Re: [kFW] All-Inclusivity (DRM and Kendra)

["Pat Gratton" <gratton@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Harris" <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <k-framework@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [kFW] All-Inclusivity (DRM and Kendra)


> Hi Pat and All,
>
> Please see comments...
>
> At 14:52 01/02/02 -0600, Pat Gratton wrote:
>  >I'll start with something that you'll completely disagree with...  One
of my
>  >dictums in life is: If you're not pissing someone off, then you're
probably
>  >doing something wrong!
>
> ;-) OK. If that's how you want to live your life then fine. I respect
that.
> I hope it gets you to your goal. As a dictum it doesn't work for me.
Having
> founded and run a successful ISP for 5 years my understanding is that when
> you're not pissing people off then you're doing something right. You could
> say our competitors were pissed off but they weren't. There was enough for
> everyone and there was much mutual cooperation and even comradery - such
as
> with peering points.
>
> As a way of life pissing people off doesn't give me pleasure either. Just
> as being pissed off myself doesn't give me pleasure. Why would I wish it
on
> anyone else? It's not the kind of world I want to live in.
>
> So, please clarify, is your primary aim to piss people off? And if it
isn't
> why use that as a metric of whether your being successful with your ideas
> or not?
>
> On another hand Ella Harris, my sister, who just dropped by, sees your
> dictum as: even if people are pissed off at you doesn't mean that you're
> doing something wrong. An element of reassurance. How about that?

True, but that's a much weaker statement than what I said.

> She
> continues that sometimes development and growth can piss people off at
> having to change. So, pissing people off could be a result of development
> and growth, which is good, yeh?

And what sane person would be against development and growth?  I think
that's a bit slanted - which tends to hide genuine disagreement.  Put it
this way...

Many people are against the continued development of technology - they
advocate the return to simpler times.  Some of those people are angry enough
with the developers of technology that they want to kill them (e.g., the
Unabomber).  Such a person would have been angry with your work as an ISP
provider - s/he might even try to kill *you* personally (David Gerlertner
can certainly testify to this level of anger).

On the other hand, many people are very much for the continued development
of technology.  And when lives depend on the continued development of
technology (e.g., cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc), the people
who care about those lives (parents, brothers, chilrden, etc.) are likely to
get angry with attempts to stop the development of technology.

So, if you make *any* substantial statement on the development of
technology, you're likely to anger at least *some* people.

> Hmmm... Lots of ways of looking at what you've said. Could you provide
some
> clarity as to what exactly you mean?
>
>  >Either you're unclearly stating you
>  >opinions/ideas/design, or you're not paying close enough attention to
>  >people's reactions.
>
> Well, I know I can always do better on both. Are you saying we're pissing
> people off because we are or are not doing these things? Not sure how your
> ideas relate here.

Well, I thought that I was being pretty clear, but here goes...
1) The only way to NOT make *anyone* angry is to NOT say anything (new or
substantial).  Thus, if no one is angry at you, then you haven't said
anything.  Or you have said something, but haven't heard the people who are
angry with you.  ("Angry" or "pissed off" is (mostly) a rhetorical
fluorish - strongly and seriously opposed to you is more likely.)

2) It's not my aim in life to make people angry - any more than it's my aim
to make carbon dioxide.  But if I'm not making CO2, then I'm dead.  And if
what I say isn't arousing strong opposition in someone, then I must not be
saying anything substantial.

3) So, I was accusing you of coming perilously close to not saying anything.
Specifically, you haven't put out a general architecture or design document
(thus saying nothing).  OTOH, you have come out in support of DRM.  (And as
proof of my principle, no one's unhappy about your design, but some people
(RMS in particular) are unhappy about your support of DRM.)

>  >While "all-inclusivity" sounds good, the fact is that some people's
>  >viewpoints/desires are diametrically opposed.
>
> Being all-inclusive is not the same as being all-in-agreement or
> all-the-same. It's an understanding that we're all here together whether
we
> like it or not so we better make the best of it, eh?

Hmm...  So, you're saying that agreement between everyone is not necessary?
(Now you're getting there!) But that's not consistent with what you said
before:
> This is not to say that we have to choose between one or the other:
between
> the free software community or the DRM community. I refuse to choose! I
> want both to support Kendra! We have to reconcile. We have to do this to
> enable convergence.

>  >So if you take any stance on
>  >the issue that they care about, then you're going to piss off at least
one
>  >of them.
>
> Yup, if you agree with either one side or the other - take sides - then
> yes, I agree with you, you'll piss someone off (I hope I'm not pissing
> anyone off by agreeing with you on that point! Ha! Ha! ;-).
>
> So, the key here is not to take sides. Yeh, you could ask "how can you do
> *anything* if you can't take sides?" Simple: you build bridges, apply
glue,
> provide translation, enable communication. That's what I see us doing here
> in Kendra Initiative - gluing all the bits together to make them work
> properly and enable the creation of a working system.
>
>  >So, the good news (according to my dictum) is that you've managed to
raise
>  >the hackles of RMS by supporting DRM!  The bad news is that you think
that
>  >this is avoidable somehow!  It's not - RMS is diametrically opposed to
any
>  >system that allows purveyors of information to limit acccess of users to
>  >information - which is exactly what DRM does.
>
> I'm continuing to learn about the world of rights and, on the face of it,
> it does seem as if you could be correct here.

:)

> But we're only a few emails
> in with Richard and so I think there's a way to go yet.

Such a discussion with Stallman should take into account his other
publications and statements.  E.g.,
Stallman has already made it clear that he disagrees with DRM.  For example,
see:
http://media-in-transition.mit.edu/forums/copyright/index_transcript.html
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

> Is not the GPL and just another instance of DRM? Isn't that what Scott
> Pollard continues to insist?

I believe that we're talking about RMS, not the GPL.  The two are closely
associated, but not the same thing, of course.  (However: the GPL is half
political manifesto, half legal document.  The legal side of GPL can
probably be made to work with DRM, but the manifesto is opposed (at least
for software).)

> ...
> So, I'm not trying to persuade Richard to accept DRM but trying to learn
> why he can't. Close but not exactly the same thing. There's more the know
> yet. Thanks for your comments they are very helpful.

What's wrong with trying to persuade someone?  If someone has an idea that's
wrong, and you persuade them of the correct idea, haven't you improved their
life?  And haven't you improved your life by moving them to your side, and
thus increasing your ability to carry out some task?

Certainly, the only way that Kendra is going to succeed is if users are
persuaded that it meets their needs better than competing products.  And the
only way that programmers will work on Kendra is if they're persuaded that
it's a better project to work on then other projects.

Regards,
..Pat