Stop American Censorship — a campaign from Fight for the Future

Stop American Censorship — a campaign from Fight for the Future

Today, 18 January 2012, we are seeking to stop SOPA and PIPA now. These two bills, the first a US House, the second a US Senate, purport to stop piracy but they are such poorly drafted bills that they actually lay the groundwork for a regime of censorship that would, as virtually every major Internet organization has recognized, destroy the freedoms that have made the Internet and Web a vehicle for economic and cultural growth.

I have proposed to the Apache OpenOffice podling, where I intermittently contribute, to support the protest.

And I blacked out my other blog, www.luispo.com, in support.

I support the protest.

And for the remainder of the day, I ask you, too, to support the protest, if not by blacking out your site or your posts, then by looking at the bills and reading over the discussions. And then by doing what is really very effective: if you are a US citizen, contact your representative and express yourself. This is an election year; your voice counts.

And if you are not a US citizen, keep this in mind: The US is hardly exceptional and the laws that are in circulation and not yet enacted, also work to diminish freedom and weaken community and return us to a regime that didn't work and cannot work this century--but which can still make the oligarchs even richer, and at your expense.

Le logiciel libre propose un potentiel d'économie incroyable | Francis A-Trudel | Économie

Le logiciel libre propose un potentiel d'économie incroyable | Francis A-Trudel | Économie

See, this is not only interesting but important. And here's a message to Ben: Let's collaborate. Change can start now. It's not a political or cultural thing, it's a simple case of legacy and momentum. There are alternatives now and choices, and we are on the brink of transmigrating to the Cloud for informatics. So now is the perfect time to choose to make data open, source open, and to decide that in the interests of all, it's best to use open standards. The alternative, a life licensed into boxed paralysis, cannot work for all, and not even all the time, for some.

'German cities following Munich's open source example' | Joinup

'German cities following Munich's open source example' | Joinup

Suppose that several key cities in Germany, such as Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn, Frankfurt--others, too--join Munich in moving, at least in part, their government offices to open source and open standards. What effect would that have on the Foss and open-standards ecosystems? For starters, once every time a major group migrates, it makes it easier for others. Not only does one--ideally--learn about what to do and not do, but also each migration spawns an ecosystem composed of small(ish) companies whose business is helping and supporting the migration. And this further aids the growth of the community, which increasingly includes contributors very interested in sustaining their business, solving client needs, and in making their own work easier by working with--collaborating--others to resolve bugs, add enhancements, and so on.

This is how a market is made, modulo 21st century technologies. It's not too different from any other time. A new technology or commodity or other product finds demand, and the suppliers rejoice, as do all the business people in the middle and periphery. Jobs are created, wealth, too, and it's overall a generally good thing, provided that the community (or in the plural) so established is able to sustain itself and is not simply a useful but temporary outgrowth of a larger business, one very much susceptible to the vagaries of the market.

For instance, here in Ontario, it seems that the largest industrial/manufacturing ecosystem depended--or depends--upon the US automotive industry. Sure, Canadians also drive these vehicles. But, as with so many other things Canadian, it really comes down to what the US buys. So, when the Lesser Depression began in 2008, and continued--continues--and the US automotive companies, once so mighty, once even defining the nature of the American economy, once they were shaken to the point of collapse, Ontario's manufacturing economy was bushwhacked. Poor planning had not provided for a real alternative, meaning that jobs lost to cars gone were jobs gone, at least until the car companies revived enough to resume their ways across the border. The point: The ecosystem up here was big and strong but depended upon the market strength of companies far removed from it and its concerns. The community so formed up here was intensely vulnerable. The solution is to establish a base that removes that vulnerability. But most cities around the world do not have the luxury of doing that. Yet some manage. Berkeley, where I pretty much lived half my life, was ridiculed by its neighbours--San Francisco, for instance, but also the much smaller and somewhat odd Emeryville--for not just ignoring the dot.com businesses of the 90s but for actually disdaining them, and favouring, instead, more or less failed efforts at re-establishing a manufacturing base by developing--way ahead of its time--electrical vehicles, for instance, as well as other things that were meant to provided *lasting* and less vulnerable jobs. The idea was not some Marxist fantasy. It was rooted in the clear perception that the dotcom boom was a bust waiting to happen and that a better future lay in making real things that real people would want because they really solved real problems. Cue to the present: Modern Web technology does not depend upon the mystery of the connection between the eyeball and the wallet. It uses Web and other Internet technology to connect, the represent and to build, and is not an end in and of itself. It's not about eyeballs--though my fellow community managers don't always seem to get this--it's about making things that last, using tools, such as the lowly mobile phone, that are now actually ubiquitous.

