[fsf-community-team] Re: Welcome to the "fsf-community-team" mailing list

[Frangipani Bilbao]

Hi here's my short introduction. I'm a phd candidate in international
politics and jazz musician. I read international political news, and
follow Linux News as well as having some activity through myspace and
facebook. Most of the things I follow are academic journals and their
associated mailing lists; some of the topics include society and
technology, cultural studies, politics/technology, political studies,
gender and politics etc.

I read the five articles with interest. I have some experience with WIPO
and the idea of intellectual property from having worked in a firm that
tries to protect such rights (I'm not proud of that blemish in my
professional career) and doing research on counterfeiting.

As far as topics to concentrate on, there's noting in particular. My
weakest point is probably the technical side of computing, programming,
etc. ; I've only been using gnu/linux for just over two years, so though
I'm not a total noob, I dare say that side is probably best left to
specialists as far as details go.

On to the questions:

Richard Stallman started the FSF in order to promote open source
software like the Linux operating system, as an alternative to expensive
software like Windows.

It is inaccurate to to say "Linux operating system" since "linux" itself
is just a part of the operating system (the kernel). The operating
system as such should be referred to as GNU/Linux. GNU itself is an
recursive acronym which stands for G(NU) is Not Unix. Though GNU/Linux
is an alternative to expensive software, the point behind the idea of
free software is the FREEDOM to run the software, and modify, study, or
distribute it with or without changes, rather than it costing nothing.
Free software is free irrespective of whether it costs money or not.
Moreover, the FSF is about free software, not open source software; one
of the key differences being that the former suggests an ethical
philosophy of freedom, whilst the latter is associated with a
methodology for improving software most effectively. In the words of
RMS,

    "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social
    movement. For the free software movement, free software is an
    ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users'
    freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues
    in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense
    only."

Now with cloud computing and web-based applications, even Linux users
can use the same software as everyone else, through their browsers. With
other popular programs like Skype and Adobe Flash producing Linux
versions, the Linux desktop may finally be catching on!

To say that the Linux Desktop (sic.) may finally be catching up misses
the point that GNU/Linux and Free Software is going out of its way not
to catch up with proprietary software, but instead is aiming to promote
an ethic of freedom in software design and use. From this point of view,
Free Software is actually way, way ahead. GNU/Linux and Free Software
users do not want to use the same software as "everyone else" simply
because to do so reinforces the patterns of domination that proprietary
software firms have established, not to mention that proprietary
software is more often than not limiting even on a technical level. To
suggest that one should do as "everyone else" implies that there is
something wrong or lacking in with Free Software or its users, when in
reality it is the other way around. Moreover it suggests that one should
just do as everyone else is doing: to promote proprietary software
companies' ideals of (self) limitation and exploitation.

When combined with the other chapters that include statutory damages,
search and seizure powers for border guards, anti-camcording rules, and
mandatory disclosure of personal information requirements, it is clear
that there is no bigger intellectual property issue today than the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement being negotiated behind closed doors this week in Korea.

I haven't been following intellectual property issues in detail for some
time, mainly due to the distaste they bring on. One thing that I think
is important to keep in mind when discussing the WIPO and the
international treaties it promotes, is that, like all international law,
these regulations (they are not laws) are established by the strong,
liberal, democratic states (read: influential, powerful) to keep all
other States in line with their interests. Furthermore, they are
regulations only to the extent that the powerful states, and often even
the weak ones, uphold them only when they either don't much care about
them, or when it is in their interest to do so.  However, as with all
international "law", if you are not a party to a treaty, then it does
not apply to you. There is no international police force that might
force you to comply (despite the New American Century's calls for a
world (i.e. US) policeman). Moreover, to ratify a treaty does not
preclude you from withdrawing if you see fit to do so. To call another
state "criminal", as for instance the US does in regard to the DPRK and
its alleged infringements against intellectual property law is
ludicrous, since the very terms "criminal", as well as the terms
"alleged" and "infringement"only make sense within the framework of
domestic law (which does not apply in international cases).  As
individuals, we are unfortunately left to deal with and operate in the
shadow of the political games that a handful of politicians and
diplomats play. For us they are laws, for them, useful (or not) devices.