free software syndicates

SYNWAREsinwɛːʁ

SYNWARE

sinwɛːʁ

Synware: free so昀琀ware syndicates
Colle挀琀ion Synware
ISBN: 978-2-931254-00-4 (print)
ISBN: 978-2-931254-01-1 (screen)
Legal deposit: D/2023/14.239/2
Copyright © 2021-2023 petites singularités

On the Fediverse: https://re.lire.im/@psP.S.: Avenue Louis Be爀琀rand, 28 – 1030 Schaerbeek, BE
Copyle昀琀: this is a free work, you can copy, di猀琀ribute, andmodify it under the terms of the Free A爀琀 License.
→ https://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
吀栀is work is available in 昀甀ll at
https://thx.zoethical.org/pub/synware

L’union fait la force.
吀栀e syndicate wrecks the forge.
Traduttore traditore.
:(){ :|:& };:SYNWARE
free software syndicatessinwɛːʁ

Table of Contents
Editor’s preface..........................................................10
On so昀琀ware syndicalism........................................12Ab猀琀ra挀琀..................................................................13
Problem domain..................................................15
Principles...............................................................19
Syndicalism...........................................................25
Oppo爀琀unities......................................................28
Challenges.............................................................39
A so昀琀ware syndicate, for whom?........................46
Scavenging of free radicals..............................48
Polyglot technologies.........................................53
Proximity transmission....................................62
Community..........................................................76
Suppo爀琀ing resi猀琀ances............................................80Di猀瀀elling the fog................................................81
Promoting mutual aid......................................84
Asse爀琀ing ourselves together...........................87
Take me to your leader...........................................90
What is at Stake with Interoperability...........108

Consent & interoperability..........................109
Interoperability & interconne挀琀ion............110
Interconne挀琀ion & data po爀琀ability............111
吀栀e threat to free so昀琀ware..................................116
An OFFDEM manife猀琀o.................................116
吀栀e fa挀琀ory of technical violence.................123
O4FFDEM Call for Presence...............................130
2-3 February 2024, Brussels...........................132
Po猀琀-truth A昀琀erword............................................140
Countermeasures..............................................148

Editor’s preface吀栀is colle挀琀ion of essays gathers texts thatwere 昀椀r猀琀 published two years ago in French, in
Présence Solidaire. 吀栀eir English version neverappeared in print. 吀栀is preface, Take me to yourleader, as well as the OFFDEM Call for
Presence were wri琀琀en for this edition;
Suppo爀琀ing Resistances was edited as well tore昀氀e挀琀
petitessingularités’current
engagements.
吀栀e present volume inaugurates the Synware
colle挀琀ion (sinwɛːʁ) on free so昀琀ware
syndicalism. 吀栀is colle挀琀ion explores themodalities of using, creating, and maintaining
digital technologies colle挀琀ively. Synware
documents decentralized free so昀琀ware, theirusage and community organization as muchtechnical as conceptual, ae猀琀hetic and political.

11

On so昀琀ware syndicalismby 猀瀀acekookie

Ab猀琀ra挀琀
Organisations, groups, and proje挀琀s undercapitalism have the tendency to centralise. 吀栀isis both because of monetary incentives (itmight be cheaper to ju猀琀 have one of something
than many), as well as authority incentives; itis easier to control an organisation that is猀琀ru挀琀ured hierarchically.
吀栀e way that we organise free so昀琀ware
proje挀琀s is impa挀琀ed by this societal
framework, which replicates a lot of the issues
that organisations, proje挀琀s, and companies
under capitalism face as well. Maybe
unsurprisingly our solutions to these issues arealso largely similar: personality based, andhierarchical in nature.

13

Proje挀琀s o昀琀en also use the same metrics ascapitali猀琀 society for success: growth, reach,and audience appeal. 吀栀is replicates thephenomenon of representative democraticsy猀琀ems and proprietary technology creators of
pandering to the majority and le琀琀ing needs byminorities largely go unanswered.
In this essay we propose an organisational猀琀ru挀琀ure for so昀琀ware and technical proje挀琀sthat removes the notion of “up猀琀ream”, andintroduces a colle挀琀ive ownership approach ofso昀琀ware and technical knowledge. Freedom ofideas (the 昀甀ndamental basis of free so昀琀ware)
is a core requirement for this approach.
吀栀is essay can not hope to solve all problems
related to this idea, but to 猀琀a爀琀 a discussion
about the merits and advantages of organisingin small-scale, decentralised communities. Our
hope is that this 猀瀀arks conversation, intere猀琀,14

and motivation in others to form so昀琀ware
syndicates of their own, to communally own,
develop, and maintain the technologies that
our lives are built upon.

Problem domain
Developing and maintaining so昀琀ware is a lotof work, and largely a social exercise, in猀琀ead ofa technical one. While ce爀琀ain individuals areable to create a proje挀琀 by themselves throughobsession and dedication, it is unlikely for
proje挀琀s without a community to outlive thefocus period of the original creator.

Up猀琀ream吀栀is relationship between creators andconsumers is formalised by the concept of“up猀琀ream”.
So昀琀waredevelopment
isconsidered a river with an original source, and15

can branch out into di昀昀erent 猀琀reams andbrooks to adapt to its environment.
While this is an apt metaphor for how
so昀琀ware develops from a centralised source, itdoes come with a lot of burdens andchallenges. A poisonous source can de猀琀roy ariver’s ecosy猀琀em, and similarly, a rogueup猀琀ream development team1 can doom users
dependent on the down猀琀ream ecosy猀琀em ofthis proje挀琀.
Forks will occasionally diverge completelyfrom the original up猀琀ream, however this is acommitment that very few are able tomaintain without sub猀琀antial community
engagement (and public backlash).

1

16

https://web.archive.org/web/20210705123342/https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/audacity-fans-are-absolutelyfurious-right-now-heres-why
https://www.linuxuprising.com/2018/12/jellyfin-freesoftware-emby-media.html

Forks
Maintaining a so昀琀ware fork is a lot of work.
While it is di昀케cult to get exa挀琀 猀琀ati猀琀ics, ourassumption is that mo猀琀 so昀琀ware forks fail due
to lack of community engagement.2 吀栀is social
dynamic puts people o昀昀 forking so昀琀ware
proje挀琀s that are developing in a dire挀琀ion thatthey do not approve of, or that no longer
represent their wishes and desires: while intheory it is 猀琀ill possible for the so昀琀ware or
technology to be forked, the reality of thesituation needs to be acknowledged that this isout of scope for mo猀琀 people.
2

https://glimpse-editor.org/posts/a-project-on-hiatus/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_forks

Research exists that indicates the opposite of thisstatement. However survivorship bias may exist interms of how projects are advertised, scoped, andidenti昀椀ed. More research into the 昀椀eld is certainly
needed https://sci-hub.st/10.1007/978-3-642-33442-9
17

Organisation
吀栀e organisational methods used by so昀琀ware
and technical proje挀琀s are o昀琀en focussed
around central points of authority, similar to
how the code (or design 昀椀les) itself is treated.
吀栀is is a limitation by the nature oforganisation around a single platform and isderived from how a lot of tools are built toaccommodate capitali猀琀 ventures where
centralisation is a desired e昀昀e挀琀.
While it is possible for a small group to
make decisions very e昀케ciently in private, italso means that not all voices in thecommunity can be considered.
However decentralised and open decision
processes have a maximum size, pa猀琀 which
they fail due to sheer volume of feedback,trolls, or both. A prominent community thatrecently ran into this issue is the Ru猀琀 language
18

proje挀琀, which prompted the creation of aworking group in 2019 to address these issues.3

Principles
吀栀is se挀琀ion outlines di昀昀erent modes ofcollaborating on proje挀琀s, their 猀琀rengths, andhow they can intera挀琀 and integrate with eachother. 吀栀ese ideas form the basis on whichso昀琀ware syndicalism is built.

吀栀e proje挀琀 cabal
A common organisational pa琀琀ern that exi猀琀s(albeit not usually with an exa挀琀 name and veryo昀琀en hidden) is the “proje挀琀 cabal”. 吀栀is is agroup of people, o昀琀en including the original
author(s), who work on the core features and3

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2019/04/23/
roadmap.html#governancehttps://boats.gitlab.io/blog/post/rust-2019/https://spacekookie.de/blog/rust-2019-how-we-makedecisions/19

expansion of a proje挀琀. 吀栀eir knowledge andengagement drives the bulk of the proje挀琀
forward, and by their hands a lot of reque猀琀sfrom both users, as well as peripheral
developers get implemented.
While many proje挀琀s have a cabal, few areopen about this dynamic. It is not necessarily abad dynamic, if discussed and adopted openly.
Seeing communities as a colle挀琀ion ofconcentric circles outwards from the cabal
allows users to be aware of the social dynamics
that go into making decisions, and the path via
which an idea can be adopted by the
proje挀琀.
吀栀is uses the concept of “knowledge
bridges”4, which facilitate a way for lessexperienced users and developers tocommunicate their ideas to the cabal of a420

Binding Chaos, Heather Marsh (9781989783009)

proje挀琀, without having to become expe爀琀s in
the proje挀琀 domain 昀椀r猀琀.

Di猀琀ribution and tools
While source control sy猀琀ems such as git are
already decentralised, many organisational
tools built around it are not. GitHub, Gitlab,
and many other proje挀琀s in猀瀀ired by them5
follow the same pa琀琀erns of an up猀琀ream
repository, with a central place to trackcontributions and open issues.
Fu爀琀hermore, this approach a昀昀e挀琀s the waythat so昀琀ware is being di猀琀ributed to end-users
as well.
A new and growing trend is to task thedevelopers themselves with packaging theirso昀琀ware6. 吀栀is is done to simplify (centralise)
the publication process and reduce the lag
56

https://forgejo.org/ https://gitea.com/ https://sr.ht/
https://flatpak.org/ https://snapcraft.io/

21

between new features being created and users
being able to use these features.
Embracing the idea of decentralised
collaboration in smaller communities opens up
new possibilities for ownership of thetechnology that we use. And while proje挀琀sthat aim to decentralise these collaboration
tools7 around a peer-to-peer protocol such as
A挀琀ivityPub8 are not 猀琀ri挀琀ly required to put
any of these theories into pra挀琀ice, they doo昀昀er the oppo爀琀unity to design new ways ofcollaboration that don’t mirror the exi猀琀ing
centralised platforms.

7
8
22

https://forgefed.org/ https://forgefriends.org/
https://activitypub.rocks/

Up猀琀ream vs Mainline
Mo猀琀 of the issues we face in building
di猀琀ributed collaboration networks areorganisational – not technical – in nature. As
the development process of a proje挀琀 sca琀琀ers
around di昀昀erent groups, it becomes impo爀琀ant
to catalogue and track changes made bydi昀昀erent groups that allows others to easilypull them into their own trees.
For this process to work the original sourceof a proje挀琀 (currently called “up猀琀ream”) needs
to be replaced in the minds of developers andusers by the idea of a reference
implementation. For this reason we propose
and use the term “mainline” to describe thisproje挀琀 community.
While it is a subtle di昀昀erence, language plays
a huge role in how people relate to 猀琀ru挀琀uresand processes. 吀栀e term and concept is taken
23

from the way the Linux kernel is developed.
Every three months a new “mainline” kernel isreleased9 into the world, ready to be used bywhoever is intere猀琀ed in it.
However, mo猀琀 people do not run themainline kernel. 吀栀is is a referencecon昀椀guration aimed at pleasing a very 猀瀀eci昀椀ctarget audience. Mo猀琀 Linux di猀琀ributions
apply their own patches on top of this version,
remove features they deem incompatible with
their ideals (proprietary 昀椀rmware as an
example), and re-release this version onto theirusers. Proje挀琀s mu猀琀 be aware of who theirtarget audience is and no one proje挀琀 can every
hope to appeal to every user in the world.

924

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Linux_kernel_version_history

Syndicalism
Before we can discuss how to build so昀琀ware
syndicates we need to de昀椀ne what a syndicate
is, and how syndicali猀琀 cooperation 昀甀n挀琀ionsin pra挀琀ice. One de昀椀nition of syndicalism is “aradical political movement that advocatesbringing indu猀琀ry and government under thecontrol of federations of labour unions by theuse of dire挀琀 a挀琀ion”10. 吀栀e term is also o昀琀enused in relation to “anarcho-syndicalism” 11
which puts this theory into praxis in di昀昀erentways.
A lot of political a挀琀ivism is done via
syndicali猀琀 猀琀ru挀琀ures. 吀栀ey o昀昀er a way forpeople to collaborate with each other, without
having to belong to the same large-scale
1011

https://www.wordnik.com/words/syndicalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchosyndicalism#Theory_and_politics

25

organisation, or following the same exa挀琀 plan.
Alignment with each other’s ideals andprinciples is foundational for this mode ofcollaboration to work, while avoiding many ofthe problems outlined in earlier se挀琀ions.
Technology is inherently political in how it
is created, maintained, and used, and so昀琀ware
developers carry their own ideologies into
their work, whether they are aware of this ornot. Cultural barriers created by theseideologies make it harder for outsiders to theideology to pa爀琀icipate (for example because
they have a di昀昀erent political background or
are from a di昀昀erent pa爀琀 of the world).
Syndicalism embraces political ideology
around the work that we do and asks ofeverybody pa爀琀icipating in this work to re昀氀e挀琀
on their own biases, assumptions, andbehaviours. 吀栀is does not require political26

uniformity (o昀琀en dubbed “unity”). It a琀琀empts
to make social collaboration more tran猀瀀arent
and easier to under猀琀and, and primes 12
developers and users to under猀琀anding theirown biases and assumptions based on feedback
that they get from other communities.
Di昀昀erent syndicates can also approach groupcollaboration and decision making di昀昀erently,
while 猀琀ill working on the same overall vision
for a proje挀琀 or idea.
We use this term to invoke a feeling of
belonging, community, and political awarenessof the technologies we build and the work wecollaborate on. So昀琀ware syndicalism is the a挀琀 oforganising in syndicates and applying it to thedevelopment and maintenance of so昀琀ware.

12

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/primed27

Oppo爀琀unities
Proximity and knowledge silos
Centralised so昀琀ware communities tend torecreate coloniali猀琀 power-猀琀ru挀琀ures throughthe di猀琀ribution of developers and choice oftarget audience. 吀栀is creates knowledge silos 13
in these countries which is detrimental to theempowerment and autonomy of bothdevelopers and users from di昀昀erent countries.
吀栀ere are more subtle di昀昀erences (for example
looking at no爀琀hern vs southern, and we猀琀ern
vs ea猀琀ern Europe), but mo猀琀 prominent inboth European and white American
communities, compared to the re猀琀 of theworld.

1328

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_siloOne of the oppo爀琀unities of creating
syndicates around the creation andmaintenance of so昀琀ware proje挀琀s is breaking
this relationship. To under猀琀and how thisworks we also need to discuss the concept ofsocial proximity14.
吀栀e communities we belong to are based on
the social relationships we have with people,
and vice versa. 吀栀ese are bi-dire挀琀ional
feedback mechanisms. Via the internet
proximity (or locality) can exi猀琀 both in thephysical world, and in a metaphysical sense of
belonging.
Users and developers of proje挀琀s can exi猀琀 indi昀昀erent proximities to di昀昀erent so昀琀ware
syndicates, which lowers the barrier of entry,
and gives users and developers more choices ofconta挀琀 points to a so昀琀ware proje挀琀. If the14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_principle

29

mainline syndicate around a proje挀琀 isconsidered ho猀琀ile to work with outside of ace爀琀ain peer group, other syndicates will allow
alternative communities to 猀瀀ring up.
It’s impo爀琀ant to note that none of this is
impossible under the current view ofdevelopment. A ho猀琀ile or malicious up猀琀reamdevelopment team can be circumvented byforking the proje挀琀. 吀栀is however comes with a
lot of unexplored social re猀瀀onsibilities thatmany people shy away from. Forking, and thenmaintaining a fork community, is a lot of workthat is o昀琀en not seen as an option.
To 猀琀a爀琀 a so昀琀ware syndicate is notnecessarily easier on its own, but comes with
the idea of inter-proje挀琀 and international
solidarity built-in. No one syndicate aims to猀瀀eak for the whole proje挀琀, or satisfy all users.
And thus collaboration is key.

