Subject: Digression on Human Rights and Current Events

From: Gerry Gleason <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:54:18 -0600

First, let me clarify my point about GGPL and community.  I was trying 
to get at the way RMS and the GPL are received by wider audiences, and 
how that can work against the goal of mainstream acceptance of our 
larger projects.  Rightly, Carl with GGPL is concerned that this is 
established with strong foundations that prevent the mission from being 
diverted by powerful and entrenched forces, and I think the same is true 
for RMS and every stand he has taken on software freedom.  On the other 
hand, it is unseemly to take rigid positions and maneuver to control 
certain things when you are trying to build a cooperative community to 
take on the important tasks of your mission.  Rightly or wrongly, this 
is how RMS is often perceived, so we must be careful to avoid this in 
the creation of the GGPL.  It is enough to stake out your position as 
the author and originator of the ideas, and trust both that the 
community will respect your views, and creatively contribute by 
extending and modifying it as they see fit.  Trust in both your network 
and the larger community to respect your vision as they expand its scope 
and application more widely than you could ever imagine.

Without getting into why the GPL enshrines digital freedoms without 
concern for the other two legs of the GGPL, we can consider the 
evolution of GPL and compatible licenses to be a prime case study in the 
same way that the Linux project is a case study for Organis design. 
 With the GPL, it has never been important to test its legally binding 
provisions in the courts because the spirit of the license is well 
understood and community pressure quickly organizes around the spirit, 
not the letter of the agreement.  Legally, when you change the details 
of the license terms, you don't retroactively effect works released 
under the original provisions, but the community will uphold the spirit 
which includes any new provisions and most organizations will 
voluntarily adhere to the new terms.  The legal challenge to the GPL 
doesn't come from circumvention, but from exclusion by software patents 
and DMCA-like laws that act to limit the space in which we can operate 
(at least this is how I read the history).

This is why I am so concerned with perceptions and the mainstream, 
because it is absolutely essential that we create a political conscensus 
to address exclusion by the architectures of control.  From the Lessig 
speach I linked recently, "If your explaining, you are losing" in the 
political sphere.  If it were a matter of who is right, we could just 
keep doing research and demonstrating that control is wrong economically 
as well as ethically, but we must also win in the realm of politics and 
sound bites.  The former approach only preaches to the converted.

Forgive me in advance for this digression into current events, but it 
strongly relates to human rights and more indirectly to the other two 
legs of the GGPL.  I fully support both the pacifists who reject the use 
of force and take a pricipled stand against all violence, and those who 
put themselves in harms way to protect innocents from abuse and 
predation.  In the wake of September 11, we felt the support of the 
entire world in the acute pain of such a devestating attack, and I, 
personally, was not very sympathetic to the idea the US policy created 
the conditions for it.  It seemed like blaming the victims, and I reject 
that while also acknowledging the grinding poverty that is exploited to 
recruit suicide bombers.  For me, economic rights are at the core of 
human rights, although in many places and times the concern for physical 
security of self and family trumps economic issues that are a primary 
concern of Organis.

That G. W. Bush did not respect the will and processes of the UN does 
not lessen my hope that the Iraqi people will be better off for the 
present action and that the sacrifice and sufferring of all involved is 
minimized.  There is hope in the fact that a majority of Americans 
wanted UN support for this, and will want a strong UN role in the 
rebuilding of Iraq to address the needs of their people over interests 
whose main desire is to control the flow of oil.  It seems strange to 
say this as someone who "doesn't believe in anything", but I pray for 
the well-being of everyone effected by this, and mourn the losses 
already suffered.

My main point in introducing this is that the support for human rights 
doesn't always result in a clear course of action.  The starting point 
of the UN declaration is the right thing for a core principle, but it 
doesn't completely clarify the proper course either, and world 
communities will make different choices in response to the specifics of 
the current situation.  I've listened to many of the nuanced arguments 
against the positions and approach of the US president and his inner 
circle, but they aren't listening, and furthermore, they are skillful at 
using the media to manipulate public opinion in the US even as they are 
losing the arguments in much of the world.  It is no defense to say you 
took the principled stand against it if you couldn't convince the rest 
of your community to take another road.  Results matter, pragmatism rules!

Again, thanks in advance for your indulgence.  I hope I haven't offended 
anyone with this.

Gerry

Carl Vilbrandt wrote:

> Gerry Gleason wrote:
>
>> Absolutely!  I'm pointing to this as a reason for not attempting to 
>> control things more closely.  For example, I know that Carl is very 
>> insistent about the importance of the GGPL and its details, but in 
>> the long-run, it is absolutely critical that it is able to evolve as 
>> an ethical consensus of the entire community.
>
>
> GGPL is about evolveing and supporting an ethical consensus of the 
> entire community by asking for ditital ethics and responsiblities and 
> this is a type of  self  regulation or control.  If you don't ask for 
> ethics it will never be discussed.
>
> Everyone should be insistent about asking for and obtaining an 
> agreement for the development and use of digital technologies that 
> support digital, human and environmental rights. A Greater Gnu Public 
> Licenses instead of a Greater Good Public licenses agreement would be 
> great.... after all there is Lesser GPL.... why not the Greater GPL.  
> I am trying to talk Stallman in to this.... :-))
>
> GPL's "to be use for *any* purpose" that seems now to restrict the 
> free source community for asking in exchange, for digital technology 
> that  is made freely avaiable them, for an ethical agreement for the 
> development and use of digital technolgies seems very strange.
>
> In fact GGPL does support GPL which is its frist provision and  GGPL 
> could  be seen as compatable to GPL.... as other variations of GPL are 
> now considered compatable ..... It depends on what you define as freedom
>
> After all what is digital freedom if there are no human or 
> enviromental rights.  One with out the other has little or even no 
> meaning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>