Education/Open Source Workshop - Revision history

Mkille at 17:29, 31 July 2013

2013-07-31T17:29:22Z

Jablko at 16:49, 24 April 2007

2007-04-24T16:49:58Z

Jablko at 17:59, 16 April 2007

2007-04-16T17:59:15Z

Jablko at 21:08, 15 April 2007

2007-04-15T21:08:38Z

Moorere at 05:53, 15 April 2007

2007-04-15T05:53:31Z

Jablko at 21:04, 13 April 2007

2007-04-13T21:04:45Z

Jablko at 20:46, 13 April 2007

2007-04-13T20:46:43Z

Jablko at 20:42, 13 April 2007

2007-04-13T20:42:38Z

Jablko at 20:18, 13 April 2007

2007-04-13T20:18:55Z

Jablko at 20:09, 13 April 2007

2007-04-13T20:09:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 31 July 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	'''''This page left for historical purposes.''''' -- [[User:Mkille\|Mkille]] ([[User talk:Mkille\|talk]]) 10:29, 31 July 2013 (PDT)
		+
	These are notes to develop a workshop I plan to present at the Public Interest Research Group retreat in Vancouver: http://sfpirg.ca/		These are notes to develop a workshop I plan to present at the Public Interest Research Group retreat in Vancouver: http://sfpirg.ca/

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 Software patents are examples of laws which prevent people from sharing software. Patents let a company prevent other developers from using an idea, regardless of how the company holding the patent chooses to exercise the idea: In the public interest, disinterest, or not at all. Patents have been granted on many very simple, general ideas: One click shopping. North America was one of the first places to grant patents on software. There was great resistance to allowing software patents in Europe.
 The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is another example of laws which make sharing software illegal. In cases where software patents are infringed by anonymous groups of developers who don't charge for their work, users of the software can be made responsible for breaking the law.
@@ Line 38: / Line 40: @@
 Microsoft and Bill Gates are examples of accumulation by dispossession. Software has always been shared and modified among hackers and hobbyists. In Bill Gates' 1976 open letter to hobbyists, he denounces this social behavior as stealing. Microsoft became super wealthy by taking software, which used to be shared freely like ideas, and making it property.
 === Technically Facilitated Collaboration ===
@@ Line 72: / Line 82: @@
 * Another good interactive technique would be a game. Apparently there are games to play with poker chips that illustrate capitalism vs. openness in practice.
 * Another great tool might be performance art?
 === TODO ===
@@ Line 84: / Line 95: @@
 * Closed source and capitalism. How intellectual property favors sharing as opposed to physical property where sharing movements like communism have been problematic.
 * Natural change to business models when a new technology overwhelms an old one, e.g. transistors vs. vacuum tubes. Thanks Dr. Donaldson!

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 16 April 2007
Line 83:		Line 83:
	* How have enclosure movements historically succeeded? What examples of enclosure movements have failed?		* How have enclosure movements historically succeeded? What examples of enclosure movements have failed?
	* Closed source and capitalism. How intellectual property favors sharing as opposed to physical property where sharing movements like communism have been problematic.		* Closed source and capitalism. How intellectual property favors sharing as opposed to physical property where sharing movements like communism have been problematic.
		+	* Natural change to business models when a new technology overwhelms an old one, e.g. transistors vs. vacuum tubes. Thanks Dr. Donaldson!

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 === Free Software: Software for Social Justice ===
@@ Line 64: / Line 70: @@
 * To present this material, a good strategy might be to ask a group what they think of software piracy: What it means to them. Then ask the group what they think of bio piracy. A group of activists will likely have opinions about bio piracy and accumulation by dispossession. Then make the connection between the two: In the case of bio piracy, "piracy" is obstructing sharing through the invention of property. In the case of software, "piracy" is sharing.
 === TODO ===
@@ Line 69: / Line 77: @@
 * How does the production of "belonging" in the sense of belonging to a group influence collaboration? Example: Emails to the Ubuntu project from SABDFL, Mark Shuttleworth. Gang colors or badges.
 * How do Meritocracy and mind share affect collaboration and anti-oppression?

