¿Cultura libre?

[...] Unfortunately, The Free Software Foundation does not extend “Freedom to Tinker” to Culture:

Cultural works released by the Free Software Foundation come with “No Derivatives” restrictions. They rationalize it here: Works that express someone's opinion—memoirs, editorials, and so on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works for practical use like software and documentation. Because of this, we expect them to provide recipients with a different set of permissions (notice how users are now called "recipients," and their Freedoms are now called "permissions" --NP): just the permission to copy and distribute the work verbatim. (link)

The problem with this is that it is dead wrong. You do not know what purposes your works might serve others. You do not know how works might be found “practical” by others. To claim to understand the limits of “utility” of cultural works betrays an irrational bias toward software and against all other creative work. It is anti-Art, valuing software above the rest of culture. It says coders alone are entitled to Freedom, but everyone else can suck it. Use of -ND restrictions is an unjustifiable infringement on the freedom of others.

[...] Some filmmakers are beginning to think the term “Free Culture” is cool, but they still want to restrict others' freedom and impose commercial monopolies on their works. The book Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig its itself not Free culture, but it is widely looked up to. It sets an unfortunate and confusing example with its Non-Commercial license. It illustrates the absence of guiding principles in the Free Culture movement. 

I have spoken to many artists who insist there's “no real difference” between Non-Commercial licenses and Free alternatives. Yet these differences are well known and unacceptable in Free Software, for good reason. Calling Non-Commercial restrictions “Free Culture” neuters what could be an effective movement, if it only had principles.

[...] I want Free Software people to take Culture seriously. I want a Free Culture movement guided by principles of Freedom, just as the Free Software movement is guided by principles of Freedom. I want a name I can use that means something – the phrase “Free Culture” is increasingly meaningless, as it is often applied to unFree practices, and is also the name of a famous book that is itself encumbered with Non-Commercial restrictions.

[...] There is little reward to help your neighbor, when you are guaranteed to lose money doing so. “Free Culture” with non-Commercial restrictions will remain a hobby for those with a surplus of time and labor, and those who only accept money from monopolists.

I want commerce without monopolies. I want people to understand the difference.

Why are the Freedoms guaranteed for Free Software not guaranteed for Free Culture?, por Nina Paley.

vía @pjorge

The Fool on the Hill

Por lo general, en una conversación a propósito de Richard Stallman todos los adjetivos son susceptibles de omisión excepto uno: radical.  Son muchos los que lo ven como a un extremista, cuando no como a un perfecto loco... Entre ellos yo, debo decirlo, aunque en mi caso sin connotaciones peyorativas; al contrario: le escucho hablar de la naturaleza demoníaca de los smartphones, cantar la Free Software Song a capela o excomulgar todo software privativo y no puedo evitar pensar en una suerte de Quijote contemporáneo.

Stallman es uno de esos locos que se convierten en imprescindibles cuando, como escribió León Felipe, todo el mundo está monstruosamente cuerdo; cuando los ideales se traspapelan en los despachos y la fe, relegada al misticismo financiero, impone el tedio. 




El problema es que, a menudo, las cuestiones técnicas y económicas desvían nuestra atención desde el propósito esencial del software libre hacia aspectos secundarios. Hay que tener en cuenta que la idea de libertad que vertebra el pensamiento de Stallman va mucho más allá de la aplicación práctica de una licencia: su discurso, plenamente ilustrado, remite a la idea de independencia en tanto que libertad de pensamiento y expresión, es decir, en tanto que acceso al conocimiento.

Desde esta perspectiva, el software libre imbrica plenamente lo individual y lo colectivo. Proposición frente a asunción; independencia a través del grupo por oposición a gregariedad; y el conocimiento como eje de un amplio proceso de emancipación, desarollo de la capacidad crítica y construcción de comunidad... Empoderamiento. Somos más libres cuando tenemos la capacidad de definir y cuestionar las condiciones en las que creamos y nos comunicamos, o lo que es igual, cuando podemos construir nuestro lenguaje. Nada nuevo, pues, desde la célebre exhortación kantiana: atrévete a saber.




Definitivamente, nos sobra seriedad y nos falta entusiasmo. Nos hacen falta más, muchos más locos como Stallman.