The GPL as collective action

1 files changed, 51 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/wiki/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.md b/wiki/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c70a4af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/wiki/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# The GPL As Collective Action
+
+Programmers, like many groups of subject experts, are widely afflicted by the
+belief that all other fields of expertise can be reduced to a special case of
+programming expertise. For a great example of this, watch [programmers argue
+about law](https://xkcd.com/1494/) (which can _obviously_ be reduced to a rules
+system, which is a programming problem),
+[consent](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2e5a7k/could_the_blockchain_be_used_to_prove_consensual/)
+(which is _obviously_ about non-repudiatable proofs, which are a programming
+problem), or [art](https://github.com/google/deepdream) (which is _obviously_
+reducible to simple but large automata). One key symptom of this social pattern
+is a disregard for outside expertise and outside bodies of knowledge.
+
+I believe this habit may have bitten Stallman.
+
+The GNU Public License presents a simple, legally enforceable offer: in return
+for granting the right to distribute the licensed work and its derivatives, the
+GPL demands that derivative works also be released under the GPL. The _intent_,
+as derived from
+[Stallman's commentaries](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html)
+on the GPL and on the social systems around software, is that people who _use_
+information systems should, morally and legally, be entitled to the tools to
+understand what the system will do and why, and to make changes to those tools
+as they see fit.
+
+This is a form of _collective action_, as implemented by someone who thinks of
+unions and organized labour as something that software could do better. The
+usual lens for critique of the GPL is that GPL'd software cannot be used in
+non-GPL systems (which is increasingly true, as the Free Software Foundation
+catches up with the "as a Service" model of software deliver) _by developers_,
+but I think there's a more interesting angle on it as an attempt to apply the
+collective bargaining power of programmers as a class to extracting a
+concession from managerial -- business and government -- interests, instead. In
+that reading, the GPL demands that managerial interests in software avoid
+behaviours that would be bad for programmers (framed as "users", as above) as a
+condition of benefitting from the labour of those programmers.
+
+Sadly, Stallman is not a labour historian or a union organizer. He's a public
+speaker and a programmer. By attempting to reinvent collective action from
+first principles, and by treating collective action as a special case of
+software development, the GPL acts to divide programmers from non-programming
+computer users, and to weaken the collective position of programmers vis-à-vis
+managerial interests. The rise of "merit"-based open source licenses, such as
+the MIT license (which I use heavily, but advisedly), and the increasing
+pervasiveness of the Github Resume, are both simple consequences of this
+mistake.
+
+I'm pro-union. The only thing worse than having two competing powerful
+interests in the room is having only one powerful interest in the room. The GPL
+should be part of any historical case study for the unionization of
+programmers, since it captures so much of what we do wrong.