SPREAD THE INFORMATION

Any information or special reports about various countries may be published with photos/videos on the world blog with bold legit source. All languages ​​are welcome. Mail to lucschrijvers@hotmail.com.

Search for an article in this Worldwide information blog

maandag 28 maart 2022

#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #FRANCE #ANARCHISM #News #Journal #Update - (en) France, UCL AL #325 - digital, Free software: the problem of free (ca, de, it, fr, pt)[machine translation]

 The Heartbleed (2014) and Log4shell (2021) flaws reminded the general public that

we sometimes use free software without even knowing it, and that securing it canbe a major issue. But when the people developing this software do it in theirspare time, on a voluntary basis, what do we really have the right to expect?---- Securing software is a general problem which concerns all infrastructures,all operating systems, and which does not spare free software [1]. Regularly, acritical flaw in a free software used very widely, even become indispensable, isdiscovered and raises the question of the funding model behind these elementarybricks of global computing.Indeed, while the Gafams, and more generally the software publishers, pay armiesof developers to work on their software products that are paid for or madeprofitable by advertising displays, the vast majority of free software isdistributed free of charge and developed by volunteers (these volunteers can alsobe employees of software publishers wishing to do something more ethical orcommunity-based in their free time). To take the measure of the problem, we muststart by knowing that even the proprietary software of Gafam with titanic meansare regularly victims of flaws.Remuneration solutionsOn the free software side, volunteer teams are often understaffed (four or fivepeople for the software behind the Log4shell flaw, only two for the one behindHeartbleed), when it's not just one person alone!If these volunteers suddenly decide to shut down and move on, the software isorphaned; if these volunteers are overwhelmed by their professional life and donot have time for a while to work on the software, the correction of the flawwill have to wait; worse, faced with a wave of worried, demanding and sometimesmisinformed messages, falling overnight on social networks when the fault is madepublic, a feeling of harassment and injustice can appear and the mental health ofthe person can be damaged. put to danger.However, solutions exist. The community solution par excellence, making itpossible to keep the software as far as possible from capitalist crocs, is thedonation, one-off or, better, recurring. This is how Wikipedia is financed, forexample. Others, like the RedHat company, sellfree software to other companies, guaranteeing quality and long-term technicalsupport.At Google, teams work full-time on free software deemed too critical to be leftin the hands of volunteers only - such as the Android Open Source Project (freepart of Android) or the Chromium browser (browser base, free or not, Brave,Chrome, Edge, Opera, etc.). Another example is the long-term funding model of theLinux kernel: thanks to annual donations from large companies whose activitydepends more or less directly on Linux, among which we find AMD, Fujitsu, HP,Hitachi, Intel, IBM, Orange, Yahoo !...and even Microsoft, kernel creator LinusTorvalds and a few other key developers are salaried.But if these solutions make it possible to keep the largest free software afloat,clearly identified by the general public or by major companies in the sector,this is not the case for a whole bunch of elementary libraries, unknown butessential software, like those behind the Heartbleed and Log4shell flaws. Forthis type of software, the problem remains, since calls for donations generallyend in failure.Above: "All modern digital infrastructures. Bottom: "A project that some personin Nebraska has graciously maintained since 2003. "Does all work deserve pay ?Obviously, from a more political point of view, from a communist point of view,the problem posed by the financing of free software is very similar to a textbookcase. On the one hand, computer workers committed to free software, often a bitidealistic, eager to support a community effort on a voluntary basis, eager towork for the common good; on the other side, the cruel reality of capitalism,where as proletarians we have no choice but to sell our labor power to collect aliving wage. To live on love and fresh water and voluntary computer development,that is not possible.Basic income and its variants have a strong power of seduction within the freesoftware community. An income granted to all, unconditionally, sufficient to livewith dignity, would allow, according to its defenders, to solve the problem.However, there are also very serious Marxist criticisms of the concept of basicincome, in particular in the sense that instead of emancipating from wage labor -an objective inscribed in the marble of the history of the labor movement - itinstalls it on the horizon unsurpassable. Without deciding here - the debate onthe basic income also exists within UCL -, we can at least affirm that theanti-capitalist movement is able to offer an emancipated future to developers offree software. This will happen, in our view, through strong unionization in theIT sector and through strikes.But talking about the socialization of the means of production, self-managementin companies and the abolition of wage labor does not put food on the plate ofdevelopers today; it is therefore also necessary to offer them concretesolidarity solutions that can be activated immediately.For the UCL library commission, social movement organisations, which often makeextensive use of free software from Framasoft, for example, must stop claimingthat "free = free" and, in the name of solidarity and , must finance thissoftware to the extent of their means.To do this, all you have to do is find the donation platforms, and when theydon't exist, contact the developers directly to ask them how to donate. The UCLfor its part has undertaken to do so since its creation, continuing thecommitment of the former organization Alternative Libertaire, and therefore givesevery month. An example to follow !The UCL library commissionTo validate[1]Software is said to be free if it is freely executableand if its source code is accessible, modifiableand redistributable. By contrast, software that doesnot satisfy one of these conditions is said to be proprietary or proprietary.https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Logiciel-libre-le-probleme-de-la-gratuite_________________________________________A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten