Message 01647 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 8/129 L6 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux



On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 02:55:23AM -0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 6 Dec 2003 at 20:38, Russell McOrmond wrote:

  I find it interesting that one type of creative work is
considered only malleable by an elite, but others are not.  We
should not allow that suggestion that something is currently
beyond the average literacy to be allowed to be an excuse to not
fight for the longer-term freedom.  Some may be more skilled than
others, but that does not make them an elite.

Software is very, very different from other types of creative work -
it's a direct engineering solution. Not plans for a solution, an
*actual* solution.

This is a unusual distinction. What about l10n information in a
program -- is that software? What about software integrated in text?
Where do you draw that line? What about marked-up text? Where are you
drawing the line with texts? Writing HTML, hell, writing Word
documents, requires technical knowledge.

Thus, it requires a level of technical knowledge quite beyond most
other areas of engineering and vastly beyond other creative works.
Most people can write a book or draw a picture with no special
training.

Perhaps they received special training from a young age in a school?
:) I know more than a dozen computer languages and I can assure you
that learning a single natural language is more difficult than
learning all of those computer languages.

Designing a bridge requires technical knowledge of materials etc and
it gets progressively more technical with things like designing an
aircraft. However, software is quite something else again - not only
do you need a certain level of technical knowledge just to operate a
computer, you need way way more to design software plus there is
very little tolerance for error - - a comma in the wrong place, and
your software isn't going to work.  There is more give for error in
designing a jet engine.

Are you a computer programmer? In any modern language? The motto for
perl is, "TWTOWTDI: There's More Than One Way To Do It" and it means
it. I think that programming is a lot more creative than you think.

I think a more supportable distinction between books and computer
programs is that computer programs are primarily functional works and
books and music are primarily creative. Both can serve functions and
both are creative but you can make the argument that X program is
*better* than Y program with authority that you can't have when
talking about more traditional works of art.

That said, I'm convinced that the same sort models for collaborative
creation apply to primarily creative works because I simply can't see
a line between the two that can be held up to real critique. This
isn't to say that I think that the works of single authors are bad in
any medium or genre -- this email after all is the work of the single
author (although in a conversation and explicitly building of the
works of others) -- I just think that the importance of creating
systems that allow for collaboration extends beyond the world of
software (which I suppose is why I'm on this list!).

Therefore, quite rightly, programmers tend to respect other
programmers of note. RMS could have said what he liked and no one
would have cared if he hadn't have written emacs among other things.

True, but respecting a good programmer doesn't mean you give a lot of
value to their opinion on non-technical matters (although, perhaps it
means you give them a listen). There seems to be a growing amount of
consensus that on everything except software, ESR is a nut. I can name
half a dozen extremely high profile programmers who's technical
opinion I respect and whose social or political opinion I completely
take issue with. *Any* programmer will have their own lists. We are
not as uncritical as you imply.

I meant it both ways - as I said previously, information is power - 
therefore, it will be innate human nature to control information as a 
means of exerting power. While the internet is breaking down 
traditional forms of enforcing information scarcity, it is inevitable 
that new forms will be invented.

You are more cynical than I am. :) I don't disagree that the desire
for power is a motivating factor and I don't disagree that there is a
strong push by many to create artificial scarcity on the Internet with
the goal of putting themselves in a more powerful position.

I do however support the creation systems (like copyleft) that not
only block the trend toward proprietarization of information but
give a working alternative for a more *effective* form of information
creation and manipulation

It remains that majority of people who want information want
information and power to accomplish their goals and motivation and if
an alternative less proprietary model for information development is
more effective than the proprietary models, it will be succeed.

I take the view that all copyright & patent law needs throwing away 
and redesigning from the ground up. Copyright in particular is 
horribly archaic and it is deeply unfortunate that we have enshrined 
it in UN conventions. Still, I guess they weren't to know.

The TRIPS agreement (not US) is less than a decade old IIRC. "They"
knew full well what they were doing -- enshrining and globalizing the
rights of the folks with money and power.

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako debian.org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/



Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 8/129 L6 [In index]
Message 01647 [Homepage] [Navigation]