spirits of Libre Software -Author: bnewbold -Date: 2019-05-19 -Tags: free-software -Status: draft - -Individuals associate with social movements for many reasons: [frustration with -the status quo][tyranny-book], aspirational self-identity, peer-pressure, -cultural overlap, attraction to a romantic vision, et cetera. In trying to -clarify and organize my own support for the FLOSS movement (Free, Libre, and -Open-Source Software), I've come up with three underlying narratives or -"spirits" that motivate me. - -
-I'm going to toss "free", "libre", and "open" around with abandon in this post, -instead of using the FLOSS acronym consistently. I'm only using them -intentionally when Capitalized. -
-"Hacker" and "Maker" cultures also have overlap FLOSS. -
- -One motivation for writing these up is that discussion and critique of the -FLOSS movement is counter-productive if there isn't a shared understanding of -the goals and vision members are pursuing. I feel like I spend a lot of time -re-telling my own version of "what we're really trying to achieve here" and -disclaiming strawman arguments. Sometimes these discussions are with critics, -but just as often they are with disillusioned contributors who feel like they -are loosing the fight. Having these in a written form is something coherent to -point to, and also gives me a framework to gauge progress (or lack there of) in -the future. - -I'll acknowledge right up front that a strong fourth category of interest is -social and cultural: I really love hanging out with hackers and Free Software -people, hearing about their projects and weird ideas, visiting their spaces and -events, earning respect and recognition, and so forth. But, at risk of -underselling that special something of this particular community, these -motivations exist in any group or movement, and here I'm addressing the values -and narratives unique to FLOSS. - -[tyranny-book]: https://openlibrary.org/works/OL927028W/The_True_Believer_Thoughts_on_the_Nature_of_Mass_Movements - - -## Enlightenment Ideals - -This is the most direct argument for libre software: that the individual -freedoms to read, inspect, and understand the technology we use are first-order -values and worth pursuing in their own right. That all human beings should be -respected as peers and contributors to our intellectual infrastructure, not -relegated to a class of passive users and consumers. This spirit is Romantic: -it's not a utilitarian argument or narrative story, but appeals directly to -principles and ideals (though utilitarian arguments can and are often made to -support these principles). When I think "this is just how it *ought* to be", I -know I'm feeling this spirit. - -
- - A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrery - -
-"A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrery" by Joseph Wright of Derby -
- -The most notable and coherent defenders of this spirit historically has been -Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Stallman makes an explicitly -moral argument for "Four Freedoms": - -0. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose -1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your - computing as you wish -2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor -3. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others - -Historically, advocates of "Open Source Software" did not think that making a -moral or ethical argument was an effective strategy in our society, and a -schism formed despite both groups sharing many concrete goals. Those advocates -framed Open Source as an economic strategy and a superior software engineering -process: emphasizing "this will work better for you" instead of "it's just the -right thing to do". While some of the Open Source arguments are compelling, -I'm skeptical of the broader claims (eg, I think a lot of open source software -is of relatively poor quality) and am motivated more by the value-based -arguments. - -A movement based on ideals align well with other "egalitarian" institutions and -cultures. How can we have high-quality public education and learning without -the ability to read source code and share derived experiments? Doesn't -scientific knowledge production require transparency and freedom to tinker with -our tools? - -Challenges and counter-balances to this spirit are often political economic -arguments. Who underwrites these ideals? Don't we need to incentivize creators -and capital-holders? Some market maximalists argue that treating non-rivalrous -goods (like software and ideas) the same way we treat physical property will -increase utility for both producers and consumers, and that we would be -dangerously naive to treat them otherwise. Personally, I don't find these -arguments rationally compelling: markets are *often* effective for -coordination, and some form of regulation or redistribution *is* likely needed -for "creators" to live less precarious lives, but I believe artificial -enclosure ("intellectual property") has been a failure by