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 An example of accumulation by dispossession is bio piracy like the patenting of the basmati rice gene. Farmers in India have been sharing rice for thousands of years, but a company, after forcing the Indian government to accept intellectual property laws similar to North America, goes into India, takes the cooperative work of generations of farmers, and claims to have "discovered" it. Then farmers are obliged to pay royalties to company holding the patent. Thus the company has created property out of something which wasn't property before.
-Microsoft and Bill Gates are examples of accumulation by dispossession. Software has always been shared and modified among hackers and hobbyists. In Bill Gates' 1976 open letter to hobbyists, he denounces this social behavior as steeling. Microsoft became super wealthy by taking software, which used to be shared freely like ideas, and making it property.
+Microsoft and Bill Gates are examples of accumulation by dispossession. Software has always been shared and modified among hackers and hobbyists. In Bill Gates' 1976 open letter to hobbyists, he denounces this social behavior as stealing. Microsoft became super wealthy by taking software, which used to be shared freely like ideas, and making it property.
 === Technically Facilitated Collaboration ===
@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 * Historically, projects have been less complex and people more focussed: Someone spent an entire lifetime carving a staircase out of a single tree trunk. As the size and complexity of projects increases, and the volume of prior knowledge in the project's context increases, the number of people needed to work together on a project increases. As does the complexity of their communication and collaboration. So we have more people exchanging more information about a project than ever before, enabling very advanced projects, such as going to the moon, Linux, other better examples? But the collaboration has overhead. So discovering new social and technical processes for highly parallel, highly collaborative work is key.
 * What does this have to say about diversity? I have some material on privileged, dominant groups. Is increased collaboration anti-oppressive or does it favor dominant social norms? On the one hand, the need and capacity for more participation is involving people from around the world. However if the tools or processes are designed by and for dominant social groups like straight, white, North American men, they're reinforcing dominant norms.
-* Tools for collaboration does generally improve openness and fight hierarchy. By delegating management to a tool or process, it removes people from positions of management and gives equal access and opportunity to participate and contribute. Simple tools create a horizontal structure. On the other hand, the more technical the tools or process, the more time is needed to get up to speed, creates a different form of hierarchy where power is wielded by those with knowledge, skill or access. The same technical tool might create a horizontal structure in a technical organization yet create a vertical structure in a non-technical activist organization, with the implementors and administrators at the top.
+* Tools for collaboration do generally improve openness and fight hierarchy. By delegating management to a tool or process, it removes people from positions of management and gives equal access and opportunity to participate and contribute. Simple tools create a horizontal structure. On the other hand, the more technical the tools or process, the more time is needed to get up to speed, creates a different form of hierarchy where power is wielded by those with knowledge, skill or access. The same technical tool might create a horizontal structure in a technical organization yet create a vertical structure in a non-technical activist organization, with the implementors and administrators at the top.
 ==== In Open Source ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 13 April 2007
Line 62:		Line 62:

	=== Interaction ===		=== Interaction ===
		+
		+	* To present this material, a good strategy might be to ask a group what they think of software piracy: What it means to them. Then ask the group what they think of bio piracy. A group of activists will likely have opinions about bio piracy and accumulation by dispossession. Then make the connection between the two: In the case of bio piracy, "piracy" is obstructing sharing through the invention of property. In the case of software, "piracy" is sharing.

	=== TODO ===		=== TODO ===

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 Recently lots of laws have been passed which make sharing illegal. The free software movement spawned "copyleft" to oppose copyright. The idea of copyleft is it specifically gives you the rights to modify and redistribute the software, but your derived works must be under the same terms as the original software. This prevents companies from taking the hard work of open source developers, contributing to it and not sharing their contributions.
-==== Accumulation by Disposession ====
+Software patents are examples of laws which prevent people from sharing software. Patents let a company prevent other developers from using an idea, regardless of how the company holding the patent chooses to exercise the idea: In the public interest, disinterest, or not at all. Patents have been granted on many very simple, general ideas: One click shopping. North America was one of the first places to grant patents on software. There was great resistance to allowing software patents in Europe.
 === Technically Facilitated Collaboration ===

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 As another example if everyone uses software, they should all have a say in how it works. Usually however we're forced to use software which the autocratic elite and the development team get to decide how works.
-=== Sharing Software with Neighbors ===
+==== Sharing Software with Neighbors ====
-=== Accumulation by Disposession ===
+Recently lots of laws have been passed which make sharing illegal. The free software movement spawned "copyleft" to oppose copyright. The idea of copyleft is it specifically gives you the rights to modify and redistribute the software, but your derived works must be under the same terms as the original software. This prevents companies from taking the hard work of open source developers, contributing to it and not sharing their contributions.
 === Technically Facilitated Collaboration ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 13 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== Free Software: Software for Social Justice ===		=== Free Software: Software for Social Justice ===
		+
		+	Twenty years ago many people predicted software would increasingly control our lives. Today it's true. The free software movement is about having the right to observe and participate in the software that controls our lives.
		+
		+	Some of the basic ideas of free software are the right to modify and redistribute software. "Free" refers to these freedoms, rather than the cost of the software.
		+
		+	As an example voting in the states is now done with machines by Diebold running closed source software. Consequently there's no way for the public to observe the software and verify that it doesn't add republican votes, etc.
		+
		+	As another example if everyone uses software, they should all have a say in how it works. Usually however we're forced to use software which the autocratic elite and the development team get to decide how works.
		+
		+	=== Sharing Software with Neighbors ===
		+
		+
		+
		+	=== Accumulation by Disposession ===

	=== Technically Facilitated Collaboration ===		=== Technically Facilitated Collaboration ===