what is the open movement?
So a few Montreal geeky types convened at the Office (aka Laika) for a sort-of impromptu discussion to try to figure out what the hell is going on in the world, and specifically what this “Open Movent” might be, and what connections we can draw (if any) between it’s various strands: that is, are there any connection between:
- Software: Free Software/Open Source (eg. FSF)
- Data: Access to Government/Civic Data (eg. Howtheyvote)
- Art/Media (eg. Creative Commons, LibriVox)
- Infrastructure (eg. ilesansfil.org)
- Hardware (eg. $100 laptop)
- Information (eg. wikipedia)
- Scientific Research (eg. open journals)
- Education (eg. UC Berkley podcasts, MIT OpenCourseWare)
- Patents on Life - and those opposing it (eg. GRAIN)
- What else should I add here?
The group was mainly geeks, and unfortunately Devlin couldn’t make it. That’s too bad because Devlin isn’t a geek, and works in agricultural IP issues, mostly in the South (ie developing countries) and his take on things might have helped us find the root we couldn’t grasp: biotech/IP issues are important in those countries because they have a direct impact on farmers’ choices about how they feed their families, how they live - if they can feed their families - and so are, in some sense, more critical than what we were talking about.
But I feel that there is an important link between all these things, a link that is very difficult to articulate because all these “sectors” talk in very different words, and are motivated by very different things. The hard-core geeks and the creative commons artistic freedom fighters are not necessarily talking about the same things, and probably wouldn’t agree on much.
Julien assigned me the task of summarizing the 1.5 hr discussion, but I don’t think I’ll do that. It would be a disservice, and I’m much more interested in what those attending have to say themselves (get writing!) than trying to interpret what they had to say, and butchering their thoughts in the process. Still, what I’ll try to do is summarize my perspective of things, after trying to absorb the discussions. I’ll probably leave out things like “I think” and “in my opinion” and “as steve said” etc…Take what comes below as an open reflection that could encourage comment & discussion, and not exactly my categorical statement of Reality in the Universe (although it might sound like that).
To start with, there are links, they are important, and figuring out what those links are is important. But all these “new movements” are in fact not new at all: the various principles the intellectual movements are built on (say: freedom, equality, access to data/information) are all old successful ideas. Ideas that are compelling because they appeal to successful and enduring notions in many cultures. For instance: sharing is good (kindergarten class #1), everyone should have access to knowledge (public libraries, public schools), a society should try to give everyone the same opportunities - ie you shouldn’t be explicitly barred from doing something because of race, creed, colour; but we might not do too much to help you.
These ideas are not at all universal, but just happen to be prevailing ideas of our particularly successful (ie good at economic & military dominance) western liberal democracies. We happen to be at the top of the heap right now. Meaning we’ve been successful, but not necessarily meaning that the Universe has designated us Kings of the Planet.
Note also: Not everyone is motivated by such abstract ideas. This is something that Mike speaks of with great passion from his experience at ISF: many people are involved because they like coding, they like wires & antennae, they like fiddling with projects, tinkering, building. That they’re doing something for the “good of humanity” (freedom etc) might be important to some, but it’s certainly not the universal motivator. Some couldn’t care less.
So here’s what I think: Humans are programmed to find ways to overcome environmental challenges, and to get pleasure from overcoming them (which encourages them to overcome them). If you look at the history of human civilization, you could look at it as a series of problems: access to water, access to food, access to heat/energy, access to clothing, access to shelter, access to mates. “Civilization” is an evolving process which morphs based on a lack of any combination of those, and cultures develop as codified ways to meet those needs, in more and more complex ways, generally for more people. Wars start when one culture’s need for one thing rams up against another culture’s need for another; successful cultures are the ones that win wars, and gain access to what they need; or cultures that succeed in negotiating in some non-war way. Unsuccessful cultures don’t win the wars, and get denied access to varying degrees. Similarly within a culture you’ve got warring factions all fighting for bits of the stuff that satisfies those needs. And the drive for wealth, the drive for power etc. is a sensible thing to have within the system of a culture because it means that the culture, as a system, will be driven to maintain access to the things which fulfil those base needs. As the world & it’s cultures get more complex, this need is abstracted out to other things. So you get art, computer games, religion etc. But in a way that’s just a fetishized expression of the same thing. (That guy’s pyramid, whatever his name is). Even when you have all the water, food, mates etc you could possibly want, your drive to solve those problems is still there; your drive to solve problems full-stop is still there. Otherwise you would fade away. That drive to solve problems manifests itself in art, in the joy of coding, in building bookshelves…anytime you “do” something, accomplish something, build something, and you feel good about it, you’ve filling that need; and the pleasure you get out of it is a genetic signal that you’re a functioning human. There are of course exceptions, but bear with me.
So: Humans are happiest when they build things (whether that’s a poem, a bridge, a printer driver code, or a field of corn, a new way to generate energy, a library, a community of freedom-fighting geeks). Let’s say we are genetically (culturally?) programmed to get satisfaction from completing tasks, making something. Some tasks are more fulfilling than others, but in general even completing excruciatingly boring tasks results in a pleasing feeling. You can describe this in many different ways, but we generally feel pride and happiness about accomplishments.
We use various tools to accomplish these tasks, to build things & do things. Hammers and ibooks, and apple scripts, paintbrushes, shovels, encyclopedias, calculators. And people who are driven to build things (say, the tinkerers, the programmers, the car buffs and the CEOs, the politicians & the activists) are pretty pissed when they are told that they cannot make the tools they use better. So when, for instance, a software company gives you a tool to do a job, and you say to yourself, this is OK but what I really want is THIS; but the software company says: you cannot change the tool to do THIS, you can only do THAT. Well that pisses off someone who has a job to do, an inefficient tool, the means to make that bad tool into a good tool; but gets artificially prevented from improving that tool by IP protections. That, I think, is the root of the Free Software movement. That a non-free software system that doesn’t allow tool users to use tools the way they want, and to improve those tools offends their general desire to build things and do things. If you have a bad tool and the means to make it a good tool, it’s really shitty not to be able to make it a good tool.
Now you can abstract THAT out to everything else related. Art, data, scientific research, education, seeds etc. are all tools used to solve problems. Those problems could be very base & important (how do I feed my family), or very trivial (how do I make a better songlist in iTunes), but we are driven to DO these things and build these things and solve problems; and that we are driven this way means that we as a species are good at overcoming environmental challenges. ie It has been essential for our survival that this be the case.
So I *think* this open movement is about something very fundamental to the survival of the human species, that is: we want the ability to get and use tools to solve whatever problems we deem worth solving.
The free movement is about defending this fundemental need of humans to use tools as they wish, for purposes they wish, and with whatever modifications they wish. And the different strands grow out of different people’s interest in different tools (encyclopedias or bits of code, or music samples). So we are against:
- DRM that says you can use this piece of art only like this
- proprietary software that says you can only use this software the way we want you to use it, and you cannot make it better to do what you need
- closed government data systems that say, we will manage & interpret the data for you, the way we decide to do it
- IP protected seeds, that say you may plant these seeds only as we tell you, and if you pay us
- closed scientific journals that say: you can get access to this scientific knowledge only if you pay us this much money
- information/education systems that say: you can only have this knowledge under these conditions
- communiction infrastructure that says: you may exchange data and information like this, and with these charges associated
And we are for: Allowing humans to use their tools as they see fit, and to modify their tools if they want to modify them so that they are better at solving problems. By “opening” this stuff up, we give humans access to more data and more ability to solve problems (trivial, critical) in creative ways. The Open movement has huge implications for the future survival of cultures, and perhaps the species.
NOTE about participants (ie people who happened to be there): brett (videoblogger & film maker), mike (isf founder & general free movement spitter), robin (anarchist software developer), steve (builder of opensource tools for scientific collaboration), julien (ace podcaster), and me (in my LibriVox hat, I guess). Ella, an artist & blogger and non-boy popped over to our table a couple of times, but I think we were stupidly much less welcoming than we should have been - more out of intentness of our conversation than anything conscious - and I would like to personally apologize for that.
Hey, where was that announced? How could I miss such an event? Please give me a couple of days of heads up for the next one…
Comment by Sylvain — March 23, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
ha ha! it got bigger by accident. it was meant to be a way for me to introduce brett & mike l to my friend devlin (who didn’t even show up). brett wanted to meet robin too - so i sent robin an email; steve and julien were at Laika (so was Ella!) … and so what was a little intro coffee became something a bit bigger.
