I've been reading with interest what you guys have said here and I think all of you have a point.
My take is that the four freedoms are not enough, and that the divide between programmers and non-programmers is artificial.
That divide was deliberately created by big corporations when they decided code shouldn't be inspectable. That way the "developer class" is bribed into compliance and isolated from the rest of the working class.
@ekaitz_zarraga But that wasn't all.
The worst problem we have right now is the WWW, which has become a delivery mechanism for "applications" (Surprise!) that can't be inspected. (Again, surprise!)
We followed the rules, so they took over the W3C and we kept supporting those corporate standards as FOSS.
They have fooled us twice. Will they fool us for the third time around again?
Chances are that they may succeed in fooling us again if they take hold of the VR cyberspace.
It's still early days, but there's plenty of encroachment there already.
We need to take back the inspectable desktop, and we need to take back the docuverse/hypertext, and we need to create the conditions for some pockets of freedom to persist and enable for the Third Great War even if FOSS and the www fail.
@ekaitz_zarraga The only way we will be able to succeed in our own terms is if we make the desktop GUI and the Docuverse inspectable, usable, and empowering for everyone, without exception.
That Fifth Freedom should be non-negotiable.
Armed with that, we will be in much better footing to offer a meaningful response when Facebook/Oculus/Google/Microsoft/Apple decide they want everyone on Earth to be hooked to the VR cyberspace.
@haitch @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz @abbienormal @alexbuzzbee In the beginning of the web there was a cultural assumption of the right to remix. People constantly "stole" in the artistic sense from each other, code, images, jokes etc.
Then copyright followed the big corps in.
I remember realizing early on that the web had needed a licence: by publishing, you submit your content to the creative commons with edit rights.
The problem in capitalism is how do we ensure that creators get rewarded (not publishing houses, record labels, and other middlemen).
With things like IPFS we don't need central registry. But we need to complete the puzzle to avoid the best creators being co-opted by capital.
@haitch @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz @abbienormal @alexbuzzbee Middlemen aren't inherently bad. They evolve because they serve purposes that are legit jobs, eg curating and then promoting good content. That's often very valuable, highly skilled work.
They're only a problem when they acquire too much power while becoming obsolete, eg big record co's in the internet and social media era.
@byron I recognise the problems and that's why I propose solutions that might actually work, instead of repeating the same mistakes.
I don't see curators as middlemen, curators do a kind of collaborative or derivative work in association with artists, same as producers, and other people who apply their specialised knowledge to the task of releasing a better artistic work.
That's not what we understand as "middlemen" in English.
At the core, publishing and record labels are middlemen who curate what's worth sharing, and invest time and resources to coach talent, edit, produce and promote good work to a larger audience. That's valuable.
What gets rotten is when they get big with monopolistic power and no longer do their job.
@haitch @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz @abbienormal @alexbuzzbee A built-in free publishing licence *might* have changed the face of the web, forcing companies to join the remix revolution and make their money in other ways. For a time.
But I also agree that ultimately it's hard to fight. Generally people want to get paid in remuneration or reputation, and often both.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!