diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .html/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.html | 22 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | wiki/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.md | 22 |
2 files changed, 22 insertions, 22 deletions
diff --git a/.html/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.html b/.html/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.html index 4a19a58..a16249d 100644 --- a/.html/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.html +++ b/.html/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.html @@ -64,35 +64,35 @@ is a disregard for outside expertise and outside bodies of knowledge.</p> 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 <em>intent</em>, as derived from -<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html">Stallman's commentaries</a> +<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html">Stallman‘s commentaries</a> on the GPL and on the social systems around software, is that people who <em>use</em> 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.</p> <p>This is a form of <em>collective action</em>, 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 +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) <em>by developers</em>, -but I think there's a more interesting angle on it as an attempt to apply the +catches up with the “as a Service” model of software deliver) <em>by developers</em>, +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 +behaviours that would be bad for programmers (framed as “users”, as above) as a condition of benefitting from the labour of those programmers.</p> -<p>Sadly, Stallman is not a labour historian or a union organizer. He's a public +<p>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 +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.</p> -<p>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.</p> +<p>I‘m pro-organized-labour, and largely 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.</p> </div> diff --git a/wiki/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.md b/wiki/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.md index c70a4af..b273115 100644 --- a/wiki/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.md +++ b/wiki/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.md @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ 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) +[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 @@ -25,27 +25,27 @@ 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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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. +I‘m pro-organized-labour, and largely 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. |