Re: Should distros take steps to reduce russian access to Free Software?

[Aaron Wolf]

I agree with most of that, but I don't accept the idea that centralized 
vs decentralized is simply a questions of personal inclination/assumptions.

I think we can recognize shared concerns about ethics and consider that 
the structure of power might be a pragmatic implementation issue. It 
might be too abstract to easily pin down, but I don't think centralized 
vs decentralized is a matter of opinion or of ethics. It's a question of 
risk and potential. What do we risk and what do we lose with either 
centralized or decentralized power?

Software freedom as a focus argues against centralized power 
specifically in terms of control over computing. The argument isn't just 
opinion. I see it as claiming that companies and governments having 
control over computing by others is unjust because it stifles and limits 
all sorts of legitimate and ethical uses of computing and because rather 
than primarily block unethical actions, the centralized powers often use 
their power unethically.

I'd like to hear others' insights and perspectives on this question.

On 2022-03-13 01:51, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Il 13/03/22 05:52, Aaron Wolf ha scritto:
> > The inventors of nuclear technology might feel guilty about their role 
> > in the threat of nuclear war, but it's too late now to undo that.
>
> The same is true or any invention or creation. You can hope to keep it 
> secret if it's so dangerous, but once it's out there in the world, it's 
> too late. If you restrict access, chances are only the worst actors will 
> get access to it.
>
> This concern about dangerous software seems related more to trade 
> secrets than to copyright. Keeping something secret so that nobody knows 
> about it is a completely different kind of problem than "what's the best 
> copyright regime for the use of this work by copyright-complying 
> entities". Making it public but regulating its usage by private actors 
> is more likely to be a matter of patenting and the like. (If a software 
> is so dangerous, it must be for the ideas/inventions it contains, rather 
> than for the creativity of the specific software implementation.)
>
> As usual, the "intellectual property" bandwagon probably makes people 
> more confused. People often forget the basics, so it's useful to spread 
> pages where trade secrets and patents are discussed, like:
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents
>
> As for the example of nuclear, it's not particularly useful because any 
> conclusion depends entirely on your personal assumptions, particularly 
> about whether centralised power is good or bad. If you like centralised 
> power, you will argue for more trade secrets, more patents, stricter 
> copyright; and vice versa. I would argue that nuclear catastrophe has 
> been avoided due to popular pressure and decentralised actions of 
> responsible people, more than by exercise of central power, therefore I 
> would argue for less secrets, less patents and less copyright restrictions.
>
> See for instance how Stanislav Petrov saved the world:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
>
> He was able to make the correct decision because he knew some details 
> about how the alert systems worked. If he had trusted the software, we 
> would not be talking now. More transparency (at least internal, possibly 
> external too) would increase the chances of such correct interpretations.
>
> Federico