Browse Source

adding the final files git add -A! :----)

master
manetta 2 years ago
parent
commit
6a87e41ec6
  1. 84
      CONTEXT.md
  2. BIN
      CONTEXT.pdf
  3. BIN
      LICENSES.pdf
  4. 7
      Make.css
  5. 2
      VIEWPOINTS.md
  6. BIN
      VIEWPOINTS.pdf
  7. BIN
      agree-to-disagree/agree-to-disagree.odt
  8. BIN
      agree-to-disagree/agree-to-disagree.pdf
  9. BIN
      donating-upstream/donating-upstream.odt
  10. BIN
      donating-upstream/donating-upstream.pdf
  11. BIN
      generative-vocabularies/generative-vocabularies.odt
  12. BIN
      generative-vocabularies/generative-vocabularies.pdf
  13. BIN
      group-configurations/group-configurations.odt
  14. BIN
      group-configurations/group-configurations.pdf
  15. BIN
      increasing-saturation-🌶️/increasing-saturation-🌶️.odt
  16. BIN
      increasing-saturation-🌶️/increasing-saturation-🌶️.pdf
  17. BIN
      re-versioning/re-versioning.odt
  18. BIN
      re-versioning/re-versioning.pdf
  19. BIN
      situated-versioning/situated-versioning.odt
  20. BIN
      situated-versioning/situated-versioning.pdf
  21. BIN
      team-names/team-names.odt
  22. BIN
      team-names/team-names.pdf
  23. BIN
      unpacking-multiple-we-s/unpacking-multiple-we-s.odt
  24. BIN
      unpacking-multiple-we-s/unpacking-multiple-we-s.pdf