30

Identi昀椀cation
Proximity and community are about
belonging and identi昀椀cation. 吀栀is requires
self-identi昀椀cation of users and developers,
exploring exi猀琀ing communities. Human beingsare complex, both individually, and in terms of
the relationships with each other. Labels ofidenti昀椀cation are an impo爀琀ant tool in thisregard, but mu猀琀 not be used to bikeshedde昀椀nitions.
Much like anything else that humans havecreated language for, identity labels are vague
and have a ce爀琀ain amount of 昀氀exibility. A
so昀琀ware syndicate might exi猀琀s for a usergroup with 猀瀀eci昀椀c needs, or for a group of
developers (and thus users) based in a di昀昀erent
country, operating in a di昀昀erent language.

31

Syndicates mu猀琀 self regulate theirmembership, but at the same time
identi昀椀cation with the target audience of a
syndicate should be enough for someone tobelong to this syndicate’s user group.
Forming new syndicates based on exi猀琀ing
ones if the need for more granular
identi昀椀cation becomes apparent this should be
encouraged and not hindered. Largecommunities (as outlined in earlier se挀琀ions)do not scale, and by keeping syndicates small
and focussed, a lot of these issues can be
avoided.

Relationships
While the user and developer audience of a
syndicate is up to each member of the
syndicate and how they identify with thesyndicate, relationships between syndicates32

should aim to be more formalised. Syndicali猀琀
cooperation is based on solidarity.
Fragmentation is a real concern in thisregard and demands cross-collaboration
between syndicates in terms of basic 猀瀀ecs,
core components, and design choices. 吀栀is is toensure that so昀琀ware made and maintained bydi昀昀erent syndicates remains as compatiblywith other versions as possible.
However, ju猀琀 as with identi昀椀cation ofsyndicate belonging, diverging proje挀琀s should
not be hindered if this serves the need ofdi昀昀erent user groups. Neither so昀琀ware not its
user base is monolithic and proje挀琀s may
diverge from each other if their goals no longeralign. An e昀昀o爀琀 should be made to allow for昀甀ture cross-collaboration, but there is no
point in 猀瀀ending energy on drama andcon昀氀i挀琀s if developers and users would be

33

happier with two separate proje挀琀s rather thanone.
吀栀is 猀瀀ace o昀昀ers a lot of oppo爀琀unities interms of designing tools for crosscollaboration. Syndicates might be able topublish change sets that provide metadata forgit patch sets that can easily be included byother syndicates, or individual users that wanta cu猀琀om version of a piece of so昀琀ware that iscon昀椀gured and compiled ju猀琀 for them, basedon a mainline version and patches that are
maintained by di昀昀erent syndicates.

Decision models
Decision making processes may di昀昀erbetween syndicates which o昀昀ers a choice toboth developers and users in terms of how theywant to engage with the so昀琀ware they use.

34

Casual users of a so昀琀ware might choose a
syndicate which does not make decisions basedon user feedback and in猀琀ead tru猀琀ing the cabal
to guide the development and maintenance of
their tool. On the other hand “power users” ofa so昀琀ware may want to be able to be more
involved in the decision making process
without having to gain the technicalknowledge and experience to join the corecabal.
By diverging communities into smaller
syndicates it is possible for these communities
to organise themselves di昀昀erently whileallowing for cross-collaboration on impo爀琀antfeatures.
Decision models can be aligned on two axes:
knowledge
andtru猀琀15.
Knowledge
relationships are based on agreement on
15

https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10858infrastructures_in_a_horizontal_farmers_community#t=593

35

technical ideas and what is commonly usedcurrently in “meritocratic” sy猀琀ems. Tru猀琀relationships
are
based
on
mutualunder猀琀anding of the principles that go into
making a decision and developing a so昀琀ware.
吀栀ese two relationships can intera挀琀 inintere猀琀ing ways.

36

high trust^||
CONSENSUS|
UNANIMITY||| high agreement<---------------+---------------->
low agreement ||DISSENT|TECHNICAL|AGREEMENT|v
low trust37Collaboration is possible in three of thesequadrants, although only two of them are ideal.
When two groups agree on the details of asolution but do not tru猀琀 each other, atechnical relationship can be formed. 吀栀isusually involves a 猀瀀eci昀椀cation that is thenhonoured by both groups (and others that join
into the relationship at a later point in time).
On the other hand, when two groups have a猀琀rong tru猀琀 relationship this allows forcollaboration via consensus. Consensus
decision making16 means taking every
individuals point of view into account andcoming to a decision based on thisinformation. 吀栀is means that individuals candisagree with 猀瀀eci昀椀cs but 昀椀nd some common
ground that they can both “live with”. 吀栀ismeans that decisions are based on the comfo爀琀
1638

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

edges of all pa爀琀icipants. 吀栀ere is no voting as
this would enforce a majorities view over any
minority and every 猀琀akeholder in a sy猀琀em canexercise a veto right to 猀琀op a decision.
吀栀ese processes only work in small groups,
which is why syndicates are also encouraged toform pure technical relationships.
吀栀equadrants“UNANIMITY”
and“DISSENT” should be avoided as they either
result in an echo-chamber e昀昀e挀琀 in terms ofdecision making, or don’t allow for e昀昀e挀琀ive
collaboration at all.

Challenges
While the previous se挀琀ions outlined
oppo爀琀unities solve (and improve on) theexi猀琀ing problem domain, this idea is notwithout its own challenges. 吀栀is essaya琀琀empted to propose solutions for some of39

these, but can of course not hope to becomprehensive.

Technical fragmentation
Exi猀琀ing proje挀琀s that use a similar
approach17 can su昀昀er from “fragmentation” or“fra挀琀urisation” (commonly also called“balkanisation”). 吀栀is is the process by which
communities diverge so signi昀椀cantly that they
are no longer compatible with each other. In
the case of Frei昀甀nk this means that the coreso昀琀ware is 猀琀ill developed communally
between all “chapters”, but con昀椀guration andnetwork setups vary so widely that moving
between networks requires 昀甀ndamentally recon昀椀guring infra猀琀ru挀琀ure devices.

1740

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreifunkCreating small syndicate communities
around all so爀琀s of so昀琀ware proje挀琀s may su昀昀er
from the same problem if not managed
accordingly. 吀栀is requires collaboration
platforms to grow and scale in a way that they
currently don’t, or for syndicates to operatefrom compatible principles, which will be hardto ensure and verify.

Not invented here
A common theme in so昀琀ware development
is the “not invented here syndrome” (NIH18)
which prompts companies to rewrite technicalproje挀琀s created by other pa爀琀ies because theyeither don’t like or don’t under猀琀and theexi猀琀ing (and available) solution.

18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here41

Because free so昀琀ware developers do not exi猀琀
in a bubble this a昀昀e挀琀s free so昀琀ware proje挀琀s aswell. Fragmentation in communities, social
and technical di昀昀erences in under猀琀anding,and other fa挀琀ors might contribute to a rise in
NIH among syndicates. 吀栀is is a problem withno real solution. It can potentially be avoided
with be琀琀er communication.
On the other hand it is impo爀琀ant toconsider that ju猀琀 because something has beenwri琀琀en once that does not mean that noalternative implementations can or shouldexi猀琀. It is possible to 昀椀nd errors in猀瀀eci昀椀cations
throughalternative
19
implementations .

1942https://blogs.oracle.com/developers/building-acontainer-runtime-in-rust

Political fragmentation
Similarly to how technical di昀昀erences inopinions may fragment a proje挀琀, the same canbe said for political ideologies. It isredu挀琀ioni猀琀 to assume that ideology in itself isthe problem (a昀琀er all not believing in
ideologies is itself an ideology). Labels exi猀琀 inlanguage to catalogue and describe natural andcultural things.
吀栀e impo爀琀ance is to recognise that di昀昀erent
labels can exi猀琀 for the same principles, andthat similar political conclusions built on thesame principles are 猀琀ill compatible with eachother.