But i think everyone wants to do it again.
Comment by hugh — March 23, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
Aw, thanks, that’s really nice, I appreciate it.
Comment by Ella — March 24, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, so let me just pop in a note or two.
1) There’s a lot of assumptions here. e.g.:
“As the world & it’s cultures get more complex, this need is abstracted out to other things. So you get art, computer games, religion etc. But in a way that’s just a fetishized expression of the same thing.”
It’s very difficult to say with any honest sincerity that we KNOW these things. A lot of them are logical assumptions based on our point of view (which in a lot of ways was not massively diverse). That’s (one reason) why I appreciate Michael - he isn’t the typical libertarian Open-movement extremist, he questions things a lot. There need to be more people like that… but this discussion is older than time and isn’t about to be resolved.
2) Reasons behind a thing do not solve problems. The Buddha would say “if you have been shot by an arrow and are dying, will you take the time to analyze what kind of arrow it is, what the arrowhead is made out of, etc.?” If the purpose of this kind of environment was to find a source and try to work together, I prefer taking actions to trying to find out the source. So more discussion? Sure. But not discussion til the end of time; rather, discuss until we get a direction, and then talk as we go. Progress is made that way, mistakes are made that way, and mistakes are corrected that way, not by sitting in the sitting room smoking cigars and debating the nature of mankind.
Comment by julien — March 24, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
re: point 1: “It’s very difficult to say with any honest sincerity that we KNOW these things.” Oh I definitely agree & there are many assumptions here…but I think humans have this bizarre tendency to consider ourselves something special and other than the rest of the universe, whereas I consider us as just a grouping of organisms that live within an environment same as any other group of organisms (bacteria, fish & kangaroos etc). My personl theory is that our cultures evolve in certain ways to overcome environmental challenges of one kind or another, so if you want to ask a pragmatic question: does this or that cultural decision make us better or worse at overcoming problems? I think open source/open data/open art does make us a more healthy innovative culture, and makes us better at overcoming problems. that’s a pragmatic argument I put forward. But there’s also questions of freedom and self-actualization or whatever, but my suggestion is that those things are actually valued by us in part because they help us be “successful” individuals and successful cultures. There’s a shifting defn about what “successful” means, but in a way it means successful at doing whatever it is you want to do (as an individual or a culture).
re: 2…the background was (i think) mike trying to figure out what open source geeks might have in common with say enviro lefties. the thinkers imagine a connection, but the two groups do not talk the same language. ditto, say, small farmers in the philippines vs. librivox volunteers. but perhaps one group can learn something from the other, perhaps not. But I agree, the interesting thing is the projects that get done, not the talking that happens about them.
Comment by hugh — March 24, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
i disagree with you, julien. i think there needs to be a whole lot more talking. because rushing around acting without having much of a clue *why* or what we’re working towards - as i often feel - seems pretty dangerous. especially if we’re successful.
it’s not like there’s *too* much talking going on right now. in fact, there’s basically none.
if I’m wrong - please url-slap me with 10 good examples. i would totally digg it.
Comment by mtl3p — March 24, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
I made an attempt at a video reply, although text is so far kicking the shit out of video on this one…
http://www.etherworks.ca/archives/2006/03/open_movement/
Comment by brett — March 25, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
A sense of singularity
A singularity is that beyond which predictions are impossible to make. It’s where progress and evolution distinguish one another. The former is controlled, with milestones, a direction and criterias to measure success. The latter is emergent, wit…
Trackback by IM2 | OQP — March 25, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
I finally read your post. I knew it was there, but wanted to get mine before I felt your influence. I think we touched on the same things, trying to define humanity thru our dim lense and coming to very similar conclusions.
Unfortunately, none of this gives any hint to what should we do next… like setting a date, a series of presentations, something…
Comment by Robin — March 25, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
For me this discussion crystalized a very important notion for me: why we are doing what we are doing. or rather why I think we ought to continue doing what we are doing. And the answer (or at least my answer) is that the open movement will make us better able, as a culture and as individuals, to solve problems.
This totally shifts the discussion away from the very subjective notion of Rights, Freedom, Morality etc. to something very different: a pragmatic argument. I am suggesting that blocking the open movement is dangerous because it will make us less able to solve problems.
This gives one framework for arguing the case which (i think) is compelling in a way the morality arguments aren’t. Many people do not share the moral stance of the Free Software/Culture crusader (or at least the caricature).
That is, the crux of the argument is not about things being Free, but rather Freedom to use and improve things as “we” see fit. That’s the fundamental “right” that’s being violated. And violated with great danger because gives us less ability to make better tools to solve problems (major and minor).
Comment by hugh — March 25, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
hugh - even though I don’t totally agree - i’m much fonder of this argument. I mean - we have to value rights for a reason, no? You at least are giving an argument for defending certain rights.
Comment by mtl3p — March 25, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
well i think it helps bridge the gap between, for instance, the ISF coding guys and the Creative Commons Free Art people in a way that means they can agree to fight the same fight, together, without having to believe in the same moral/political values. perhaps they do share moral/political values, but this frames the question in a way that makes it easier for them to agree. (maybe).
It doesn’t at all mean that the other battles aren’t important, but it is one suggestion for a common language, where before that common language wasn’t so sure.
Comment by hugh — March 25, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
just on the principle that it’s better to have 100 smart guys working on a puzzle in public than 10 smart guys working on it in private.
to me, it’s all about framing the argument. once you frame it appropriately (as we are getting closer to doing), it becomes far more self-evident, and in doing so, can get far many more people involved.
Comment by julien — March 27, 2006 @ 2:54 am
Liberty, not freedom. Animals are free, humans must strive for liberty. This is fundamental, not just semantics.
Also, while I generally agree that clarification of goals and purposes is “a good thing”, please let us know at which point to stop, lest we become card-carrying, banner waving… “-ists”. Love your hockey team, but do not become a hooligan.
Comment by Boris Anthony — March 28, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
Nice catch, Boris. I always keep this quote by Wendell Phillips in mind: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” (1852).
Comment by Robin — March 29, 2006 @ 2:01 am
When our access to knowledge is impeded, our survival as a species is threatened, as it is only knowledge which allows us to survive. Knowledge which may seem trivial in one moment may become vital in the next. When knowledge is closed off or proprietary it is our ability to survive and thrive that is at stake. Free flow and sharing of information is essential to a free (or liberated) society, as more, and better choices become available to us when we have more and better information. This is especially important for those who are currently socially or economically disenfranchised with all the information locked up.
Comment by Ella — March 29, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Robin: Merci. Some more great quotes by Wendell Phillips here.
Comment by Boris Anthony — March 30, 2006 @ 6:17 am
boris: hmm…actually this was exactly what was so satisfying about my personal realizations in all this: that the isms are much less important to me now. In all my life, I’ve always asked: “to what purpose” of whatever i’m doing. that’s important, esp in politics. You aren’t going to convince anyone by going around screaming: freedom freedom! … but you might win if you say: “wouldn’t it be great if we could do this? it would help us solve THAT! … and in order to achieve that, we need freedom. so: you giving us freedom or not?” I know that’s simplistic, but without the pragmatic benefits, i don’t think you can make moral gains. you have to prove that its a better solution, AND its morally good. Morally good & a worse solution rarely wins.
Ella: i think your point about trivial to important is really crucial. that’s sort of why the Communism in Russia failed: the thought that a small group could decide what was important info. All the trivial stuff, which may well be trivial in and of itself, may play an important part in the “data ecosystem” … some really important developments might depend on some seemingly trivial ones. Allowing free info flow means that the trivial can get filtered used etc. But restricting flow means the system loses important data that might help solve problems, even if we cannot see how.
Comment by hugh — March 30, 2006 @ 9:21 am
robin: maybe we should update to “eternal access to data is the price of liberty” … ;)
Comment by hugh — March 30, 2006 @ 9:23 am
working on an audioblog post right now…
Comment by julien — March 30, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
I responded - where should I post this? Anywho -
http://www.etherworks.ca/archives/2006/04/open_movement_ii/
Comment by brett — April 26, 2006 @ 6:06 pm