84
CONTEXT.md

@ -13,33 +13,35 @@
# Not for Any* <br />(Context) {.section}
These pages hold traces of a research that led to the making of the **Not for Any\*** toolkit. The toolkit is an invitation to critically (re)engage with open licenses and and explore situated formats and imaginaries of *openness*, *access* and *authorship*.
These pages hold traces of a research that led to the making of the **Not for Any\*** toolkit. The toolkit is an invitation to critically (re)engage with *open* licenses and and explore situated formats and imaginaries of *openness*, *access* and *authorship*.
![](https://vvvvvvaria.org/not-for-any/licenses-viewpoints-exercises.png)
----------------
This project departs from the collective practices of [Varia](https://varia.zone/), a collective-space in Rotterdam working with/through/around everyday technology. We are a group of artists, activists, programmers, educators, designers and cultural workers, involved in techo-social practices in the cultural field. Within Varia, we try to make space for conceiving technology in its social context. The latter has been an important ground for us to work with *open access*, *free software* and *technofeminism*.
This project departs from the collective practices of [Varia](https://varia.zone/), a collective-space in Rotterdam working with/through/around everyday technology. We are a group of artists, designers, programmers, educators and cultural workers, involved in techo-social practices in the cultural field. Within Varia, we try to make space for conceiving technology in its social context. The latter has been an important ground for us to work with forms of *open access* publishing, *free software* tools and *technofeminist* principles.
The stories and examples that appear in this research speak back to these interests. They depart from an interest in (so called) *open licenses*: a techno-legal framework that creates space to negotiate what *openness*, *access* and *authorship* could mean. Open licenses play an important role in our (design) practices, in which we experiment with collective work and Free, Libre and Open Source (FLOSS) tools. For example at Varia, where we are involved in different software- and publishing projects, we release code, content and tools that we work with. This continuous form of publishing is for us a way to question the ownership and authorship of these materials. Making them available for others is part of this ongoing research.
The stories and examples that appear in this research speak back to these interests. They depart from an interest in (so called) *open licenses*: a techno-legal framework for releasing Copyright. The licenses provide a maker with tools to publish a work in an *open* way. This means that once a work is published under an *open* license, it is legally allowed to be (re)used, modified or (re)published by others. Based on their legal mechanisms, the *open* licenses create space to negotiate what *openness*, *access* and *authorship* could mean, by crossing the current Copyright laws that apply by default to any creative work that is made.
We have, however, not always felt comfortable with this degree of *openness*. Occassions occured in which not everyone wanted to publish their work in the open. Sometimes it felt oke to share a work with the rest of the group within Varia, but publishing it openly to an unknown *anyone* was too much or simply not appropriate.
*Open* licenses play an important role in our (design) practices, in which we experiment with collective work and Free, Libre and Open Source (FLOSS) tools. For example at Varia, where we are involved in different software- and publishing projects, we release code, content and tools that we work with. This continuous form of publishing is for us a way to question the ownership and authorship of our work and tools. Making them available for others is an important part of this ongoing research.
We ended up with a dilemma: we do not want to subscribe to the protective and authoritarian forces of Copyright, but at the same time, we do not always feel comfortable to publish material under an open license and release it for re-use by *anyone* or for *any* purpose.
We have, however, not always felt comfortable with the degree of *openness* that *open* licenses provide. Occasions occurred in which not everyone wanted to publish their work in the *open*. Sometimes it felt okay to share a work with the rest of the group within Varia, but publishing it *openly* to an unknown *anyone* was too much or simply not appropriate.
Through this toolkit we propose to (re)turn (to) the politics of open licenses. With it, we create space for collective engagement with licenses from a (techno)feminist perspective in a playful and embodied way. The toolkit includes a series of exercises to do this with.
As a group we ended up with a dilemma: we do not want to subscribe to the protective and authoritarian forces of Copyright, but at the same time, we do not always feel comfortable to publish material under an *open* license which releases it for (re)use by *anyone* or for *any* purpose.
The text bellow will give further context in how we as both members of Varia and designers working with Free/Libre and Open Software came close(r) to open licenses. It is followed by a story around conditional licenses which triggered many frictions and discussions in different software projects and free culture contexts. <!-- check --> The last part of this research document will dive into this story, to unpack vocabularies of *openness* and to get a little bit more grip on this term.
Through this toolkit we propose to (re)turn (to) the politics of *open* licenses. With it, we create space for collective engagement with licenses from a (techno)feminist perspective in a playful and embodied way. The toolkit includes a series of exercises to do this with.
Some words are purposely put in italics throughout this text, to indicate the entangled and fuzzy understandings that these words embody. This applies to *free*, *freedom*, *open*, *openness*, *open access*, *everyone*, *anyone* and *collective*.
The text bellow will give further context in how we as both members of Varia and designers working with Free/Libre and Open Software came close(r) to *open* licenses. It is followed by a story around conditional licenses or critiques to *open* licenses which triggered many frictions and discussions in different *free* software projects and *free* culture contexts.