it's own standards in -the software sector. - -There are also some weak points to this narrative as a pragmatic activist -philosophy. It is hard to advocate for free software ideals when many of the -most directly empowering and productive software tools are proprietary. Should -we ask students and scientists to use an inferior tools on principle? This -spirit is often invoked in universal terms ("all software should be free and -open on principle"), but the principles apply more strongly to some software or -"fields of endeavor" than others. For example, most individuals in society are -probably willing to accept proprietary book-keeping, industrial controls, or -airline-ticketing software, because these are considered private-sector or -professional tooling, not part of the public sphere. Environmentalists face a -similar challenge rallying public support to protect pest and insects, even -though they are just as ecologically important as apex predators and -"charismatic megafauna". - - -## Hedging Authority - - - -Another narrative is that even a small specialist community of radical hackers -can indirectly increase freedom for everybody. These hackers can tinker and -work their magic at all layers of the digital "stack", and their tools and -knowledge are open in principle, though they may be impractical for most to -take advantage of. Like armed militias, these anti-authoritarian groups are -distributed throughout society ("a hacker on every block", like doctors or -lawyers might be) and keep critical technical power and abilities from becoming -over-centralized and exploited. They serve as watchers ("trust but verify"), -activists, and liberators. - -
- - netv - - - snowden - -
- -The tools and alternatives built by this community give everybody leverage -against centralized power and monopoly: the existence of even an inferior and -unpopular alternative makes it harder for a monopoly to exploit its position. - -People with this mindset tend to concentrate on strategic "bottleneck" -technologies that could be abused for social and economic control: compilers, -bootloaders, 3D-printers, kernels, browsers, media players and interfaces (DVD, -blueray, HDMI). They also love powerful debugging and development tools that -can be used to inspect or reverse engineer systems (hardware or software): JTAG -debuggers, disassemblers, electron microscopes, software defined radio -transceivers, and logic analyzers. - -The GNU project has a bit of this spirit. The original goal was to ensure that -the early community of hackers would always have the tools they needed to write -software, and wouldn't be beholden or fractured by external proprietary -software companies. This played out with a particular focus on developer -toolchains and "completeness" (having a free/libre implementation for every -component in the system). A project prioritizing direct public impact might -have prioritized user interfaces accessible to beginners, and might have been -willing to compromise on some of the back-end details, but GNU's focus has been -a success on their own terms in that today it is possible today to run a -free/libre operating system at all. Another success (to me) is the Tor project: -not a tool most people use every day, but it's there when we need it, and it's -very existence means that 100% surveillance (distinct from 95% surveillance) is -not viable. - -A lot of folks see libre software projects as failures when they struggle to get -even a fraction of the users as well-funded proprietary alternatives. -Developers and maintainers are often criticized for not prioritizing broad -popular adoption. Part of this spirit to me is that having even -one-person-in-a-thousand using libre software can be taken as a big win: this -is more about what is *possible* than what is popular or common. A weakness of -this spirit is that it can be an excuse to neglect design, and in particular -accessibility. - - -## Post-Scarcity Economics - -The last narrative centers around leveraging modern technology to "solve -problems" with radically less effort, and thus less need for traditional -organization or incentives. This is the optimism that individuals in their own -free time (or loosely organized groups with little or no funding or structure), -following their own whims and interests, can contribute to a software commons, -and that solutions from this commons can work so well that most people never -even realize there was a challenge or friction in the first place. The ur-myth -of this spirit is the hobbyist who gets frustrated about the cost or poor -quality of some government or corporate piece of software and writes a -replacement on a weekend afternoon, that works well enough gain near-universal -adoption for decades. - -
- - star trek - - burning man -