Outlook
Bringing this essay to a close, we look intothe 昀甀ture. 吀栀e way we build sy猀琀ems andorganise ourselves in communities has grown43

out of the capitali猀琀 sy猀琀em that we aim toescape. Fu爀琀hermore this is not simply about
the development of so昀琀ware (and othertechnologies), but about giving users anddevelopers autonomy over the tools that theybuild and use.
It is time for an overhaul of how we organise,
and to become aware of the sy猀琀ems that we
replicate in how we develop the technologies
that we hope will transform the world. 吀栀is issorely needed, as boyco琀琀ing technology is not
the solution to the ever growing surveillance
apparatus created by capitali猀琀 sy猀琀ems.
Ultimately, so昀琀ware syndicalism is about
reducing the di猀琀ance between the creation andmaintenance of technology and its users.

44

45

A so昀琀ware syndicate,
for whom?
by natacha

Who is concerned by a so昀琀ware syndicate?
How can a so昀琀ware syndicate embracetransformational forces? As we are observing
worrying political dri昀琀s, a clear consolidationof control society, and possible rise of fasci猀琀
discourses, we know from experience that the猀琀ake of maintaining an independent
infra猀琀ru挀琀ure of communication is crucial toresi猀琀ance networks who will take the charge ofa 昀甀爀琀her social re猀瀀onse. However it feels that
this impo爀琀ant concern is o昀琀en being held as
secondary.
Advocating for a global approach to address
modalities of the technological society o昀琀enmakes you quali昀椀ed as ideali猀琀, since power inplace greatly favours militaro-indu猀琀rial
complex, even so embracing the issue might be
the only way to organise in the here and now
towards the world to come. We will envision47

here how conce爀琀ed a挀琀ions at a small scale cancontribute to a global thinking on the topic.

Scavenging of free radicals
While the centralization of data andprivatization of so昀琀ware, favoured by the neoliberal economic dys昀甀n挀琀ion, occupy almo猀琀
all domains, there are 猀琀ill many a挀琀ivi猀琀
proje挀琀s that continue to propose singular tools
and models of community organization; someradical technical colle挀琀ives maintain theirexi猀琀ence, providing long la猀琀ing independentcommunication tools, for example Riseup.net
or Auti猀琀ici/Inventati20 (moreover, A/I, in
their orange book21 document theirinfra猀琀ru挀琀ure for a挀琀ivi猀琀 proje挀琀s, an
20+KAOS: Ten Years of Hacking and Media
Activism ISBN: 978-94-92302-16-8

2148

https://www.autistici.org/orangebook/impo爀琀ant 猀琀ep to allow the transfer ofexperience so others can reproduce theirprocess22); other initiatives, such as the Lorea
proje挀琀23, have had a sho爀琀 and intense life byengaging in resi猀琀ance organizations; more
recently, more 猀琀ru挀琀ures have followed thispath, notably in Europe, such as disroot.org,
tutanota.com and some got organised in a
network such as CHATONS24 in France. To
date, it seems that while use昀甀l so昀琀ware areavailable, well organized communities, whoprovide secured tools that can be con昀椀gured
according to needs, they are mo猀琀 o昀琀en unused
or at lea猀琀 not used to their 昀甀ll extent.
22 吀栀e list is long and Riseup maintains a partial listof radical technical collectives :https://riseup.net/en/security/resources/radical-servers

23

https://web.archive.org/web/20151103003019/http://lorea.org/

24

https://chatons.org/

49

Popular prote猀琀s that bring hundreds ofthousands of people into the 猀琀reets mo猀琀 o昀琀enrely on centralized social media platforms,
although within these groups a minority of
individuals will prefer to use a secure methodof communication, similarly, for the moment I
don’t know of any coherent and conce爀琀eddigital organization in resi猀琀ance networks.
Mo猀琀 o昀琀en a discourse reje挀琀ing technology
dominates in a挀琀ivi猀琀 circles, this position
seems unreali猀琀ic given the hold of centralized
platforms on our exchanges. As a result, notonly do we depend on models imposed on us
by centralized corporate technologies, but wealso (pretend to) tru猀琀 them to manage ourdata.
Technology produ挀琀ion is undoubtedly pa爀琀of coloniali猀琀 exploitative hi猀琀ory, its operationbene昀椀ts the empire. 吀栀e nature of digital tools,

50which do nothing be琀琀er than reproduce
information, is curbed by copyright while
corporate pra挀琀ice largely favours the tracingof those who produce information; leaving theinfra猀琀ru挀琀ure in the hands of corporations
alone only a最最ravates the problem. On thecontrary, the experience acquired over theyears makes it possible to envisage a controlled
use and a be琀琀er under猀琀anding of the 猀琀akes,
which necessarily requires, as we know, thesharing of documentation, the creation of
猀瀀aces for re昀氀e挀琀ion, debate and a挀琀ivepedagogy in order to rethink our relationshipwith technology.
Facing the lack of colle挀琀ive re昀氀e挀琀ion about
the technologies used to coordinate social
movements and resi猀琀ances, it is use昀甀l toconsider free so昀琀ware in its 猀琀ru挀琀uring
capacity: both an approach to bring so昀琀ware51

code into the public domain and amethodology to coordinate contributions andthe maintenance of digital tools. To this end,
this text 猀琀a爀琀s by addressing the observationthat free so昀琀ware proje挀琀s face sy猀琀emic
limitations, those are pa爀琀icularly sensible andlimiting in the social organisation a琀琀ached tofree so昀琀ware produ挀琀ion; it conforms to anorm e猀琀ablished in an essentially masculine
and We猀琀ern universe, and non tech people
lack of information about the technical reality
and fail to see the scope of the problem would
it be for their own safety or for the sake offormulating meaning昀甀l discourses/claims inpolitical or academic circles.

52

Polyglot technologies
Free so昀琀ware programmers form aninternational community that agrees oncollaborative work methods and 猀瀀eci昀椀c tools,
such as the version control so昀琀ware git. 吀栀iscommunity o昀琀en shares social chara挀琀eri猀琀ics,
creating knowledge silos that in昀氀uence thedire挀琀ion of so昀琀ware development.
• Free So昀琀ware proje挀琀s are almo猀琀
always coming from people with EuroAmerican cultural background, thosepeople with a We猀琀ern heritage tend toreproduce exi猀琀ing pa琀琀erns ofdomination.
• When programmers realize they are
creating a knowledge silo, and maybe
are not creating a welcoming
environment for others, they o昀琀en53remedy this by turning to themain猀琀ream, either by imitating theinterfaces and 猀琀ru挀琀ures of proprietaryso昀琀ware, or by trying to be compatible
with exi猀琀ing corporate tools rather
than asse爀琀ing the con猀琀ru挀琀ion of adi昀昀erent technology.
• 吀栀is reasoning results in social andtechnological environments that limit
dissent thinking and make fordi昀케culty to voice out and even see theneed for radical transformation, evenmore the idea of grounding thistransformation in the fragility ofcommunities is sometimes called out.
As a dire挀琀 result of colonial hi猀琀ory andWe猀琀ern domination of education and access to
infra猀琀ru挀琀ure, mo猀琀 so昀琀ware, and even more
open source so昀琀ware, is developed by people

54who have be琀琀er access to university education,and the identity conveyed by the community
or workplace does not help to transform thesituation.25 With re猀瀀e挀琀 to the We猀琀, Charlton
Mc Ilwain explains that, from the beginning,ce爀琀ain populations have been hi猀琀orically anddeliberately excluded from the in猀琀itutions
where technology is developed: “吀栀e Folks at
MIT and those like them were building a newsociety they made the de-fa挀琀o decision to
exclude Negroes from designing, building, or
deciding what computer sy猀琀ems would bebuilt”.26
In this context, developers bring theirculture with them and organize social猀琀ru挀琀ures, their proposals are not always
25

https://archive.fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/python_diversity_gap/