Some words are purposely put in italics throughout this text, to indicate the entangled and fuzzy understandings that these words embody. This applies to *free*, *freedom*, *open*, *openness*, *open access*, *anyone* and *collective*.
-------------
## Transversal practices
Ideas around *open access* have had a big techno-legal impact on the field of software. Since the 1980s, different forms of *free* software emerged. It was a counter reaction to a hegemonic presence of corporations in the field of computation and the unescapable laws of Copyright, trademarks and proprietary software.
Ideas around *open access* have had a big techno-legal impact on the field of software. Since the 1980s, different forms of *free* software emerged. *Free* software become a counter movement in response to a hegemonic presence of corporations in the field of computation, where software was slowly locked down behind the walls of different companies, protected by Copyright laws, trademarks and patents. Through the use of *open* licenses, a whole range of *free* software projects emerged, of which the operating system Linux and the online encyclopedia software behind Wikipedia are the most famous examples.
Over the years, ideas around free software were picked up by different people working in the cultural field. They let their practice be shaped through their tools, and their tools through their practice. It triggered all sorts of practices around authorship, property, open access, sharing, collective organisational ways of working and more.
Over the years, ideas around *free* software were picked up by different people working in the cultural field. They let their practice be shaped through their tools, and their tools through their practice. It triggered all sorts of practices around authorship, property, *open access*, sharing, collective work and more.
![*practice shapes tools shapes practice* by Open Source Publishing (OSP[^osp])](http://osp.kitchen/api/osp.foundry.belgica-belgika/raw/documentation/images/shapes-variation.png)
@ -47,61 +49,65 @@ Over the years, ideas around free software were picked up by different people wo
Different artist-run initiatives, design collectives and cultural organisations that are closely engaging with free software culture, have worked on all sorts of granular interpretations of the term *openness*.
In the mid 1990s, practicioners in the fields of art and design started to work in the techno-legal spectrum of open licenses. [Labomedia](https://labomedia.org/labomedia-eng/), [goto10](https://archive.bleu255.com/goto10/) and the net culture initiative [Servus](https://core.servus.at/) are organisations that bridged free software with media art. Other organisations and initiatives introduced feminist theory into the spectrum, such as [Constant](https://constantvzw.org), [Old Boys Network](https://obn.org/inhalt_index.html), [Eclectic Tech Carnical (/etc)](https://www.eclectictechcarnival.org/) and the mailinglist [Faces](https://www.faces-l.net/). In the field of design, different individuals and collectives work with free software tools in their practice, such as [Open Source Publishing (OSP)](https://osp.kitchen), [Manufactura Independente](http://manufacturaindependente.org/) and [PrePostPrint](https://prepostprint.org/doku.php//en/introduction). These are (obviously) just a few examples of a bigger field.
In the mid 1990s, practicioners in the fields of art and design started to work in the techno-legal spectrum of *open* licenses. [Labomedia](https://labomedia.org/labomedia-eng/), [goto10](https://archive.bleu255.com/goto10/) and the net culture initiative [Servus](https://core.servus.at/) are organisations that bridged *free* software with media art. Other organisations and initiatives introduced feminist theory into the spectrum, such as [Constant](https://constantvzw.org), [Old Boys Network](https://obn.org/inhalt_index.html), [Eclectic Tech Carnival (/etc)](https://www.eclectictechcarnival.org/) and the mailinglist [Faces](https://www.faces-l.net/). In the field of design, different individuals and collectives work with free software tools in their practice, such as [Open Source Publishing (OSP)](https://osp.kitchen), [Manufactura Independente](http://manufacturaindependente.org/) and [PrePostPrint](https://prepostprint.org/doku.php//en/introduction). These are (obviously) just a few examples of a bigger field.
Also digital piracy practices have done important work, by working on extra-legal[^extra] forms of *open access*. They actively question the borders of Copyright, often while being directly confronted by responses from the monopolist players of the publishing industry. Examples of pirate libraries include [Monoskop](https://monoskop.org/Monoskop), [aaarg](https://aaaaarg.fail/) and [sci-hub](https://sci-hub.tw/).
The forking paths of various socio-technologic discourses result in a linguistic complexity around *openness*.
The forking paths of various socio-technologic discourses result in a linguistic richness and complexity around *openness*.
Sometimes *open access* is a radical social operation that grants access (for example) to expensive academic journals. Feminist and queer communities fight for an inclusive understanding of *freedom*, which includes the *freedom* to exclude. In some places, *openness* has become an economical strategy in the form of an open bazaar[^bazaar]. Other interpretations of *openness* operate within a libertarian perspective of individual freedom and sovereignty[^memehustler] and feel strong about the individual freedom to do literally whatever with material that is published under an open license, with the concequence that any constraint of this *freedom* is regarded as a bad thing.
Sometimes *open access* is a radical social operation that grants access (for example) to expensive academic journals. Feminist and queer communities fight for an inclusive understanding of *freedom*, which includes the *freedom* to exclude. In some places, *openness* has become an economical strategy in the form of an *open* bazaar[^bazaar]. Other interpretations of *openness* operate within a libertarian perspective of individual *freedom* and sovereignty[^memehustler].
In all these densities and complexities around notions of *openness*, a feeling of discomfort and awkwardness pops up.
In all these densities around notions of *openness*, a feeling of discomfort and awkwardness pops up.
While *open access* has been an important trigger for radical sharing practices, we feel that it is important to question which radical demands are formulated, by whom, and -- most importantly -- for the benefit of whom. How can we escape from the illusion that *open access* automatically leads to equality? And isn't *open access* intertwined with positions of priviledge?
