Re: [GNU/consensus] <unlike-us> [Unlike-us-tech] About D-CENT - fork to unlike-us-tech list

[hellekin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 10/02/2014 08:23 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> 
>> I understand some people are paranoid, but again, come back when you
>> have a real analysis.
>
*** Qui se sent morveux se mouche.

> 
> I read, on page 4: "Why open standards? Why not just open-source? For
> many programmers, using open-source software - or the more restrictive
> "free software" as defined by GPL licensing - is enough."
> 
> That is obviously an attack on software freedom. The wording here leaves
> no doubt that the author of that paper want to shun free software
> (written in quotes!) by calling it restrictive, and pose open-source as
> a legitimate, but insufficient "model".
> 
>> No, but the GPL licensing is not enough - as even the FSF admits.
>
*** See how you turn my remark on its head, by focusing on the only word
I did not mention.  I come again: 'the more restrictive "free
software"'.  So, you still do not agree that this wording is intentional
shunning?  As someone who's been working with words, I can tell you
that, especially when working with a team, that kind of sentences is not
due to sloppiness, or one of a very incredible nature.

>> For example, you could have real patents and still have copyright.
>
*** Right.  There's no question here.  Copyleft is intentionally working
within the framework of Copyright.  And you're right that software
patents are a very dangerous issue.  Actually, they came as a way to
restrict software freedom, because the GPL was working so well.  So yes,
invention exists in the legal world.  But still, you're using GPL and
AGPL, so I don't understand why mentioning open-source and 'the more
restrictive "free software"'.  In the logic of battling software
patents, obviously, open-source is more restrictive than free software,
because not only it allows patents, but it also allows proprietary
software.  So I'm glad you're basing your work on the AGPL and GPL.

>> The W3C is the strongest model we have for fighting against software
>> patents.
>
*** Would you care to explain the specificity of the W3C model that
allows fighting against software patents?  The IETF has explicit clauses
(5.5 of BCP 78, and BCP 79) to prevent appropriation of shared
technology, but I'm not familiar with similar conditions at W3C that
make it a model.

>> That's why the Free Software Foundation has people in the
>> Social Web Working Group W3C started (which D-CENT is funding
>> currently):
> 
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg
>
*** Great.  I would happily join it, but you already made clear that
privacy-by-design technologies based on peer-to-peer frameworks are not
the scope of that working group.  Therefore I don't really understand
how you're willing to thwart global surveillance, by keeping using the
same overloaded tubes.

>> Also please actually try to read the paper :)
>
*** Are you saying I didn't do my homework?  I suggest you read my
proposals in Ritimo, which are more up-to-date than what I wrote two
years ago for the GNU consensus manifesto.  I you had, you would know
that I've been considering OStatus and OAuth as problematic since then.
[0][1]

> 
> It attributes the failure of the Diaspora* project to its licensing,
> framing the technology, rather than the invention, and its obvious lack
> of compatibility with the existing environment, as the problem.  It
> proceeds to attack peer-to-peer technologies as a whole, with the same
> lack of perspective, simply to push a unique agenda of shedding light to
> some technologies that we know cannot address the global surveillance
> issue that we've been submitted to.
> 
>> As someone who worked with Ilya on looking at the standardization
>> interop and knew him, he agreed with the need for open standards in
>> addition to free software. His death was a great loss to our wider
>> community.
>
*** Wow, what was that?  As someone who believed in Santa Claus when I
was a kid, I deplore its loss as well.  Now who would not be sorry to
have lost Ilya?  That does not come close to address anything I
mentioned.  Your happily side-tracking any issues that come forward to you.

>> And again, if you have a technology that solves all the problems of
>> global surveillance, I'd be all ears.
>
*** I doubt it, because you know exactly where I stand.

>> Note that as I was just with Pablo two days ago, and we did contact
>> those folks at the proposal, who at the time are were more interested
>> in Bitcoin than maintaining or upgrading Lorea.
>
*** That's plain wrong.  The first version of the paper was purely based
on Lorea: it was mentioning Elgg, Ostatus federation, etc.  At that
time, you didn't bother contacting address@hidden, nor post
anything on the Lorea group of N-1.  Your channels were wrong.  And
Pablo went on to work on DarkWallet much after that first publication.
The current publication does not rip off so much Lorea because indeed,
that project has been left alone without much attention, and that's a
pity.  Undoubtedly, when Lorea was interesting and D-Cent ripped it off,
it would have been much better to join forces instead.  But now D-Cent
has moved on to other technologies, although I read the mention of
OStatus as a courtesy to legacy applications.  Few people are interested
in that anymore.

>> Instead, Jacques Toret and IN3
>
*** Some context may be missing.

>> is managing the user-studies of people's behavior on Lorea
>
*** Interesting.

>> I do agree with James Boggs, who said any "revolution must be
>> majoritarian".  I'd rather see security and privacy for *everyone*,
>> not just a few people. 
> 
*** I guess I can agree with some of that.  This is why I'm convinced
energy must be put on inventing techniques that satisfy the basis for
thwarting global surveillance, making it not only difficult, but
impossible.  *Everyone* is not going to happen anytime soon.  States and
corporations won't let Facebook or Google suddenly go dark.  The
majority will keep using slaveware as long as pressure goes.  It's not
like if there were billions of dollars depending on it <g>.  So, if your
target is everyone, and I'd rather stay away from absolutes, you'd
better stop shunning free software in the discourse even if, and
especially as you're supporting it in the facts.  Poor wording is how
false promises are made, and a basic tactics of co-opting.

==
hk

[0] http://www.plateforme-echange.org/spip.php?article104 (Spanish)
http://www.plateforme-echange.org/spip.php?article102 (French) you're
welcome to provide funds for an English translation

[1] https://gnu.org/consensus/manifesto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=NRi5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----