26 Black So昀琀ware, 吀栀e Internet and Social Justice fromthe Afronet to Black Lives matter, Charlton D. Mc
Ilwain, Oxford University Press 2020, p.21
55

welcoming to people from another backgroundor country. While contributions to Free
So昀琀ware proje挀琀s come from global sources 27,
this is not visible in social 猀瀀aces (fe猀琀ivals,
conferences, hacker camps, etc.) where peopleintere猀琀ed in technical issues meet, nor indecision-making processes. Unfo爀琀unately, forvarious reasons (interse挀琀ional issues toocomplex to be discussed here), it seems that the
population of free so昀琀ware programmers ismore uniform than the population incorporate environment.15 吀栀e uniformity of the
population is o昀琀en the 昀椀r猀琀 thing that 猀琀rikes aperson a琀琀ending a large free so昀琀ware
conference for the 昀椀r猀琀 time28. Also these27 Who is an open source so昀琀ware developer?, Bert J.
Dempsey, Debra Weiss, Paul Jones, and Jane
Greenberg, in Commun. ACM vol. 45, Feb. 2002.
DOI: 10.1145/503124.503125
28 https://annadodson.co.uk/blog/2019/02/04/fosdem-2019/56

we猀琀ern and gendered social pra挀琀ices, o昀琀en do
not completely separate themselves from thosein the corporate world - which is very muchpresent in the vicinity - promote, among otherthings, a hierarchical and personality-based猀琀ru挀琀ure and do not allow for the sharing oforganizational modalities 猀瀀eci昀椀c to Free
So昀琀ware.
On another hand, de猀瀀ite the evidence of
their toxicity, a great deal of tolerance is given,
even in critical circles, to the use of
surveillance capitali猀琀 so昀琀ware. More o昀琀enthan not, the explanation given emphasizes thedi昀케culty of changing exi猀琀ing processes, anddenies the need to think about the bene昀椀ts of aconce爀琀ed transformation. From this situation,
where the lack of dialogue and colle挀琀ivere昀氀e挀琀ion is obvious, the result is thecry猀琀allization of a 猀琀ru挀琀ure of domination57

where programmers keep a grip ontechnologicalchoices.
吀栀eresi猀琀ance
organizations, on the other hand, argue thatthey are fragile and lack the time andknowledge to continue to feed the 昀氀ows oftechno-surveillance with their data, theiremotions, their motivations, their relationalgraphs and, more than anything else, to bindthemselves to the fragmented, self-promoting
and time-consuming operating model put
forward by the technologies they use.
吀栀ere are many a琀琀empts to remedy thissituation, but because of the reality describedabove, discussions about technology happens
in closed circles and o昀琀en fails to consider thepeculiarities of Free So昀琀ware; they are notconsidered as 猀瀀eci昀椀c sy猀琀ems, and loosing
sight of their singular possibilities. 吀栀e samething happens when it comes to meeting the58

needs of “users”; the very success昀甀l campaignof the French Free So昀琀ware provider
Framaso昀琀, called Dégooglisons Internet29, o昀昀ers
free of charge Free So昀琀ware alternatives tomo猀琀 main centralized online services.
However, by providing “alternatives” that insome way try to keep the familiarity of theuser’s habit with centralized corporateso昀琀ware, we 猀琀ill subje挀琀 civil society
organizations to the world view that thesecompanies promote, identity based on gratis
usage and focus on serving individual proje挀琀s,rather than exchange and collaboration. 吀栀ereasons for this choice are obviously pragmatic,
it is di昀케cult to break away from the dominantmodel; highlighting the possibility of anotherorganization fo猀琀ering the visibility of adi昀昀erent paradigm requires a voluntary and29

https://degooglisons-internet.org/

59

persi猀琀ent work from di昀昀erent groups acrossexi猀琀ing social organisation. Transdisciplinary
andinclusive
conversations
about
technological produ挀琀ion and usage would help
to approach Free so昀琀ware produ挀琀ion as aprocess that allows a di昀昀erent way of昀甀n挀琀ioning, which would give another accessto the digital tools, notably by o昀昀ering thepossibility of discussing the di昀昀erent
technological choices and would allow a sharedunder猀琀anding of the technical 猀琀akes, of theneeds and of the social 昀甀n挀琀ioning necessarily
associated to digital communications. 吀栀ere
are very few 猀瀀aces where transdisciplinary
exchanges take place, very few knowledge
bridges where free so昀琀ware developers learn
and share their experience with otherdisciplines, other experiences and engage

60

reciprocally to give life to proposals thatre猀瀀ond to expressed and di昀昀erent needs.
Faced with the obvious signs of theconsolidation of a techno-fasci猀琀 domination,
we are le昀琀 with the desire to organize in order
to set up a radically transformative social andhuman way of 昀甀n挀琀ioning and rethinktechnology together. It is time to 昀椀nd places
where we can exchange and 昀甀n挀琀ion in acollaborative way. As we have seen, there are
few of these, they are 猀瀀lit between
programmers and a挀琀ivi猀琀s, and above all thereis hardly any 猀琀ru挀琀ured arrangement for thetransmission of knowledge. 吀栀e need to create
an a挀琀ivi猀琀 milieu to discuss technologicalpra挀琀ices in a society where computers are
dominant is apparent, this can take di昀昀erent
forms, meetings, workshops, writings, digitalexchanges but in all cases and it mu猀琀 be a61shared proje挀琀 inhabited both by people
contributing to the development and use ofso昀琀ware and all the people who are generally
excluded from these debates.

Proximity transmission
吀栀e virus ta挀琀ic
•

•

•

62

Modalities of technology are unknown
because mo猀琀 people are kept
dependent by corporations.
A挀琀ivi猀琀s don’t have time to inve猀琀 inunder猀琀anding the technology, they are
already divided and overloaded.
Di昀케culty/impossibility to get feedback
from users at the so昀琀ware developmentlevel because they have no reference inso昀琀ware, only in identity-based
enterprise produ挀琀s.

Mo猀琀 of the arguments for not considering
the possibility of other technologies are selfdeprecating: “technology is not for me”,
“I don’t under猀琀and anything”, “I don’t havetime”, etc. Yet screen time is con猀琀antly
increasing, and the indi猀瀀ensable operations ofdaily life are increasingly intermediated bycapitali猀琀 surveillance platforms.
吀栀ese observations are banal and o昀琀endismissed with a shrug of the shoulders,re昀氀e挀琀ing a feeling of powerlessness. A挀琀ivi猀琀s
are already exhau猀琀ed by too manyre猀瀀onsibilities, the technology they use should
suppo爀琀 them in their a挀琀ivities and not require
more time, as those based on an a琀琀ention
economy promoted by many platforms do. On
the other hand, free so昀琀ware proje挀琀s feel theneed to reach a wider audience, they rightly
assess the need to be琀琀er re猀瀀ond to users’63needs, to get feedback, to do design UX;
however, in the absence of shared 猀琀ru挀琀uresfor re昀氀e挀琀ion on technological developments,
the point of comparison remains the dominant
tools 吀栀is comparison is reinforced by the fa挀琀
that, when asked about the desired
昀甀n挀琀ionality of free so昀琀ware, “users” who are
not well informed about the possibilities offree so昀琀ware and who are not engaged in a
broader re昀氀e挀琀ion about technology will use
the mo猀琀 well-known so昀琀ware as a point ofcomparison.
We need organized working groups to care
together for the terms of the technologicalsociety: transdisciplinary so昀琀ware syndicates.
吀栀ere we can think about dire挀琀ions and makedecisions for the development of so昀琀ware thatwould feed into 猀琀rategies of sharing, from andwith resi猀琀ance networks. So昀琀ware syndicates64are under猀琀ood here as proximity-based猀琀ru挀琀ures that can serve as a basis for 猀琀rategy
development and the transfer of informationand knowledge, decentralized and online
decision-making processes and the federationof needs.
Fu爀琀hermore
thecomprehensionofsurveillance capitalism formalized by hacker
communities could suppo爀琀 a挀琀ivi猀琀 proje挀琀s;
recognizing the ways in which both groups
pursue the same goals is essential. To get suchprocesses going, we need people to take on thetask of intermediation, to take on the role ofthe missing link between free technologya挀琀ors and a挀琀ivi猀琀s, to build a ground forthinking about technology for resi猀琀ance, tobecome knowledge bridges.

