I was dismayed to see that Charlie characterized my response yesterday to his and Clancy’s posts as “fisking”, since my intent was only to say that (1) I don’t like the “party line” approach which suggests, as Charlie and Clancy do, that those who fail to use open-source software aren’t doing enough to support the open source movement, and (2) I think the finger-pointing that Charlie and Clancy have done is counterproductive, in that — as Cindy points out in her comment — it’ll alienate those who are already on your side, without gaining any converts. I intended towards Charlie and Clancy none of the hostility characteristic of fisking, since I like and admire both of them a lot and am ideologically in agreement with them on the positive points of the open-source movement. My post yesterday expressed disagreement only with the “party line” position that I saw Charlie and Clancy as taking in their finger-pointing, rather than the point-by-point deconstruction characteristic of fisking. And I completely agree with Charlie’s point “that copyfighters use of open source software could be better represented than it is”: in fact, this seems to me to be practically a given, which is why I didn’t engage with it.
Furthermore, I’ll completely agree with Charlie that individual rhetorical practice contributes to building one’s ethos as a teacher, and am happy to say, with Charlie, “Open source software use should be better represented in the copyfighters’ area of the blogosphere. Use provides positive example to others.”
While I still use MT, mostly because I haven’t yet set aside the time to convert my templates and CSS, I’ll probably be switching to WordPress sometime this summer. What I was disagreeing with was Charlie and Clancy’s contention that one must use open-source software in order to be able to say that one supports the ends of the open-source movement, and the finger-pointing at those who do not use open-source software that accompanied their contention. Basically, what Clancy did when she landscaped me as a “copyfighter” who doesn’t use open-source software was to say, “You’re a member of this group, but you’re not a good enough member of this group.” As I said before: I don’t think so. Charlie and Clancy would do well to heed Jeff’s doubts about whether “using open source software is essential to having credibility as a believer in ‘open’ concepts”.
Charlie mentions my “derogatory labeling of the open source movement as ‘radical.'” Actually, it wasn’t derogatory at all: I’m huge believer in the value of the American radical tradition, from the Revolutionary War to John Brown to the labor movement to Students for a Democratic Society. My use of the term was intended as high praise for the open source movement, which is engaging people around the world in the single most profound rethinking of property rights in the past hundred years. “Radical”, to me, is a good thing, and I’m happy to count myself as a member of the radical movement associated with open source, even if I’m not yet using the software.
One last question: Charlie and Clancy contend that the software one uses is an ideological choice. I’d have a hard time arguing with such a perspective. And yet, I wonder: how much does this differ from the consumer culture Thomas Frank indicts in his essays? When you use Linux, do you “Commodify Your Dissent”? Is using a product — like software — a convenient substitute for political action? I teach my students HTML, not Dreamweaver, because I want to give them the basic tools they’ll need to engage with the participatory rhetoric of the Web, and not tie them to a product — and when I start using open source software, I’ll teach my students to install and use it as well, because I believe that students’ control of the means of production as knowledge workers is one of the most valuable shields against exploitation I can offer them in an information economy. I live in a highly liberal enclave of New England, where people are quick to point out that they buy only non-sweatshop-produced clothing, or buy their furniture and knicknacks from stores that advertise themselves as “fairly traded”. Such liberal consumerist smugness bugs the hell out of me, particularly when people parade it as excusing them from other obligations. Charlie, in his response to me, seems to be asking: can one engage the ideas of the open source movement without engaging its material practices? I might ask in return: can one engage the material practices of the open source movement without engaging its ideas?
Is checkbook democracy really the best road open to the open source movement?
Hand up. I have a question. What do the terms “copyfighting” and “open source” mean? Was this previously defined somewhere and the only word that wasn’t linked? I’m trying to understand this argument but I’m not a rhet person which probably means I shouldn’t care but you guys are all getting embroiled and posting about it so I’m wondering.
No, Mike.
For example, I said a “little fisking” in the post to make fun of your style of picking a few points and criticizing them, rather than talking about what was said as a whole I would have thought this would have been apparent from the playful title. This is much the same way that you missed my playful way of creating an extreme analogy when I wrote, “Imagine if all the active members of Greenpeace. . .” Tongue in cheek is a rhetorical strategy after all. Not all of us are deadpan serious all the time.
