Subject: Re: Digression on Human Rights and Current Events

From: Carl Vilbrandt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:28:34 +0900

Gerry Gleason wrote:

> 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.

Please ... :-) Jody and I do understand what you are saying about RMS above
from personal experience... In our dealings just with having RMS speak at
DALI.  RMS has made demands that say he is the only person who can talk or he
will be upset.  He will not be seen with open source speaks or talk with
them.   Then he demands we have DALI ...  He will tell us who will speak and
when we will have DALI.    RMS has taken over DALI by taking rigid positions
in maneuvering to control many things about DALI.   Its sad ...

I  think you see me in a small way the same way as RMS.  If I am being to
rigid please let me know ....which I guess is what you are doing, but I am not
quite sure what you want me to change or do.

>> 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.

 What should I change.  In what regard am I to insistent about GGPL and its
details
I most likely don't see my self in the same way other people don't see them
self.
In part the answer seems to be below, but you may need to be more direct
because I don't
understand.

> 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.

 Agree with the approach above.  Humm   however what is the glue that holds
Organis together.  What is the purpose of Organis. The need to define the
purpose... seems to be very important and even a selling point.
What  wording should be change.

> 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).

I agree and would like to add that.  We should not let the space we work in be
limited unnecessary.  DMCA laws have not been passed in Japan not that in the
future they will not.  In other countries they may not.  The other way to look
at it is that you can make any kind of legal agreement between any number of
people as long as it does not violate any law.   The exclusion by software
patents needs to be address.

> 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.

"If your explaining, you are losing" is great line and he is right.  Preaching
to the converted is of course not a good idea and no one likes to be preaching
in the first place.  You put your self above everyone else.

Control is not wrong its just what type and how its generated.     Thinking
that a political consensus can be created is a form of a deceptive type of
control and I just don't think that way.   GGPL is more of a guess about "the
way it will"  be a presentation of what is possible.  Maybe its not a matter
of win or loosing, but just the way things will be.  Now if you think that you
can create a political consensus for GGPL agreement and you know a way that's
possible I am all for it.  So what would help in creating a political
consensus.

Its real simple for me.  I want to share work or have the pleasure of working
with people, that  agree to digital, human and environmental freedoms and
rights in a real way not just lip service.   The GGPL agreement was made up
and still in the processes of upgrade.   because there was no such agreement
available Jody wrote one.

Just for grins  What should be given up that up create a political
consensus....  taking in to consideration  what the results of the political
consensus would be and many other things, the amount of work, time and so
forth.

If to win digital rights for all should we give up human rights.... OK it is a
deal for me because digital rights will lead to human rights that is clear
....

to give up environmental rights ... Sorry I would sooner give up my life
because all of us are threatened by the condition of the environment in a very
real way time is running out.

> 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.

I am in full agreement with you on the above and economic rights are a very
practical way of achieving human rights, but politically the idea is not as
well known .... :-)  and agree on..... yeas we are all political its just not
a main issue to me.......    I worked for the Military Industrial Complex MIC
and had my life threaten by the MIC ... If I was to go to court against MIC.
I choose to live and work on the problem in another way.... I would be my own
victim because I choose to work for them in the first place.  Why did was
because of research funding for the digital technology I wanted to work on.

*** rule one and answer to the question "why did the chicken cross the road"
to get out of the way..or ... don't stand in front of a freight train it would
do any body any good. :-) ).   Yep! I am just a chicken.   because of the MIC
experence I looked around for a good place to work and decided because of the
no war constitution that Japan would be the best place for me to make a stand
that had a gost of a chance.

911 --  I agree with you ...  the people in the building are victims of  a
hate crime  and of many other things including them self's.  To point the
finger at them for 911 is a shame for they pay the highest price.  The 911
victims are no more to blame than people who purchase cars in the US that
cause 35 thousand deaths a year.  More people have been killed in cars than in
world war I & II.  --- 35 thousand deaths a year is the direct cause of US
laws that allow cars and speeds that can cause death in the first place.
Proper design could save all of the loss of life to 35000 people...  Very tall
buildings and large aircraft... are a danger to everone with or with out
terrorist.... So are nuclear materials

However from what I know after working inside MIC, that US Dark OPS policy for
counter insurgency operations may something to do  with 911  A real  "Ripleys
believe it or not"  fact  It is US policy to create  support and foster
insurgency terrorist groups to for two reasons

1.  Control by creation.  You control the group because you created it.  The
logic is the group will happen anyway and you would have no control at all.
So by creating a terrorist group is a way to trap people who are going to do
this any way.  Entrapment is the most effective tool against  insurgency.
Problem is because of laws you must urge them into action before you can
neutralize them.

2.  The engineering of public consent.  911 type of events involving
hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans were planned in 1963  to engineer
public consent to invade Cuba. The first time I ran across this was when
President John Kennedy appalled at and rejected the proposed  Operations
Northwoods and it made public : the plan presented by America's top military
brass to President John Kennedy in 1963, calling for a phony terrorist
campaign using anti-castro Cubans / --complete with bombings, hijackings,
plane crashes and dead Americans--to provide "justification" for an invasion
of Cuba, the Mafia/Corporate fiefdom which had recently been lost to
Castro.    Kennedy ,  and was killed a few months later. The military at that
time was trying to have Castro assinated.... as a solution.... Hummm...

Northwoods type of counter insurgency operations have continued over the
years, but on a far grander scale and under Rumsfeld with resources at his
disposal undreamed of in the past has successfully proposed after 911  an
expansion of counter insurgency covert operations now called "P2OG" or "Grey
Fox", with no counterbalancing global rival to restrain him--and with an
ignorant, corrupt president Bush who has shown himself all too eager to
embrace any means whatsoever that will augment the wealth and power of his own
narrow, undemocratic, elitist cliqu.

> 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.

Yes I join you in this.  I hope is that some good might come of it.

> 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!

Pragmatism is to give standing to human rights I do not see GGPL as just a
principled stand.  Pragmatically I believe that people in the new world of
information are demanding human rights and will support it.  At least a large
enought group will because of the global scale of the internet and the ability
to broadcast, there is a market place for human rights that is not been
answered....  Look at the peace marches... One million in London.  Information
has changed and the "times" have changed things are going much faster.

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

This was off the subject and a long e-mail.  I all so hope I haven't offended
anyone with this.  I really did not have time to do this, but I have not
mention 911 or the war.   I don't like to think of it and I like to think that
our work on Organis is a better answer than war all be it a long term answer.
The more upset I am about the war the more I work on GGPL.   Thanks  Carl

>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >