El 23/10/10 04:40, Nicolás Reynolds dijo:
Las cursivas son mías (//)
"Open Source does not, however, demand that the open license is attached to derivatives of the original code. By removing the 'viral' feature of GPL, Open Source provides firms with a back-door for appropiating code. Software licensed under Open Source can re 'ripped, mixed, and burned' and released under copyright. That is how Mozilla Public License was intended to work for Netscape. This is what repeatedly happens with software licensed under the term of the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. In Marxist terms, Open Source licenses can be described as an /organisational principle for systematising 'primitive accumulation', by which is meant theft, of the social labour/ taking place in developing communities and in the commons." (pp 37-38)
"The ultimate prize for companies involved in the hacker movement is to engage a pool of gratis labour in one end of the balance sheet and to sell the output in the other end with no discount. It's a 'have-your-cake-and-eat-it' business model. If a company sets out to make money in this way it can't advertise its intent since most developers refuse to contribute to projects under such terms. Often it is pulled off as a one-off violation against the terms of the free license. Despite occasional baddies, most companies have come to the conclusion that they have more to gain in the long run by playing by the book. While this fact is a sigh of relief to FOSS project leaders, the same remark looks entirely different from a Marxist vantage point. /To a Marxist it suggests that a more systematic way of exploiting labour has been found./ Our critique must therefore not stop at the companies that violate the free licenses, or else we will fail to detect subtler forms of exploitation that sidesteps the direct point of sale." (pp 40)
"The version of the Creative Commons license were the artist preserves rights over commercial uses of her creation works in exactly the same way. Ironically, the open-ended invitation to a pool of unpaid contributors pared with a fee for commercial uses are often wrapped up in an ideological 'let the business pay, it serves them right' mentality. The foresightedness of the General Public License is underlined by that it does not permit discrimination of any kind of uses, not even commercial uses. It radically annuls exclusion as a concept and becomes all the more threatening to the world of commerce by not excluding it." (pp 41) "Ironically, the deployment of computer technology has been decisive in degrading the work elsewhere in the economy. [...] In the 1970s, baking was an endeavour coupled with physical effort and toil in a hot and sometimes hazardous milieu. On the upside, baking required artisanship and rewarded the baker with some satisfaction. In the modern work environment, computerised ovens oversee the process of baking. It is clean, user-friendly, comfortably tempered, and, by any objective measurement, more 'civilised'. But the employees are left with no clue about how to bake bread. They only know how to push a few buttons and to call a technician when the bakery machinery breaks down. [...] /The growth of the software sector, which is providing exciting new jobs for computer programmers, rests in no small part on the usefulness of software as a means for deskilling the workforce in other sectors./" (pp. 45) "The dream of managers to build away workers' discontent through black-box technologies has continuously been frustrated by hacking. [...] There is no easy way to deprive 'knowledge workers' of knowledge and still have them working." (pp. 46) "The radicalism of the FOSS development model springs exactly from the distance it places between 'doing' and the wage relation. Hackers are contributing to radical social change because they prevent the labour market from being the sole determinant over the allocation of programming resources in society. As a consequence, the economic rationality and instrumentality of technological development can not be taken for granted anymore, at least not in the computer sector. The model for developing technology invented by hackers is guided by the most non-instrumental of human activities: the play-drive. [...] The fact that the hacker movement has partially been recuperated by capital /does not falsify hacking as a radical praxis/, unless we badly want to think so. The hacker movement is in continuation with more than two hundred years of labour struggle." (pp 49) "The narrative of orthodox historical materialism corresponds with some very popular ideas in the computer underground. It is widely held that the infinite reproducibility of information made possible by computers (forces of production) has rendered intellectual property (relations of production, superstructure) obsolete. The storyline of post-industrial ideology is endorsed with a different ending. Rather than culminating in global markets, technocracy and liberalism, as Daniel Bell and the futurists would have it; hackers are looking forward to a digital gift economy and hightech anarchism." (pp 54) -- Salud! Nicolás Reynolds, xmpp:[email protected] omb:http://identi.ca/fauno blog:http://selfdandi.com.ar/ gnu/linux user #455044 http://librecultivo.org.ar http://parabolagnulinux.org