- -Two individuals who exemplify this spirit to me are Fabrice Bellard (creator of -QEMU, `ffmpeg`, and many other popular low-level software libraries) and Joey -Hess (creator of `git-annex`, `ikiwiki`, `debhelper`, and others). In reality -these individuals have structured their lifestyles around libre software work, -so it feels weird to call their efforts "low resource", but in the big picture -it's amazing how much they have produced and accomplished as individuals with -minimal support from traditional institutions. - -To me this narrative is at once the most problematic and the most relatable. -All software exists in a massive superstructure of ongoing maintenance, -support, and external costs; and yet this narrative doesn't deny that -superstructure, it's emphasizing how empowering it can be. The stress and -expectations on unfunded developers whose side projects explode in popularity -are well documented. This method of production has no accountability (creators -have no formal obligation or commitment to the users of their software), huge -bias (who has the means and resources to contribute? whose problems do they try -to solve?), "race to the bottom" dynamics, etc. At the same time, "the market" -suffers many of the same challenges, and consumes a whole lot more societal -resources. - -This narrative might be driven as much by the median dysfunction and -inefficiency of industrial software production as much as the productivity of -individual developers. The inefficiencies of individual production are -distributed and less visible. - -The definition of success sort of boils down to just popularity, and there are -undeniably examples of popular free software projects with low initial effort. -For example, gzip, git, Redis, WordPress, Python, and VLC are all projects that -got to first releases with (relatively) few contributors, and have become -widely popular (for their specific use-cases). - -Personally, this spirit is often a motivation to *start* projects, but -dissipates when the reality of effort actually required becomes apparent. Stated -most hyperbolically, "software is eating the world" and free software might be -the spearhead of a new post-scarcity political economic order: a form of -anarchic voluntary contribution to the common-wealth, with corporations, -capital, and government relegated to bit roles. More realistically, this form -of development depends on a larger more organized foundation, and can only form -a small part of the larger economy and ecosystem. - -My intellectual hope for a better future lies in organization, norms, -regulation, and worker-directed collectives, not individual super-productivity. -At the same time, it's impossible not to have my heart swell of human pride and -optimism when I see a small group (or single individual) apparently "Solve" a -problem in their free time, in a way everybody could benefit from forever. - - -## Other Narratives - -The three "spirits" above are what I think are core motivations to me, but -there are other narratives I think about and could be more motivating to -others. - -As mentioned at the beginning, the **general culture of a community** can be a -strong attractor if it is welcoming, creative, healthy, diverse, challenging, -supportive, exciting, etc. - -Many believe that some combination of common FLOSS development practices and -open access to source code leads to **better software quality** on it's own. -This particularly applies to cryptography and privacy/security sensitive -software (and some would say all software raises privacy and security -concerns). - -There is **labor empowerment** argument that open source is better for the -careers of developers, because they can show a portfolio of previous work to -potential employers, and are more incentivized to create tools and high-quality -software because they know they can bring it along to any future jobs. - -For many who **dislike traditional start-up and corporate culture** or -seek alternatives to capitalism, any alternative means of production is -appealing in it's own right. - ------------- - -Thanks to [Asheesh](https://asheesh.org) and [Remy](https://twitter.com/remy_d) -for a long walk and conversation that clarified my thinking, as well as -Gabrielle Colman's [*Coding Freedom*][coding-freedom], Nadia Egbal's ["Roads -and Bridges" report][roads-bridges], and Mako Hill's [writings on free -software][https://mako.cc/] for stimulating these ideas in the first place. - -This essay was first drafted in early 2018. Other recent writing on this -subject includes Steve Klabnik's ["The Culture War at the Heart of Open -Source"][klabnik-culture-war] and ["Freedom isn't Free"][logic-freedom-free] in -Logic Magazine. - -[coding-freedom]: https://gabriellacoleman.org/Coleman-Coding-Freedom.pdf -[roads-bridges]: https://www.fordfoundation.org/about/library/reports-and-studies/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/ -[klabnik-culture-war]: https://words.steveklabnik.com/the-culture-war-at-the-heart-of-open-source -[logic-freedom-free]: https://logicmag.io/05-freedom-isnt-free/ - diff --git a/posts/2019/three_spirits_libre_software.md b/posts/2019/three_spirits_libre_software.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ecd12ff --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/2019/three_spirits_libre_software.md @@ -0,0 +1,289 @@ +Title: Three Spirits of Libre Software +Author: bnewbold +Date: 2019-05-19 +Tags: free-software +Status: draft + +Individuals associate with social movements for many reasons: [frustration with +the status quo][tyranny-book], aspirational self-identity, peer-pressure, +cultural overlap, attraction to a romantic vision, et cetera. In trying to +clarify and organize my own support for the FLOSS movement (Free, Libre, and +Open-Source Software), I've come up with three underlying narratives or +"spirits" that motivate me. + +
