@titi @rra Thanks for the feedback! We did not choose the license, it's boiler plate stuff from the publisher. Quite happy that they decided to make a PDF avail right away for free TBH. With that said, the online version that we will put will be licensed differently (we still haven't decided yet, but probably CC0). In general CC-ND does not prevent translation, but it just makes the translator work more as there is an extra step needed, that is getting an exception from the copyright owners. But I get your point. I think in this case the publisher use of ND is not meant to restrict translations, but to keep the circulation of the texts verbatim?

@320x200 @rra Thanks again, folks. Among others, I think that your approach about “strong links” (pg.114) is amazing :)

@320x200 @rra of law that would then apply, some of which was specifically made because twitter and facebook and google and such cannot behave, some of which is just general running a business online law. I think that aspect, that "community-operated non-commercial social media website accessible internationally" is not really something that legal frameworks (especially in a country like here where the legal and political world has just recently caught up to the fact that websites exist at all) or past experience exist for, is something that deserves mentioning, I think

Thanks @halcy for taking the time to give us some feedback!

Point 1. Yes we definitively need to be more explicit about this. I think that's already somehow implied here and there but would need to be unpacked further more precisely. Point 2. Totally agree, and yes also totally missing from the text, def something to add in the next iteration.

CC @rra

@320x200 @rra (I notice this a bit late, but what I should maybe have lead with and usually would but I guess I just typed that post out start to end and didn't go back to read it: I thought it was a really interesting article and I think it's super interesting that there's now well structured work on the fediverse specifically. good luck with the publication!)

@halcy @rra Thanks! :)

Thanks for the kind words @natacha !

To be sure, @rra and I do not want to give the idea that FLOSS as a whole is apolitical (if that's how it reads now, maybe we need to tweak that a bit better). It is more of questioning whether or not its model and framework, and the way it has been historically voiced and rationalised, is still relevant today and if it is able to contain all the ideologies it has attracted since its infancy. It's also about defining what precisely is the political scope of FLOSS and what kind of politics it can or cannot support or facilitate. These are difficult and open questions, but they are timely. They need to be put on the table given the revival of interests in experimenting with conditions, constitutions, and constraints in collective forms of production. As seen with non-FLOSS licensing and codes of conducts for instance.

(In relation to FLOSS as an agonistic space in its own: shameless plug (and possibly more elements of discussions in relation to your remark) https://www.bleu255.com/~aymeric/dump/aymeric_mansoux-sandbox_culture_phd_thesis-2017.pdf)

@320x200 @rra
Yes I know this great work, I also feel like bringing forward along with political analysis the necessity to continue with the technical argument.
We also did an attempt here:
https://ps.zoethical.org/t/sfyw-software-freedom-your-way/19/2
For example, in the case of the fediverse we need to acknowledge domination, we cannot leave doors open and need to address the possibility of cooptation by surveillance capitalism .

@natacha @320x200

> For example, in the case of the fediverse we need to acknowledge domination, we cannot leave doors open and need to address the possibility of cooptation by surveillance capitalism .

this is a thesis which is missing in the text that we need to add urgently..

@natacha looking forward to reading this text!

@natacha @rra agreed, and thanks for the link/text, will read it!

@320x200 @rra
lets continue the conversation of this as in the meantime we organised OFFDEM in brussels where there was also an activity pub gathering.
here is the manifesto that came out from it:
https://ps.zoethical.org/t/free-software-under-attack-an-offdem-manifesto/3314
would be great if you feel like comenting supporting sharing etc...

@dublinux @rra Thanks! To be precise, the term conflictual consensus was not coined by us, it's one of the term coming from Mouffe's jargon related to her agonistic pluralism political theory, which we thought was quite fitting to make sense of what is/can/could happen on the fedi.