65Knowledge Bridges•

Need for sy猀琀emic adoption of open
infra猀琀ru挀琀ure.

吀栀is is not a proposition to rethink theuniverse, the assimilation of always newtechnologies and infra猀琀ru挀琀ure exhau猀琀s theusers as innovation pushes on always
conceiving new tools or new ways of doing
things to exchange socialize and form
knowledge together. On the contrary, there aremany free so昀琀ware techniques and tools thathave 猀琀eadily permi琀琀ed over time theappropriation of technological 昀甀n挀琀ions, andpermit to 昀椀x a 猀琀andard for adapted todi昀昀erent uses and pra挀琀ices. In the same way,
the persons who set as knowledge bridges
from/to programmer environment to a挀琀ivi猀琀s
have an intere猀琀 in relying on exi猀琀ing social
66

organizations rather than building again a neworganisation, in pa爀琀icular by working withexi猀琀ing civil society 猀琀ru挀琀ures and resi猀琀ance
organizations who have a experience in theira挀琀ion. From this point of view, theintermediary role of knowledge bridge isessential, it is not necessarily a que猀琀ion ofdeveloping more or be琀琀er tools, or other猀琀ru挀琀ures, but of knowing how to manipulate
the exi猀琀ing ones, to in猀琀all the necessary tools
and to transmit an under猀琀anding of theirmodalities of 昀甀n挀琀ioning so that their use
meets the needs of the engaged colle挀琀ive. It isalso a que猀琀ion of under猀琀anding and easingother people’s under猀琀anding about how themo猀琀 wide猀瀀read technologies are free so昀琀ware
and they 昀甀n挀琀ion di昀昀erently. 吀栀e pra挀琀ical
documentation of technical processes is reallyrare and the time 猀瀀ent to realize these67documents is o昀琀en not considered as a valuecreating a挀琀ivity, yet it is essential to the life of
the so昀琀ware, its adoption and its 昀甀turetransformation.
吀栀e example of Andrea’s work in the Campi
Ape爀琀i30 community is an in猀瀀iring example of
how it is possible to integrate both governancework within a community seeking to exi猀琀 in ahorizontal relationship, and exi猀琀ing open
source tools developed within their own
communities and rarely used in this context.
Andrea proposes several principles:• Do not do things alone.
• Te猀琀ing environment.
• Document everything and explain the
choice of algorithm.
• Give yourself the time to 猀琀udy.
• Do not be too much 猀瀀ecialized.
30
68

https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10858infrastructures_in_a_horizontal_farmers_community

She explains how she was able to engage theCampi Ape爀琀i community around the setup of
their dedicated network and their own servers.
Every technological decision was integrated
into their choices of organization andcolle挀琀ive validation, and the people involved
were quickly able to take ownership of the
proposed technologies.
Several initiatives have thought of proje挀琀s
integrating di昀昀erent so昀琀ware in a sharedenvironment aiming at facilitating theirin猀琀allation, among other things by using
dedicated hardware. 吀栀ese proje挀琀s are
impo爀琀ant 猀瀀aces for the con猀琀ru挀琀ion oftechnical independence. 吀栀e person who isable to pass on technical information andsuppo爀琀 others, a knowledge bridge, mayintervene temporarily or over time, may or
may not have a technical and/or a挀琀ivi猀琀

69

background, or both, the essential thing is that
she a挀琀s in a 猀瀀irit of si猀琀erhood andcommunity knowledge building throughmutual self-learning and suppo爀琀.

Relationships, locality, proximity,
community and globality
Taking into account the di昀昀erent
observations o昀琀en shared about the modalitiesand 猀琀ru挀琀ures allowing for the development of
free so昀琀ware, we can 猀瀀ecify a li琀琀le themodalities of a so昀琀ware syndicate.
Local reference is immediately accessible.
Local information, networks of common
goods, ca爀琀ography.
•

70

Local is impo爀琀ant for human relationsand 昀甀爀琀her communication.

•For so昀琀ware, geographic location is not
signi昀椀cant
and
can
lead
to
redundancies in development.

吀栀e notion of locality o昀琀en comes up in
current social contexts, nu爀琀uring ba琀琀les andutopias, it also is very present in the discourseof radical technologies and independent
providers. While the idea of locality seems
obvious in an immediate de昀椀nition: “what isclose to us within a radius of x km”; and if
locality makes sense in terms of humanrelations, as a form of reappropriation of
agency, it can also be the occasion to evade alarge number of issues of hi猀琀oricaldomination, colonial for example, notacknowledging that our wealth and welfaresy猀琀em is heavily con猀琀ru挀琀ed on exploitativesy猀琀ems 猀琀ill in place. Indeed locality needs to71

be under猀琀ood as di昀昀erent from autonomy
because the exi猀琀ence maintained locally in theWe猀琀 depends largely on global 猀琀ru挀琀ures of
exploitation. Fu爀琀hermore what does locality
means in terms of so昀琀ware development.
For example, the que猀琀ion of a local
community associated in the development ormaintenance of a so昀琀ware or a code base seems
to be associated with a pa爀琀icular vision of
locality, some urban centres where asu昀케ciently large number of programmers arefound to form a local community, but this is
not the case for mo猀琀 rural 猀瀀aces.
Technological knowledge is situated, and itis crucial that the people who hold it
implement 猀琀ru挀琀ures for dialogue with othersocial 猀瀀aces, and in the current situation
where corporation a琀琀ack every piece of land it
is all the more crucial for radical technologies

72that are mo猀琀 o昀琀en thought in urban contexts,
to keep in touch with the various territorial
猀琀ru最最les that are mo猀琀 o昀琀en rural.
Development based on proximity
Taking in account the previously mentioned
issues and limits, locality seems on othera猀瀀e挀琀s an impo爀琀ant asset for radical and freeso昀琀ware technology development andorganisation.
••

Proximity rather than locality.
Who does what, code is not the only
modality of technologies.

So昀琀ware development relies on humanorganisations that are both localised in ce爀琀ainurban centres and at a di猀琀ance hi猀琀oricallyformalising online ways of organisation, thatallows them to keep track of their proje挀琀s and73

communities in a decentralised manner very
adaptable and reliable. 吀栀ose tools allow toforma昀케nitygroupsover猀瀀eci昀椀cso昀琀ware/type of so昀琀ware where technologicalchoices are discussed for their pe爀琀inence but
also for some more obscure reasons that canresemble a form of a琀琀achment to a ce爀琀ain
identity, ae猀琀hetics or , even what some mightcall political reasons (mo猀琀 of the time
unacknowledged). For example adhesion to
decentralisation, or technological minimalism
has de昀椀nitive political groundings, mo猀琀 of thetime not presented as such.
Developer’s a昀케nity groups form proximity
relations that are not solely depending on theirlocality and con猀琀raining them to a local
implementation would be absurd, contrary to
the networked quality of the technology.
However Free So昀琀ware development mo猀琀74

o昀琀en happens among a network of peers,organized in groups of belonging and identity.
People are localized and meet in hacker猀瀀acesfor example, they meet there independently of猀瀀eci昀椀c proje挀琀s, but these social 猀瀀aces are theoccasion to implement relational 猀瀀aces where
technological pra挀琀ices and di昀昀erent needs arethought. Identifying local representatives ofso昀琀ware proje挀琀s could create a referential
bridge for local user groups.
吀栀e programmer’s time is usually taken up,
so they don’t see the need to devote themselvesto the dissemination of the so昀琀ware they are
working on. Conversely, for outsiders,engagement in thinking about a program or its
documentation is an oppo爀琀unity for re昀氀e挀琀ionon sy猀琀ems and technologies, and perhaps theformation of critical thinking. 吀栀e hacker猀瀀aces

75

and hacklabs31 can be the venues for theseencounters, they allow di昀昀erent people toshare an intere猀琀 in the technology, and somewill then serve as intermediaries to sharesy猀琀emic
under猀琀andingandsuppo爀琀
community building.

Community••

Community technologies mu猀琀 beunder猀琀ood from the beginning as anopen source sy猀琀em.
Radical technologies can be thought ofby a diverse community.

吀栀e diversity of communication 猀瀀aces isrecognized as a guarantor of the formation ofcritical thought, of the dynamism of society
and ultimately of the richness of life, yet, as we
31
76

https://hackerspaces.org/

and https://hacklabs.org/

have seen repeatedly in recent events, far right昀甀ndamentali猀琀s know that ge琀琀ing their hands
on digital media is key to the consolidation of
their social in昀氀uence; they are aided in this by
centralized platforms that pra挀琀ice double猀琀andards in moderation, tolerating, forexample, raci猀琀 violence and threats. Moreover,
the techno-fasci猀琀 control society sets up
猀琀andards which are, by their requirements andtheir modalities adapted to corporations, those猀琀andards are not favourable and exclude defa挀琀o small and decentralized organizations
favourable to the common good. Under theimpa挀琀 of these di昀昀erent threats, thinking of
the digital infra猀琀ru挀琀ure as a free anddecentralized so昀琀ware commons is the 昀椀r猀琀
condition for its survival and for the possibilityof maintaining a diversity of 猀瀀eech andopinions that is essential to shared thinking.

77

Such sy猀琀ems, in order to exi猀琀, mu猀琀
necessarily be designed with the pa爀琀icipationof communities from the 猀琀a爀琀. Confronted
with the impo爀琀ance of inequalities and theviolence of the current context, it feels illusory
to think that this transformation can be doneon a large scale, we can build on the experienceof local resi猀琀ance environments to implement
another technical 昀甀n挀琀ioning.
As a conclusion I would like to a昀케rm that
Including digital issues in the design of ourresi猀琀ance
organizations
allowstheformalization of a complex thinking that goesbeyond the simpli猀琀ic opposition forming
again猀琀 digital tools, which also recognizes thepossibilities of a pra挀琀ice of digital commons;
while being aware of the 昀氀aws of computers
and their seating in a logic of surveillance. 吀栀emeans of this organization are community-78

based and reside in pra挀琀ices ofcommunication,
documentation
andknowledge sharing, such a re昀氀e挀琀ion would bea pillar for so昀琀ware syndicate that o昀昀ers a猀瀀ace to rethink the exi猀琀ing sy猀琀ems in theservice of a挀琀ive social movements.

79

Suppo爀琀ing resi猀琀ancesby hellekinWe have to deal with the world as it becomes,
not with the world as we would like it to be.
But we have to stay as close as possible to what
we think the world would want, experimenting
and tinkering, and praying that the world
doesn’t get angry at our mistakes.
— Vinciane Despret, Autobiographie d’unpoulpe , p.120 ean: 9782330147631

Di猀瀀elling the fog
In the 昀椀eld of so昀琀ware development,
suppo爀琀 for resi猀琀ances does not necessarily
involve a radical personal change, but more
simply the dissipation of the propagandi猀琀 fog
that makes knowledge a commodity among
others. Suppo爀琀ing resi猀琀ances thus proceedsfrom an “inversion of re猀瀀onsibility”, to abuse
a computer science term, where one discovers

81that a change of view allows the conceptual
collapse of a sy猀琀em of oppression that waspreviously imposed as obvious.
吀栀e so昀琀ware indu猀琀ry, dominated bycapitali猀琀 intere猀琀s and methods, determines a“market” according to the consecrated terms ofcompetition and scarcity. Producers ofso昀琀ware, conceived as produ挀琀s, engage in awild competition. It is a frantic race where
talents are competing to produce as quickly as
possible a so昀琀ware (or its promise) that willa琀琀ra挀琀 the a琀琀ention of a predator. 吀栀e bi最最e猀琀companies buy up the mo猀琀 “innovative” 猀琀a爀琀ups in a rituali猀琀ic, prede猀琀ined business planin which a wealthy buyer phagocytes the seller
to take over or eliminate its competingprodu挀琀. 吀栀e indu猀琀ry continues to apply its
猀琀rategy of “embrace, extend, extinguish” tohide its own misery.

82But these mythological terms are so far
removed from reality that the capitali猀琀sthemselves 猀琀ill use an inversion of meaning tohide this fa挀琀. 吀栀us, they call “permissive
licenses” those that permit predators to avoid
the non-reciprocity of the value added by theso昀琀ware produced in common, and “re猀琀ri挀琀ive
licenses” those that re猀琀ri挀琀 or abolish any
capacity for exclusive appropriation of theso昀琀ware they cover (extra挀琀ion of its value).
But in the face of the abundance of code, theidea that this “commodity” could share thechara挀琀er of scarcity of oil or coal borders on
the grotesque; and its cooperative mode of
produ挀琀ion makes any claim to competition
昀甀tile and derisory. 吀栀e consideration ofcooperative,
non-exclusiveandnoncompetitive knowledge technologies invites
re昀氀e挀琀ion on the scope of a competitive vision83when resources do not meet the condition of
scarcity on which the whole edi昀椀ce ofcapitali猀琀 extra挀琀ion is based. In such a context,
it is the whole political orientation of societythat is turned upside down, making a largepa爀琀 of the so昀琀ware indu猀琀ry obsolete.

Promoting mutual aid
A common – communali猀琀ic – approach togeneralized so昀琀ware produ挀琀ion could bene昀椀t,
for example, the professions of the
independent book se挀琀or or do挀琀ors; anagreement to suppo爀琀 the development of freeso昀琀ware for their own use would signi昀椀cantly
reduce the co猀琀 of developing and maintaining
common so昀琀ware – considered a common
resource; these co猀琀s would be much lower inthe long run than maintaining an indu猀琀ry
designed to extra挀琀 value rather than provide
84

it. A professional union could advantageously
pursue the invention of a common technicalpole for which only the chara挀琀eri猀琀ics linked
to national di昀昀erences (e.g. legal) would
impose local overheads; mo猀琀 of the昀甀n挀琀ionality forming a common good, thewhole profession would bene昀椀t from atechnical and social innovation – properly
technological – determining the improvementof the working conditions of all professionals.
吀栀e li昀琀ing of the smoke cu爀琀ain of siliconed
capitalism would reveal all the intere猀琀 ofe猀琀ablishing a public digital infra猀琀ru挀琀ure on
free so昀琀ware that would favour its cooperativemodes of produ挀琀ion and would also satisfy the
declared European political will of an open andcompetitive market between its small andmedium-sized businesses, but on the solid85

bases of a technical 昀氀oor maintained colle挀琀ively
for the bene昀椀t of all pa爀琀icipants.
Not only technical, but also organizational,
this evolution would accompany the verypra挀琀ices of the user communities and would
thereby shape their relationship to technology,
allowing them to appropriate it and to
consider it from a colle挀琀ive and politicalper猀瀀e挀琀ive. Li琀琀le by li琀琀le, the bad habit ofabandoning technical choices to corporations
would fade away and be replaced by a will ofgeneral intere猀琀 carried by so昀琀ware syndicatesthat would themselves be dedicated to theimprovement of the conditions of their own
users in proximity. Private intere猀琀s and theirgoals of value extra挀琀ion would be replaced bya logic of improvement of uses, of invention
for the general intere猀琀, the re猀瀀e挀琀 ofdi昀昀erences and the taking into account of86

singularities otherwise ignored; the value thus
created would be a public good, in the same
way as science, culture and a爀琀s.