City, Red Hat tout Raleigh as open-source leader - Technology - NewsObserver.com

City, Red Hat tout Raleigh as open-source leader - Technology - NewsObserver.com

Raleigh is by no means an insignificant city. So there are at least a couple of things of interest here, not least being the turn to, or at least the decline of a turn away from, open source. The other is that it's Red Hat that's moving this, it seems, and not any of the other big players in Raleigh and the associated Triangle. (The Triangle is one of the key intellectual and business centres of the US, and in some ways rivals Silicon Valley, but not quite: not enough ferment of new companies.)

I look forward to see how this plays out. For instance, will there be a public sector big-scale deployment of Foss? Or is this to be a deferred action, aka lip service.

App Shopper: CloudOn (Productivity)

App Shopper: CloudOn (Productivity)

Interesting--but when I tried to download it (it's free), the message, "not available for..." this or that country came up. Perhaps that's a sign of how popular it is? For my guess is that there are many who want what I want: an app for the iPad (or equiv Android) device allowing me to create and edit (or even just edit) ODF and (yes) OOXML files.

I will actually try to contact the makers of CloudOn, to see if they are interested in working on something related for ODF. Again, I'm sure there is a market there. It is one both for enterprises and similar environments, such as public sector offices and education institutions, and those who simply want to have a tablet and not a full computer and see the tablet as something more than a purely consumer object. Yes, they can use Apple's productivity apps--they are quite good, in fact, and operate nicely with Apple's own Cloud offerings. But that Procrustean hobble cuts out a huge market.

Mozilla Public License, version 2.0

Mozilla Public License, version 2.0

So, as Luis Villa announced on a list, Mozilla Public License v. 2.0 has just been published. It's actually an interesting evolution. (Indeed, the overall evolution of open licenses bears scrutiny, as they--the licenses--are being taken as seriously as any other legal instrument.)

As Luis explains in his brief message,



What's New

The result of a two year revision process that included feedback and suggestions from the Mozilla community, users of the MPL (both community and corporate), and the broader open source legal community, MPL 2.0 contains several important changes from MPL 1.1. In particular, MPL 2.0:

is simpler and shorter, using the past 10 years of in-practice application of the license to help better understand what is and isn't necessary in an open source license.
is modernized for recent changes in copyright law, and incorporates feedback from lawyers outside the United States on issues of applicability in non-US jurisdictions.
provides patent protections for contributors more in line with those of other open source licenses, and allows an entire community of contributors to protect any contributor if they are sued.
provides compatibility with the Apache and GPL licenses, making code reuse and redistribution easier.

Apache OpenOffice (Incubating)

Apache OpenOffice (Incubating)

I suspect that finding the newly christened and newly energised project and application formerly known as "OpenOffice.org" is less than super easy for some. So, the link is there... Right now, I'm using the latest build for Mac OS X of Apache OpenOffice (thanks to Raphael Bircher!), and not only is it stable but fast. I've also added the usual extensions, etc.

And I can further view my ODF files on my iOS devices. (Android-oids can also do this, with different apps.) Increasingly, office apps will read ODF, at least ODT; some are more complete than others. Symphony's ODF reader is the lastest on the scene, and very useful. I do wish I could edit--at least minimally--the ODF files, without converting them or having to use an online Web service. But I'd guess that won't come into play until yet more enterprises demand it by their acts alone, such as giving out iPads to employees.