While *open access* has been an important trigger for radical sharing practices, we feel that it is important to question which radical demands are formulated, by whom, and — most importantly — for the benefit of whom. How can we escape from the illusion that *open access* automatically leads to equality? And isn't *open access* intertwined with positions of priviledge?
If we consider *open* publishing mechanisms that are considerate to these question, we feel that they cannot be *open* for just *anyone*. This is where a contradiction emerges: if something is *free* to be used by *anyone*, how can I stop "evil people" from using my program?[^evil]
![*Can I stop “evil people” from using my program?*, Open Source Initiative (2020) <https://opensource.org/faq#evil>](https://vvvvvvaria.org/~mb/generative-conditions/FLOSS/can-i-stop-%22evil%22-people-from-using-my-programme.png)
Why would we publish something in the *open* for a universal *anyone*, if that also includes people that we politically do not align with? What does it mean to block access to a specific group of people?[^7thesesonthefediverse] How can we open up and protect at the same time? What would situated ways of sharing look like? Or situated forms of authorship[^authorsofthefuture]? How can we keep everyday conditions in mind, while speaking about open access? How can we devise safer and more ethical collaborations between groups, organizations and institutions?[^intersectionsofcare]
Why would we publish something in the *open* for a universal *anyone*, if that also includes people that we politically do not align with? What does it mean to block access to a specific group of people?[^7thesesonthefediverse] How can we open up and protect at the same time? What would situated ways of sharing look like? Or situated forms of authorship[^authorsofthefuture]? How can we keep everyday conditions in mind, while speaking about *open access*? How can we devise safer and more ethical collaborations between groups, organizations and institutions?[^intersectionsofcare]
This is where it starts to be blurry, fuzzy and less straight forward.
To dive into this messiness, this toolkit departs from the question:
To dive into such agitated tides, this toolkit asks:
How do systems of *openness* perform differently for different agents?
## License Gestures
Throughout this research, we encountered a myriad of playful vocabularies that address different affiliations with free software culture and open licenses. The following examples specifically work with language and terminologies. By focusing on language, words become performative tools to unfold imaginaries, take re-directions together, or re-turn to work that has been made in different contexts. We started to refer to these examples of vocabulary stretching as **license gestures**: short comments, sidenotes or jokes that engage with the act of copying in a playful way.
Throughout this research, we encountered a myriad of playful vocabularies that address different affiliations with *free* software culture and *open* licenses. The following examples specifically work with language and terminologies. By focusing on language, words become performative tools to unfold imaginaries, take re-directions together, or re-turn to work that has been made in different contexts. We started to refer to these examples of vocabulary stretching as **license gestures**: short comments, sidenotes or jokes that engage with the act of copying in a playful way.
![*My code is likely not useful for you*, Kibi Gô (2020) <https://go.kibi.family/>](https://vvvvvvaria.org/~mb/generative-conditions/more-recent/go.kibi.family-my-code-is-likely-not-useful-for-you.png)
Licenses are clearly not the only place to make statements about how you prefer to share your work. We collected a couple of short one-liners and illustrations in which authors state their sharing intentions.
We collected a couple of short one-liners and illustrations in which authors state their sharing intentions, such as *“Do as you please, but do no harm”*, *“Credit is nice, but not required”* or *“My code is likely not useful for you”*.
![*Do as you please, but do no harm*, thufir (2020) <https://omnius.zone/files/>](https://vvvvvvaria.org/~mb/generative-conditions/more-recent/do-as-you-please.png)
Also interesting to see, is how different people are looking for alternative phrases to refer to Free, Libre and Open Source Software. Examples include *non-extractive software*[^nonextractive], which focusses on the economical models behind software development and specifically the practices of data extraction that appear on free social media platforms. An other example is *non-coercive computing*[^noncoercive], which addresses tactics of discursive software development processes. Or *rhizomatic open source way*[^rhizomatic], which highlights the decentralized potential of making situation-specific versions of a work.
![*“Credit is nice, but not required”*, weld.eerie.garden, (screenshot 2020) https://weld.eerie.garden/](https://vvvvvvaria.org/~mb/generative-conditions/more-recent/weld.eerie.garden.png)
Also interesting to see, is how different people are looking for alternative phrases to refer to Free, Libre and Open Source Software. Examples include *non-extractive software*[^nonextractive], which focusses on the economical models behind software development and specifically the practices of data extraction that appear on *free* social media platforms. An other example is *non-coercive computing*[^noncoercive], which addresses tactics of discursive software development processes. Or *rhizomatic open source way*[^rhizomatic], which highlights the decentralized potential of making situation-specific versions of a work.
![*we would like to work in a rhizomatic open source way*, Intersections of Care, Florence Cheval and Loraine Furter (2019) <http://www.intersectionsofcare.net/>](https://vvvvvvaria.org/~mb/generative-conditions/more-recent/intersections-of-care-rhizomatic-open-source.png)
![*we would like to work in a rhizomatic open source way*, Intersections of Care, Florence Cheval and Loraine Furter (2019 - ongoing) <http://www.intersectionsofcare.net/>](https://vvvvvvaria.org/~mb/generative-conditions/more-recent/intersections-of-care-rhizomatic-open-source.png)
With language comes along a shift in attitude.
The statement *“I canʼt imagine why you would want to TOUCH this code, but just in case”* prioritizes the attachment to networks and the search for affinity with others. Opening up towards a more ambigious movement or sharing gesture. One that extends the idea of sharing beyond source code, moving the act of sharing to a "just-in-case" situation.
The statement *“I canʼt imagine why you would want to TOUCH this code, but just in case”* prioritizes the attachment to networks and the search for affinity with others. *Opening* up towards a more ambigious movement or sharing gesture. One that extends the idea of sharing beyond source code, moving the act of sharing to a "just-in-case" situation.
Programmer, artist and educator Michael Murtaugh further expands on this shift in focus in an interview[^ecosystemsofwriting] conducted by Cornelia Sollfrank.
> The strength of free software is more this kind of ecosystem of diverse tools, and ways of putting things together. It's not so much about [making] a seamless, singular, monolithic application. It's about the fact that it's a community that shares its sources. That you create things [is important], but it's also about an interest how other people work. Yeah it's all about creating something together and this kind of common heritage of (in this case) software and tools. But [most important is the] thinking *around* the software. <br><br>There was this moment in which it clicked, where I let go. Because indeed you have licenses to talk about the status of the code you release, but at a certain moment I stopped caring about the code. I write code as a practice, but it's not *about* the code. I'm happy to rewrite and rewrite code, but [in the end] it's about the processes around it. The [shared] thinking [is what is] really important.
> The strength of free software is more this kind of ecosystem of diverse tools, and ways of putting things together. It's not so much about [making] a seamless, singular, monolithic application. It's about the fact that it's a community that shares its sources. That you create things [is important], but it's also about an interest how other people work. Yeah it's all about creating something together and this kind of common heritage of (in this case) software and tools. But [most important is the] thinking *around* the software.
> There was this moment in which it clicked, where I let go. Because indeed you have licenses to talk about the status of the code you release, but at a certain moment I stopped caring about the code. I write code as a practice, but it's not *about* the code. I'm happy to rewrite and rewrite code, but [in the end] it's about the processes around it. The [shared] thinking [is what is] really important.
[^ecosystemsofwriting]: Ecosystems of Writing, Interview with Michael Murtaugh, part of Creating Commons (2019) <https://vimeo.com/309009024>
The work around alternative vocabularies, gentle sharing reminders and shifts in focus around source code, feeds back into our practices. They are important examples for us to imagine granular forms of *openness*, that go beyond a binary split between *open* and *closes* forms of publishing.
The work around alternative vocabularies, gentle sharing reminders and shifts in focus around source code, feeds back into our practices. They are important examples for us to imagine granular forms of *openness*, that go beyond the binary split between *open* and *closes* forms of publishing.
## Negotiating Freedom 0
If we zoom out a bit and focus on (what we might call) the *free* software field, we notice differen frictions and ongoing discussions around the term *openness* and what it means for whom. There is a specific story that we would like to share around the appearance of "conditional licenses", also called "ethical licenses". These licenses introduce a techno-legal approach of *open* publishing, that is conditional and therfore not open for *anyone*.
If we zoom out a bit and focus on (what we might call) the *free* software field, we notice different frictions and ongoing discussions around the term *openness* and what it means for whom. There is a specific story that we would like to share around the appearance of "conditional licenses", also called "ethical licenses". These licenses introduce a techno-legal approach of *open* publishing, that is conditional and therefore not *open* for *anyone*.
We decided to include a collection of such conditional licenses to this toolkit, which have become important prototypes in a rising "ethical storm"[^therisingethicalstorm]. The collection holds a range of open licenses that negotiate and propose different understandings of *openness* and *access*. They depart from outspoken political and social demands, in order to formulate for *who* a licensed object is accessible and for *what purpose* it can be used.
We decided to include a collection of such conditional licenses into this toolkit, which have become important prototypes in a rising "ethical storm"[^therisingethicalstorm]. The collection holds a range of licenses that negotiate and propose different understandings of *openness* and *access*. They depart from outspoken political and social demands, in order to formulate for *who* a licensed object is accessible and for *what purpose* it can be used.
Our list includes a selection of conditional licenses that we encountered throughout the time of this research.
@ -120,30 +126,28 @@ Our list includes a selection of conditional licenses that we encountered throug
* Atmosphere Software License (🚪🌳🔌⛅🛂💸)
* 🚩 The Anti-Capitalist Software License
(More information about the different licenses can be found in the document LICENSES in this toolkit.)
<small>(More information about the different licenses can be found in the document LICENSES in this toolkit.)</small>
To better understand the impact of these licenses it is useful to look back at the emergence of open licenses within the field of *free* software.
To better understand the impact of these licenses it is useful to look back at the emergence of *open* licenses within the field of *free* software.
Open licenses provide computer programmers and other makers a techno-legal framework for open publishing. The open licenses do this by giving the *freedom* to someone else to (re)use, modify or (re)publish a work. These open licenses emerged from a (pretty) genius hack of Copyright laws in the 1980s[^thexeroxdriver], when programmer Richard Stallman at MIT started to use their Copyright to release the very same Copyright over their code. The first open license appeared: the GNU GPL license[^gpl], after which all sorts of variations followed in the 1990s. Resulting in a whole range of *free software* tastes, smells, ideals and modes of operation.
First of all it's useful to mention that *open* licenses emerged from a (pretty) genius hack of Copyright laws in the 1980s[^thexeroxdriver], when programmer Richard Stallman at MIT started to use their Copyright to release the very same Copyright over his code. The first *open* license appeared: the GNU GPL license[^gpl], after which all sorts of variations followed in the 1990s. Resulting in a whole range of *free software* tastes, smells, ideals and modes of operation.
Open licenses are based on a recurrent framework of so called *four software freedoms*.
These *four freedoms* appeared in the formentioned [GNU General Public License](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) written by Richard Stallman in 1989, but the skeleton of many other open licenses follow pretty much the same format. They are all based on *four freedoms*[ˆfourfreedoms], which grant anyone the freedom to:
Although they are different in their formulations and specific sharing conditions, most of the *open* licenses follow pretty much the same format. They are based on a recurrent framework of so the called *four software freedoms*[^fourfreedoms], which grant *anyone* the *freedom* to:
* **run** the program as you wish, for any purpose (**Freedom 0**).
* **study** how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (**Freedom 1**). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* **redistribute** copies so you can help others (**Freedom 2**).
* **distribute** copies of your modified versions to others (**Freedom 3**). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The open licenses included in this toolkit critically (re)engage with these ever returning *freedoms*, by questioning specifically the first of the four *freedoms*: Freedom 0. As this is the specific freedom that allows "*anyone* to use and run a program as you wish for *any* purpose", it has been precisely the place where multiple difficult questions cross. Freedom 0 is the "who" freedom, as in, it demands that *open access* applies to an universal *anyone*.
The *open* licenses included in this toolkit critically (re)engage with these ever returning *freedoms*, by questioning specifically the first: Freedom 0. As this is the specific *freedom* that allows "*anyone* to use and run a program as you wish for *any* purpose", it has been precisely the place where multiple difficult questions cross. Freedom 0 is the "who" freedom, as in, it demands that *open access* applies to an universal *anyone*.
The conditional licenses propose a radical different direction. They depart from the reformulation of Freedom 0, for the sake of a whole range of different urgencies, including anti-facism, labour conditions, climate change or pacifistic social demands such as non-violence.
Conditional licenses propose a radical different direction. They depart from the reformulation of Freedom 0, for the sake of a whole range of different urgencies, including anti-facism, labour conditions, climate change or pacifistic social demands such as non-violence.
In their formulations, they sometimes cross with other documents, such as code of conducts, human rights and collective labour agreements. Some read as manifestos or statements, other simply ask you to behave.
The collection of licenses is very rich and interesting material to go through. They demand from technology and its makers to take a standpoint.
The collection of licenses is very rich and interesting material to go through. They demand from technology and its makers to take a standpoint and engage with the social and political impact of the tools they make.
It is important to add however, that the conditional licenses included in this toolkit have been criticized as well[^cantwork]. The critique includes questions around the effect and impact of ethical demands within the framework of a license. As many of the demands overlap with legal regulations that are described in documents such as the human rights or labour law, the question remains if licenses should try to operate within those realms. As open licenses are in the end based on Copyright law, lawyers are not convinced that any of the ethical demands will succeed in court.
It is important to add however, that the conditional licenses included in this toolkit have been criticized as well[^cantwork]. The critique includes questions around the effect and impact of ethical demands within the framework of a license. As many of the demands overlap with legal regulations that are described in other documents or legal systems, the question remains if licenses should try to operate within those realms. As *open* licenses are in the end based on Copyright law, some lawyers are not convinced that any of the ethical demands will succeed in court.
What is still in the middle is the question:
@ -151,14 +155,16 @@ Are licenses a good place for political and ethical demands?
What other tools do we (artists, designers and other cultural workers) have to engage politically and ethically regarding the (re)use of our work?
## Not for Any* (Exercises)
## Not for Any* <br />(Exercises)
This toolkit comes with a series of exercises.
Through the exercises we invite you to (re)turn to open licenses and (re)explore their potential as radical techno-legal tools.
Through the exercises we invite you to (re)turn to *open* licenses and (re)explore their potential as radical techno-legal tools.
The exercises are an invitation to unfold context specific understandings of sharing practices and explore situated formats and imaginaries of *openness*. While staying close to the presence of our different bodies, different priviledges and different conditions, the exercises will hopefully make space for intense engagements, playful activities and compelling conversations.
----------------
## Peers, links and thanks!
First of all, a warm thanks to all the referenced work mentioned in this toolkit. A list of references can be found below.
@ -181,7 +187,7 @@ for public use, modification, and redistribution under the same terms so long as
[^rhizomatic]: Florence Cheval & Loraine Furter, *Rhizomatic open source way*, Intersections of Care (2019) <http://www.intersectionsofcare.net/>
[ˆfourfreedoms]: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
[^fourfreedoms]: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
[^memehustler]: Evgeny Morozov, The Meme Hustler Tim O’Reilly’s crazy talk (2013) - <https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler>