+I'm going to toss "free", "libre", and "open" around with abandon in this post, +instead of using the FLOSS acronym consistently. I'm only using them +intentionally when Capitalized. +
+"Hacker" and "Maker" cultures also have overlap FLOSS. +
+ +One motivation for writing these up is that discussion and critique of the +FLOSS movement is counter-productive if there isn't a shared understanding of +the goals and vision members are pursuing. I feel like I spend a lot of time +re-telling my own version of "what we're really trying to achieve here" and +disclaiming strawman arguments. Sometimes these discussions are with critics, +but just as often they are with disillusioned contributors who feel like they +are loosing the fight. Having these in a written form is something coherent to +point to, and also gives me a framework to gauge progress (or lack there of) in +the future. + +I'll acknowledge right up front that a strong fourth category of interest is +social and cultural: I really love hanging out with hackers and Free Software +people, hearing about their projects and weird ideas, visiting their spaces and +events, earning respect and recognition, and so forth. But, at risk of +underselling that special something of this particular community, these +motivations exist in any group or movement, and here I'm addressing the values +and narratives unique to FLOSS. + +[tyranny-book]: https://openlibrary.org/works/OL927028W/The_True_Believer_Thoughts_on_the_Nature_of_Mass_Movements + + +## Enlightenment Ideals + +This is the most direct argument for libre software: that the individual +freedoms to read, inspect, and understand the technology we use are first-order +values and worth pursuing in their own right. That all human beings should be +respected as peers and contributors to our intellectual infrastructure, not +relegated to a class of passive users and consumers. This spirit is Romantic: +it's not a utilitarian argument or narrative story, but appeals directly to +principles and ideals (though utilitarian arguments can and are often made to +support these principles). When I think "this is just how it *ought* to be", I +know I'm feeling this spirit. + +
+ + A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrery + +
+"A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrery" by Joseph Wright of Derby +
+ +The most notable and coherent defenders of this spirit historically has been +Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Stallman makes an explicitly +moral argument for "Four Freedoms": + +0. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose +1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your + computing as you wish +2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor +3. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others + +Historically, advocates of "Open Source Software" did not think that making a +moral or ethical argument was an effective strategy in our society, and a +schism formed despite both groups sharing many concrete goals. Those advocates +framed Open Source as an economic strategy and a superior software engineering +process: emphasizing "this will work better for you" instead of "it's just the +right thing to do". While some of the Open Source arguments are compelling, +I'm skeptical of the broader claims (eg, I think a lot of open source software +is of relatively poor quality) and am motivated more by the value-based +arguments. + +A movement based on ideals align well with other "egalitarian" institutions and +cultures. How can we have high-quality public education and learning without +the ability to read source code and share derived experiments? Doesn't +scientific knowledge production require transparency and freedom to tinker with +our tools? + +Challenges and counter-balances to this spirit are often political economic +arguments. Who underwrites these ideals? Don't we need to incentivize creators +and capital-holders? Some market maximalists argue that treating non-rivalrous +goods (like software and ideas) the same way we treat physical property will +increase utility for both producers and consumers, and that we would be +dangerously naive to treat them otherwise. Personally, I don't find these +arguments rationally compelling: markets are *often* effective for +coordination, and some form of regulation or redistribution *is* likely needed +for "creators" to live less precarious lives, but I believe artificial +enclosure ("intellectual property") has been a failure by it's own standards in +the software sector. + +There are also some weak points to this narrative as a pragmatic activist +philosophy. It is hard to advocate for free software ideals when many of the +most directly empowering and productive software tools are proprietary. Should +we ask students and scientists to use an inferior tools on principle? This +spirit is often invoked in universal terms ("all software should be free and +open on principle"), but the principles apply more strongly to some software or +"fields of endeavor" than others. For example, most individuals in society are +probably willing to accept proprietary book-keeping, industrial controls, or +airline-ticketing software, because these are considered private-sector or +professional tooling, not part of the public sphere. Environmentalists face a +similar challenge rallying public support to protect pest and insects, even +though they are just as ecologically important as apex predators and +"charismatic megafauna". + + +## Hedging Authority + + + +Another narrative is that even a small specialist community of radical hackers +can indirectly increase freedom for everybody. These hackers can tinker and +work their magic at all layers of the digital "stack", and their tools and +knowledge are open in principle, though they may be impractical for most to +take advantage of. Like armed militias, these anti-authoritarian groups are +distributed throughout society ("a hacker on every block", like doctors or +lawyers might be) and keep critical technical power and abilities from becoming +over-centralized and exploited. They serve as watchers ("trust but verify"), +activists, and liberators. + +
+ + netv + + + snowden + +
+ +The tools and alternatives built by this community give everybody leverage +against centralized power and monopoly: the existence of even an inferior and +unpopular alternative makes it harder for a monopoly to exploit its position. + +People with this mindset tend to concentrate on strategic "bottleneck" +technologies that could be abused for social and economic control: compilers, +bootloaders, 3D-printers, kernels, browsers, media players and interfaces (DVD, +blueray, HDMI). They also love powerful debugging and development tools that +can be used to inspect or reverse engineer systems (hardware or software): JTAG +debuggers, disassemblers, electron microscopes, software defined radio +transceivers, and logic analyzers. + +The GNU project has a bit of this spirit. The original goal was to ensure that +the early community of hackers would always have the tools they needed to write +software, and wouldn't be beholden or fractured by external proprietary +software companies. This played out with a particular focus on developer +toolchains and "completeness" (having a free/libre implementation for every +component in the system). A project prioritizing direct public impact might +have prioritized user interfaces accessible to beginners, and might have been +willing to compromise on some of the back-end details, but GNU's focus has been +a success on their own terms in that today it is possible today to run a +free/libre operating system at all. Another success (to me) is the Tor project: +not a tool most people use every day, but it's there when we need it, and it's +very existence means that 100% surveillance (distinct from 95% surveillance) is +not viable. + +A lot of folks see libre software projects as failures when they struggle to get +even a fraction of the users as well-funded proprietary alternatives. +Developers and maintainers are often criticized for not prioritizing broad +popular adoption. Part of this spirit to me is that having even +one-person-in-a-thousand using libre software can be taken as a big win: this +is more about what is *possible* than what is popular or common. A weakness of +this spirit is that it can be an excuse to neglect design, and in particular +accessibility. + + +## Post-Scarcity Economics + +The last narrative centers around leveraging modern technology to "solve +problems" with radically less effort, and thus less need for traditional +organization or incentives. This is the optimism that individuals in their own +free time (or loosely organized groups with little or no funding or structure), +following their own whims and interests, can contribute to a software commons, +and that solutions from this commons can work so well that most people never +even realize there was a challenge or friction in the first place. The ur-myth +of this spirit is the hobbyist who gets frustrated about the cost or poor +quality of some government or corporate piece of software and writes a +replacement on a weekend afternoon, that works well enough gain near-universal +adoption for decades. + +
+ + star trek + + burning man +