And you know, I do believe that one must use open source software to be an open source advocate. But this doesn’t mean that copyfighters are not open source advocates if they don’t use it on their weblogs. I’m sure everyone who supports open source either uses Mozilla, or Mac OSX or OpenOffice. What I’ve been trying to point out is that copyfighters as whole are not best supporting the open source movement when there seems so little representation of open source software among the weblogs of the most visible, active academics in this discourse. Saying that we need to “walk the walk” is a realistic observation that if copyfighters want to encourage others to use open source software, which is another way of demonstrating “openness,” then using it on our weblogs is a very visible way of making a point.
So I don’t know why you went the radicalism/party line route, unless it was to support an immediate reaction against what I wrote initially. After all, the label of “radical” is not a good thing for the open source movement. Particularly since the open source movement is now popularly accepted within the IT industry and is no longer the lunatic finge there. Certainly, the public doesn’t really understand it yet (and this includes most people in the academy, too), but that doesn’t make it radical. Nor does it reveal sympathetic tendencies toward a movement, to label it radical in a burst of negative criticism. In that case, the rhetorical strategy seems more to me, and would to others, a method of attacking the movement, not supporting it.
Finally, “Charlie, in his response to me, seems to be asking: can one engage the ideas of the open source movement without engaging its material practices? I might ask in return: can one engage the material practices of the open source movement without engaging its ideas?”
As you know, I’ve been doing both for quite a while 🙂 But truthfully, yes. One can be working positively toward changing the state of IP by working hard to make use of, and spread the use of, open source/open content without heavily engaging the ideas of the movement since more open source/open content use means less proprietary software and controlled content, putting less in the pockets of those who would continue to make IP a property to be exploited.
Excellent question, ‘Chel, and I shoulda defined my terms more carefully. Charlie and Clancy are far more expert on the topic than I am, but I’ll attempt an answer. The terms are both linked to the current debate around intellectual property, and whether information should be “free”. (As some participants in the debate say, “free” as in speech rather than “free” as in beer.)
Clancy defines a “copyfigher” as “someone who engages in conversations on authorship and intellectual property” and as someone who examines “our current copyright model–automatic copyright, life + 70 years as soon as the content is put into a fixed medium–and express some kind of qualm about it; they think it should change in some way”. In other words, a “copyfighter” takes issue with the construction of the ownership of ideas as associated with contemporary copyright law. In that sense, I think Clancy’s right: I am indeed a copyfighter, because I’ve been using my economic perspective to question the myth of the scarcity of student writing.
“Open source” is a little harder to define. The Wikipedia entry is one good place to start, but I imagine you’re looking for something a little more succinct. AKMA offers a nice taxonomy that should give an idea of what’s being discussed, but not everybody agrees with him. There’s also a useful definition here. Many folks agree that any “open source” text can be freely modified and redistributed by anyone; beyond that, stuff gets complicated.
Charlie and Clancy: care to help refine these definitions?
Charlie: did you read the post to which you responded?
Maybe my previous post was in some ways oblique. This one, I thought, was fairly clear. Clancy’s recent writing supports my supposition.
So why are you picking a fight when there’s nothing there to fight over?
Michelle wrote, “What do the terms “copyfighting” and “open source” mean?”
Copyfighting has already been explored within some of the meme and is difficult to define because it’s a fairly new, popular term. However, I have an article which has a section that may help with understanding what open source is, as well as open access, open content and copyleft. These terms have clear definitions, although they can be difficult to grasp at first. See the section beginning with Open Source and Copyleft in this page of Copyright, Access and Digital Texts. If that’s not enough, then the Wikipedia link above is the way to go for understanding more about open source.
AKMA’s taxonomy is ultimately not very useful for understanding the terminology. For the past several years, I’ve seen many scholars toss around the term “open source” where it is obvious that they don’t really understand the principles of open source–free “source code” seems to be the buzz that catches on. So AKMA’s taxonomy represents more the way that some scholars have loosely appropriate the term rather then offering real clarity.
On the other hand, Taran Rampersad is trying to get at these principles in a way that may make more sense to academics with his concept of intellectual usability and how it fits in with notions of freedom (note that Taran is talking about copyleft, although I would offer that his concept applies to open source in general). dive into mark and Burningbird have pieces about MovableType licensing, open source and free software. I think Mark’s getting at the concept of freedom which is the important principle of open source a little better than Burningbird. But both of these get into the free software definition of free is in speech, not free as in beer (see the Wikipedia again for a detailed explanation).
Thanks to both of you for the links to definitions. The argument makes much more sense nwo that I can at least grasp the main points.(PS thanks especially, Mike, for recognizing that I wanted a succinct definition: always true.)
I suggest everyone go to Hawaii, find an open source bar, and use winks and raised eyebrows to convey nuances of tone and stance. See ya there.
Whoa. I better finish that book. 😮