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
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss