[Lac] Creative Commons Licensing for Developing Countries.

Sat Sep 18 05:31:23 BST 2004

Diego Saravia wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:51:55 -0500, Taran Rampersad wrote 
>  
>
>>Diego Saravia wrote: 
>>    
>>
>>>>Digital Divide is not just a poverty issue. It's an information issue...  
>>>>that's another reason why Free Software is so important. Wouldn't you  
>>>>agree?  
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>>
>>> 
>>>Free software is more a matter of freedom, than a mater of economy.  
>>>It could help, off course. 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The Digital Divide is not just about money; it's about money because  
>>it costs money to access information and the equipment and software  
>>to use it. Wouldn't you agree?  
>>    
>>
> 
>what others factor do you see in digital divide, not consecuences of 
>poverty? 
>  
>
This is not a new discussion. The Digital Divide has many factors; they
are constantly debated. Oddly enough, the commonality which I approach
them is actually geo-socio-economic in nature. However, other members on
the Digital Divide list don't necessarily agree with this, stating that
the Digital Divide is also affected by age, race and gender.

Your opinion and mine are close, yet I don't agree with you because I
know some people who are within the bracket for being able to afford a
computer and internet access, but simply aren't able to access the
internet because of poor phone lines or complete lack of them. These are
usually related to infrastructural issues... and these fall under ICT as
well. Honestly, I started off thinking it was just poverty as well, but
based on what I've been discussing with people over the last few years
my opinion has shifted.

The Digital Divide is a very complex issue. If you really want to
discuss the Digital Divide at length, may I suggest joining the Digital
Divide mailing list?

http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide

That seems like a more appropriate venue for discussing the Digital
Divide. It's really a very poorly defined thing, but income/poverty
appears to be only one factor. Don't believe me, participate in the list
and find out. It would be good to have you there.

>>Free Software also creates jobs,  
>>    
>>
> 
>yes 
> 
>  
>
>>if done properly, 
>>    
>>
> 
>You could do fs properly without making jobs.  
> 
>Jobs are not the panacea. Do you readed hacker ethics? 
>  
>
Which refers to the Protestant Ethic versus the Hacker Ethic? Yes. The
definition of job, and therefore income, shifts - but it's still income.
It is a good book, but it's not a definition unto itself either.
http://www.knowprose.com/node/view/120
Pekka Himanen is a good writer, but a lot of that is based off of the
Western philosophy, and it doesn't fit too well with Eastern Philosophy
because of it's dealing only with the Protestant Ethic.
The recent book of Paul Graham is also of note - Hackers and Painters -
though I don't completely agree with the analogy of Painters.
http://www.knowprose.com/node/view/124

The real book I would suggest is out of print, I think - "Technology and
Creativity" by Das Gupta. ISBN 0195096886

But technology and creativity mean nothing if one cannot eat. And if you
dig into the origins of Copyright, the intent was to allow people who
created artifacts (which were non-functional). Technology, if you look
throughout history, had a tendency to assist people in eating somehow.
Shelter, clothing... and nowadays, bandwidth.

Free Software doesn't mean anything without computers. Computers require
money. Even when writing GPL code, someone has to pay for the food and
coffee. Sometimes it's the individual.

>>which means that people gain experience and  
>>knowledge - which is another factor of the Digital Divide. 
>>    
>>
> 
>If you are in you gain experience and k.  
>  
>  
>
>>I'm sorry, if you think that Freedom and Economy are completely separate 
>>things, I have to disagree. 
>>    
>>
> 
>I do not think that.
>
OK :)

>  
> 
> 
>  
>
>>In my book, there are poor people in rich and poor countries. The 
>>Digital Divide exists within Developed and Developing nations. 
>>    
>>
> 
>another problem with developing countries CC. 
>  
>
Yes, this is true. But we also must understand something about
'developed country' and 'developing country'.

Every 'developed' country is still 'developing'. So what is the
difference? The difference is the rate at which they are developing.
Quite simply, it's a race. A competition. It's your country versus my
country versus the United States versus Australia versus... you get the
idea.

So here's the million dollar question: How does a developing nation get
developed nation status? Not some textbook answer - the real answer. And
the *real* answer is that the developing nation has to develop faster
than the developed nation. So if the developing nations get the same
information that the developed nations have, it gives them an advantage
- and also less of an excuse of remaining so far behind.

At the individual level, you're right - to a point - because the poor
people in the United States, as an example, will not gain much from
this. But inadvertently they do, because their country has the
information. Without such a license, developing nations would be more
than likely be required by TRIPs to *pay* for the same information. And
this license kills TRIPs effect on that. ;-)

>>If people have to spend less money on content and software, then they 
>>would have more money for equipment. Wouldn't you agree? 
>>    
>>
> 
>yes. 
> 
>  
>
>>Sadly, there will always be 'poor people', simply because there will 
>>always be people with more.  
>>    
>>
> 
>I do not accept that statement, we can have diversity, without poverty. 
> 
>If you wish to live in a society without 
>  
>
>>poor people, then you wish to live in a society without rich people. 
>>    
>>
> 
>not at all. 
> 
>Could I read your book? I am not poor, nor rich, but I live in a 
>"developing" country. 
>
Ahh. There's been a misunderstanding. The phrase 'In my book' is a
colloquialism, it's another way of writing 'my thoughts are'.

I do not think that you understand the relativity of which I spoke.
Without short people, there would be no tall people. If people were all
the same height, the words 'short' and 'tall' would have no meaning. The
same with rich and poor. In fact, without rich AND poor, there would be
no middle class. It would just all be the same. Everyone would have
exactly the same amount and quality of everything.

If we go one step further and allow no person to own anything, and
everything belongs to the community, we have communism. And that's where
the people who call Free Software 'Communist' get that twisted idea -
Free Software is certainly not about Communism. And people do *own* the
software because of the rights given, though the owner of the Copyright
must bestow these rights. I think it was RMS who said, 'The concept of
sharing with my neighbour is not communism', or something like that.

But I digress. I think when you are talking about poverty, you are
talking about the degree with which one is poor - and that's something I
agree with, to a point. I think that the degree needs to decrease
significantly, but for better or worse there will always be 'poor' and
'rich' - and the 'middle class'.

This is an interesting discussion. Perhaps we should continue it offlist
instead of boring everyone else with it? Of course, if nobody has a
problem, it might be good to have it on the list and promote further
discussion. It's always good to hear other perspectives. :)

-- 
Taran Rampersad

cnd at knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

"A business that makes nothing but money is a poor kind of business."— Henry Ford 