BIN
CONTEXT.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
LICENSES.pdf

Binary file not shown.

7
Make.css

@ -119,6 +119,9 @@ small{
font-size:9pt;
line-height:1.2;
}
ul li{
font-size:85%;
}
.footnotes{
font-family: 'Garamondt', monospace;
@ -172,8 +175,8 @@ div.exercise{
margin:1em 0;
}
div.license{
border:1px solid red;
background-color:rgba(255,0,0,.05);
border:1px solid magenta;
background-color:#fdf;
padding:0.5em 2em 1em;
margin:1em 0;
}

2
VIEWPOINTS.md

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
# Not for Any* <br />(Viewpoints) {.section}
The viewpoints in this toolkit are taken from the collection of conditional licenses (LICENSES). The reveal the particular vocabularies, orientations and urgencies that are used in these licenses. We placed them in five sets: **Who**, **Urgencies**, **Frameworks**, **Configurations** & **Conditions**.
The viewpoints in this toolkit are taken from the collection of conditional licenses (LICENSES). We placed them in five sets: **Who**, **Urgencies**, **Frameworks**, **Configurations** & **Conditions**.
![](https://vvvvvvaria.org/not-for-any/licenses-viewpoints-exercises.png)

BIN
VIEWPOINTS.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
agree-to-disagree/agree-to-disagree.odt

Binary file not shown.

BIN
agree-to-disagree/agree-to-disagree.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
donating-upstream/donating-upstream.odt

Binary file not shown.

BIN
donating-upstream/donating-upstream.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
generative-vocabularies/generative-vocabularies.odt

Binary file not shown.

BIN
generative-vocabularies/generative-vocabularies.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
group-configurations/group-configurations.odt

Binary file not shown.

BIN
group-configurations/group-configurations.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
increasing-saturation-🌶️/increasing-saturation-🌶️.odt

Binary file not shown.

BIN
increasing-saturation-🌶️/increasing-saturation-🌶️.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
re-versioning/re-versioning.odt

Binary file not shown.

BIN
re-versioning/re-versioning.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
situated-versioning/situated-versioning.odt

Binary file not shown.

BIN
situated-versioning/situated-versioning.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
team-names/team-names.odt

Binary file not shown.

BIN
team-names/team-names.pdf

Binary file not shown.

BIN
unpacking-multiple-we-s/unpacking-multiple-we-s.odt

Binary file not shown.

BIN
unpacking-multiple-we-s/unpacking-multiple-we-s.pdf

Binary file not shown.
Loading…
Cancel
Save