H.P.’s TouchPad, Some Say, Was Built on Flawed Software - NYTimes.com

H.P.’s TouchPad, Some Say, Was Built on Flawed Software - NYTimes.com

This is a fascinating article, in particular:


Mr. Mercer gained fame at Apple as a software designer for the first iPod, and Palm recruited him in 2007 to help create the Pre. After some internal debate, the company chose to have WebOS rely on WebKit, an open-source software engine used by browsers to display Web pages. Mr. Mercer said that this was a mistake because it prevented applications from running fast enough to be on par with the iPhone. But a former member of the WebOS app development team said the core issue with WebOS was actually Palm’s inability to turn it into a platform that could capture the enthusiasm and loyalty of outside programmers. There were neither the right leaders nor the right engineers to do the job, said this person, who declined to be named because he still had some ties to H.P.

From concept to creation, WebOS was developed in about nine months, this person said, and the company took some shortcuts. With a project like this, programmers typically start by creating the equivalent of building blocks that can be reused and combined to create different applications. But with WebOS, Palm employees initially constructed each app from scratch. Later, they made such blocks, but they were overhauled once by Palm and then again by H.P., forcing programmers to relearn how to build WebOS apps.

Another issue was recruiting. In 2009, it was hard to find programmers who had a keen understanding of WebKit, Mr. Mercer said, and Apple and Google had already snatched up most of the top talent.



The narrative I read is that a community failed to coalesce around the project and it did so because a) the code was inapt--proprietary, and architected with a proprietary developer group in mind; and b) there was no forethought and no figure or apparatus to bring in developers.

Apple's iOS is famously closed but the charisma of Jobs transcended that huge fence because it promised an exciting market--the point not being (or not being only) money but the excitement of others using as well as devising competing products. That's a compelling, intoxicating complex and its produced wonderful things. (We see a more diluted form of this in Android, simply because Android utterly lacks a charismatic lead who mysteriously figures the market and all its promises.)

So, what can be done to fix this problem with WebOS? Probably, the answer lies in the description of the problem. And the same could be said for RIM's new OS. To form a successful community of app developers there has to be the exciting flux that what one does will be appreciated not only by the consumer (sigh....) but by one's peers--who, if they like the idea, will probably try to one-up it: which is to say, take it seriously, even if they think they can do what you did better.

Put another way, it's not about consumers only. It's really about engaging an open community. The former leads to what we've seen and will continue to see (just wait for MSFT/Nokia?): irrelevance. The latter to ... interesting life and huge markets.

BBC News - Man sued for keeping company Twitter followers

BBC News - Man sued for keeping company Twitter followers

The article cited above is about Noah Kravitz, who gained his far more than 15 mins of fame earlier this fall when his previous employer sued him for "taking" Twitter followers with him upon his departure from the company.

It's a tricky issue, and one that has particularly concerned me. My own claim to fame derives, in no small part, I am sure, from my role with OpenOffice.org. I've tried, always, to distinguish what I do strictly on behalf of OOo, on behalf of OOo's corporate sponsors and my (former) employers, and on behalf of my own interests.

It gets complicated fast, as my own personal interests overlap those of the others'. For instance, I'm interested in open source, open standards, social media, and the theory and practice of developing community. What's more, I've been interested in these issues since at least my first year in college, when I joined the UC Berkeley Student Cooperative Association (USCA) and by the next year was the youngest elected Workshift Manager (think: community manager but having to coordinate all jobs all the time) and then the youngest member to the university-wide USCA board of directors. (I also held several other positions.) How communities work, whether they be cooperatives or collaboratives or some other form of commons-based peer production networks and how to keep them together, so that things that need to get done actually are done, and that everyone more or less agrees with doing those things--all this has long coloured my working life. It also, in a perverse way, shaped my dissertation: I wrote on the romance of the vagabond (tramp) in the US at the turn of the 19th/20th century. The vagabond, or tramp, as the romantics like Twain and others called him, was a community disruptor. Of course, his disruptions enabled and indeed strengthened the affected community, for he figured a threat that unified those making up the community. It's an old story.