+ +Two individuals who exemplify this spirit to me are Fabrice Bellard (creator of +QEMU, `ffmpeg`, and many other popular low-level software libraries) and Joey +Hess (creator of `git-annex`, `ikiwiki`, `debhelper`, and others). In reality +these individuals have structured their lifestyles around libre software work, +so it feels weird to call their efforts "low resource", but in the big picture +it's amazing how much they have produced and accomplished as individuals with +minimal support from traditional institutions. + +To me this narrative is at once the most problematic and the most relatable. +All software exists in a massive superstructure of ongoing maintenance, +support, and external costs; and yet this narrative doesn't deny that +superstructure, it's emphasizing how empowering it can be. The stress and +expectations on unfunded developers whose side projects explode in popularity +are well documented. This method of production has no accountability (creators +have no formal obligation or commitment to the users of their software), huge +bias (who has the means and resources to contribute? whose problems do they try +to solve?), "race to the bottom" dynamics, etc. At the same time, "the market" +suffers many of the same challenges, and consumes a whole lot more societal +resources. + +This narrative might be driven as much by the median dysfunction and +inefficiency of industrial software production as much as the productivity of +individual developers. The inefficiencies of individual production are +distributed and less visible. + +The definition of success sort of boils down to just popularity, and there are +undeniably examples of popular free software projects with low initial effort. +For example, gzip, git, Redis, WordPress, Python, and VLC are all projects that +got to first releases with (relatively) few contributors, and have become +widely popular (for their specific use-cases). + +Personally, this spirit is often a motivation to *start* projects, but +dissipates when the reality of effort actually required becomes apparent. Stated +most hyperbolically, "software is eating the world" and free software might be +the spearhead of a new post-scarcity political economic order: a form of +anarchic voluntary contribution to the common-wealth, with corporations, +capital, and government relegated to bit roles. More realistically, this form +of development depends on a larger more organized foundation, and can only form +a small part of the larger economy and ecosystem. + +My intellectual hope for a better future lies in organization, norms, +regulation, and worker-directed collectives, not individual super-productivity. +At the same time, it's impossible not to have my heart swell of human pride and +optimism when I see a small group (or single individual) apparently "Solve" a +problem in their free time, in a way everybody could benefit from forever. + + +## Other Narratives + +The three "spirits" above are what I think are core motivations to me, but +there are other narratives I think about and could be more motivating to +others. + +As mentioned at the beginning, the **general culture of a community** can be a +strong attractor if it is welcoming, creative, healthy, diverse, challenging, +supportive, exciting, etc. + +Many believe that some combination of common FLOSS development practices and +open access to source code leads to **better software quality** on it's own. +This particularly applies to cryptography and privacy/security sensitive +software (and some would say all software raises privacy and security +concerns). + +There is **labor empowerment** argument that open source is better for the +careers of developers, because they can show a portfolio of previous work to +potential employers, and are more incentivized to create tools and high-quality +software because they know they can bring it along to any future jobs. + +For many who **dislike traditional start-up and corporate culture** or +seek alternatives to capitalism, any alternative means of production is +appealing in it's own right. + +------------ + +Thanks to [Asheesh](https://asheesh.org) and [Remy](https://twitter.com/remy_d) +for a long walk and conversation that clarified my thinking, as well as +Gabrielle Colman's [*Coding Freedom*][coding-freedom], Nadia Egbal's ["Roads +and Bridges" report][roads-bridges], and Mako Hill's [writings on free +software][https://mako.cc/] for stimulating these ideas in the first place. + +This essay was first drafted in early 2018. Other recent writing on this +subject includes Steve Klabnik's ["The Culture War at the Heart of Open +Source"][klabnik-culture-war] and ["Freedom isn't Free"][logic-freedom-free] in +Logic Magazine. + +[coding-freedom]: https://gabriellacoleman.org/Coleman-Coding-Freedom.pdf +[roads-bridges]: https://www.fordfoundation.org/about/library/reports-and-studies/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/ +[klabnik-culture-war]: https://words.steveklabnik.com/the-culture-war-at-the-heart-of-open-source +[logic-freedom-free]: https://logicmag.io/05-freedom-isnt-free/ + -- cgit v1.2.3