Open source relates in abstract ways: it works (as advertised, say) because of the community, which adds a kind of value that intramural employees can sometimes exceed but which is essentially unlimited in its boundaries, unlike corporate walls. But that's the nature of community and its difference from corporations; and it also points to the great difficulty of commodifying the productive community. One can easily put a price on a corporation. Corporate boundaries exist, in part, just for that reason. A peer network, on the other hand, cannot be priced--and indeed, perhaps the historical record of the transition from commons to property can provide a useful analogy--I'm thinking of the British enclosure movement, which more or less is coeval with the rise of the modern liberal (and propertied) state. But that shift was literally violent, and there seems to be (so far?) little violence associated with free software and any migration it might undergo to privatization. In part, that's no doubt because free- and open-source software *starts* from a position of property. It's not a denial of property nor of any of its rights. Rather, it's an extension of it, but instead of limiting access, open source enables it; by the same token, it limits how one can privatize it, and some licenses are more hostile to privatization than others.

As individuals, when we join a community, we thus have to be clear as to what will happen to the intellectual property we contribute: who owns it and for how long? That is, will rights revert to me? And what can I claim about my contribution? But these questions pertain more to copyright assignment. Some community projects require contributors, for one reason or another, to assign the copyright of their contribution to the project. Usually, "the project" means the governing and organizing foundation that will then disinterestedly manage all contributions. (Ideally, the foundation is not beholden to a primary corporation/contributor/sponsor. If it were, there would likely be a failure--or at least questioning--of trust.) We then join productive communities and participate as essentially rational beings (in the classical economic sense), able not only to understand the (immediate and longterm) value of our contribution but able also to act rationally on that basis. Of course, that, like most other planks making up the classical economic ship is fiction. Indeed, part of the lure of community is precisely to get us to act exuberantly (famous word....): in excess of reason--but also in a way that fulfills our enthusiasm.

I tend to believe that for a great many, it's as much the love of what community offers as the value one invests that makes "community" now so immensely important--even regardless whether the community in question is a production or consuming one. (Disclosure: my current work relates to what I've done all my life, only in a more effective and refined way: making community, and using--as needed and strategically [fancy way of saying, "with some idea of what I'm doing"] the ever-evolving social media tools, coupled with another key driver for me, "marketing.") And I also tend to believe that our love of community is sort of like our love of and ability to use--our capability for--language, especially as Chomsky would present it: as something essential to being human. And you cannot carve that quality into quantity and price it, though you can--and this is done all the time--price specific instances.

But identifying and then applying, and doing so consistently and coherently, the boundaries making up a community, especially one that is characterized as economically essential to the production of a commodity sold by a private company, and distinguishing those boundaries from one's own is difficult. It's easy to say, "If you do something on company time, it's the company's." But if you are fully salaried, there is no moment in time when you are not operating on company time and representing the company. Some company's will allott you private time, say, or loosen the legal identity so that you can represent yourself as yourself, without implicating the company in any way. But that's a rarity, though I expect the logic of community participation social media has made and is making possible will force a change in that. Kravtiz' instance is an interesting case, and it's not by any means unique.

For if the historical corporation "owned" your time and implicitly all you did, and therefore all your representations, at least as long as you were employed by them (and for whatever period after you agreed to), the modern corporation must now also deal not only with your multiple engagements, via social media but also, arguably, what you did prior to your employment. (It's Calvinism/Puritanism yet again.) The company can simply decree that no blogs, no Tweets, no other equivalent public communication is permitted without authorization. That will naturally dampen enthusiasm, but the company that decrees that sort of policy also clearly does not really see any value gained by enthusiastic speech. Or, the company can articulate a nuanced approach, and some speech is the employees and other is not. How do--or should--shareholders then view the private rantings of a senior executive? Of course, such an executive is probably a fool for ranting publicly in the first place, modern technology or not; but move it down a notch and the question remains as a fact. Shareholder value is frequently determined by the actions and speech of the company decision makers and producers, and evaluating speech extra-mural speech makes the overall valuation of the company more difficult. It's not unlike the situation of the late 90s, when a company's worth was determined by how many page hits--eyeballs--it received, even if revenue was hardly commensurate with popularity. The belief was that at some future date, the page hit would translate to hard cash. A blog post or Tweet is quite different, but it still suggests a dimension of valuation that is must be appreciated on its own terms and which cannot easily be converted--metrically or any other way--to coins. (This is not an argument *for* privacy as such; it's rather an observation that community today is a manifold unsettling traditional, fixed and bounded corporate modes of valuation. And that this new modality of creating value--the community way--implies virtues that potentially exceed the traditional.)