Asse爀琀ing ourselves together
From then on, it would become possible andeasier to harmonize legal and soon legislativein猀琀ruments beyond the 猀瀀eci昀椀c conditions ofeach nation; thus, professionals could in昀氀uencein a much more rational and e昀케cient way theevolution of their profession in a supranational context. 吀栀e cases of the independent
book se挀琀or and do挀琀ors are help昀甀l inunder猀琀anding the bene昀椀ts of 猀琀andardizing
digital tools (so昀琀ware) as a common good.
Other domains, such as accounting,archite挀琀ure, or the relationship of legal
persons to admini猀琀rations, o昀昀er a similar
oppo爀琀unity beyond each corporation, in a87

context that could be described as syndical ;the anti-capitali猀琀 猀琀ru最最le for the abolition of
the exploitation of workers would naturally
昀椀nd its expression in cooperative, nonexclusive and non-competitive knowledge
technologies.
In other words, an approach to so昀琀ware
produ挀琀ion as a provider of a common
infra猀琀ru挀琀ure not only makes the user thecentral force of proposition, but also renders
obsolete the a爀琀i昀椀cial fragmentation of an
entire indu猀琀ry based on what can be called an
intelle挀琀ual racket. 吀栀e capitali猀琀 mode of
produ挀琀ion is antithetical to the 昀甀n挀琀ioning ofa digital commons: the cooperative approachof the commons is in昀椀nitely more adapted toso昀琀ware produ挀琀ion than is an exclusive
approach.

88

89Take me to your leader
by petites singularités吀栀e NGI has no hidden agenda, otherthan to re猀琀ore the balance of power at a
global scale.
— Next Generation Internet 2025,
ISBN 978-92-79-86466-7
We reje挀琀: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus andrunning code.
— David D. Clark (1992)
Rough consensus does not mean being
presented with a fait accompli and having toface up to an unwanted reality. Pushing reality
as imposed fa挀琀s rather resembles adi挀琀atorship.

91

So-called benevolent di挀琀atorship32 is an oldschool free so昀琀ware governance pra挀琀ice, thatsounds very 猀琀range to French ears. Brought up
in the republican schooling model where theylearn that the enlightened absolute monarchypra挀琀ised in Versailles was in the end
dethroned by the very republican revolution,
the French quickly learnt that the enlightenedmodel didn't have the e昀昀e挀琀ive means to backits claims of absolute power. In fa挀琀, thecurrent neo-liberal model of global
surveillance has far more reach that any
absolute monarch ever had. But 猀琀ill what doesit mean when both models are associated,when self-con昀椀dent old school free so昀琀ware
32 Benevolent Dictator designates in the free so昀琀warecommunity the person taking the lead andunilateral decisions regarding a so昀琀ware proje挀琀,mo猀琀 of the time this situation is correlated to thefa挀琀 that many proje挀琀s originate in the idea anda挀琀ion of one person who 猀琀a爀琀s writing the code.
92昀椀gures, a挀琀ing as sole decision makers in their
domain, pa爀琀ner with the 昀椀nancial leverage of
neo-liberal
economies,
sometimesingovernmental context?
Code is politics33: governance of the internet
was born of the reje挀琀ion of politics byengineers; the free so昀琀ware movement wasborn of the reje挀琀ion of an opaque, nascentso昀琀ware indu猀琀ry; Copyle昀琀 appeared as a way
to subve爀琀 the extra挀琀ive nature of copyright.
吀栀e essential quality of free so昀琀ware is to be
developed, maintained, and eventually
reproduced and forked by independent humanbeings suppo爀琀ing each other in this endeavour
according to, in the be猀琀 case, their sharedvision of society. Of course no one exi猀琀s awayfrom capitali猀琀 sy猀琀em, long-la猀琀ing proje挀琀s
33 Opening sentence of So昀琀ware freedom your way.
https://ps.zoethical.org/t/sfyw-software-freedom-yourway/19

93

cannot run on a voluntary basis and require昀甀nding. A proper so昀琀ware infra猀琀ru挀琀ure thatallows for the multiplicity of free so昀琀ware
initiatives to exi猀琀 and serve the growing needs
for reliable, convivial, frugal, and secure digital
tools requires public 昀椀nancing.
Currently there is an impo爀琀ant andwelcome move from European authorities tosuppo爀琀 developers, so昀琀ware infra猀琀ru挀琀ure,
and build some form of European sovereignty.
Di昀昀erent programmes are suppo爀琀ed that giveaccess to some means and a be琀琀er visibility toEuropean so昀琀ware, emphasizing open-source
and free so昀琀ware, suppo爀琀ing European
developer's expe爀琀ise that has been largely
under-recognised until now. Among others the
NGI programme and its associated cascading昀甀nding – petites singularités a挀琀s as amentorship organization within the NGI Zero94

conso爀琀ium – has bene昀椀ted many essential freeso昀琀ware proje挀琀s (needless to say, the verylarge majority of them originates inNo爀琀hwe猀琀ern Europe and are led by whitemen). In fa挀琀 European authorities clearly voice
their obje挀琀ive across this process, to create
what they call an "EU Champion", theEuropean equivalent of Silicon Valley giants.
Ain't it great? Indeed why wouldn't Europe
counter other hegemonic giants in the U.S.,
China, and probably Russia with one of its
own?
Still, is the "EU Champion" model the right
one for free so昀琀ware, and what does it entail?
Free so昀琀ware values many forms of
independence, and de猀瀀ite a blatantly
monochromatic milieu, a diversity of visions
are 猀琀ill represented, and code generally
considered a contribution to the digital95

commons towards general public usage; alongwith the pa琀琀ern among many free so昀琀ware
proje挀琀s to seek some autonomy from dire挀琀State and corporate control. Decentralisation
has hi猀琀orically been a critical a昀昀ordance tosuppo爀琀 a degree of independence and adiversity of organisational models.
It is more than time to 猀琀a爀琀 negotiating the昀椀nancial conditions of our independentendeavours, to control public resource
allocation and discuss openly the a琀琀ribution
criteria. It's time for free so昀琀ware developers
to get a hold of their capacity to assess theneeds of their communities and express themwith agency, withdrawing from the myth that昀甀nding is alien.
Not so long ago, the free so昀琀ware movement
was in pain and at risk because no one caredthat essential pieces of our technical96

infra猀琀ru挀琀ure would be maintained voluntarily
by a few isolated individuals. Stephen Henson
single-handedly maintained OpenSSL, without
fair compensation, when Hea爀琀bleed 猀琀ruck.
From the grass-roots, a few organised andtaught each other about ways and means toaccess public 昀甀nding, while philanthropic
non-pro昀椀ts created 昀甀nding infra猀琀ru挀琀urefrom scratch, looking at European Commission
programmes.
Do not be mi猀琀aken: it's not because thismoney comes from our taxes that anyone caneasily access it, as the Commission lobbying猀琀ru挀琀ure is o昀케cial and regulated. You mu猀琀form an eligible34 conso爀琀ium involving manypa爀琀ners, 昀椀ll and submit one or more 70-page
34 吀栀eoretically only European organisations are
eligible, this can be circumvented by creating a
dedicated legal 猀琀ru挀琀ure in the EU to capture EC
昀甀nding.
97

proposals that mu猀琀 be accepted by anindependent jury of expe爀琀s (whom you could
join35), sign multi-year contra挀琀s and aconso爀琀ium agreement, then process a burdenof admini猀琀rative repo爀琀ing for the duration of
the programme and beyond. 吀栀is process istheoretically doable by anyone36, yet in fa挀琀,
only informed groups have access to it.
In addition, it is a known fa挀琀 thatorganisations
fromtheNo爀琀hwe猀琀ern
European countries have very good access,昀甀爀琀hermore they can also build up on theirlocal experience as more national public
35

https://commission.europa.eu/jobs-european-commission/
experts_en

36 Holger Krekel introduced EU-昀甀nding at 32C3
https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7300hacking_eu_funding_for_a_decentralizing_foss_project,and hellekin made a presentation at FOSDEM'18
https://archive.fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/eufundingthat led petites sin最甀larités to join the NGI Zeroconso爀琀ium.
98昀甀nding had been entitled to technicalinfra猀琀ru挀琀ure in NW Europe. 吀栀erefore some
non-pro昀椀t philanthropies had the capacity tobuild upon their previous experience andproximity to the 昀甀nding sources, they wisely猀琀ru挀琀ured while providing the larger
community access to dedicated cascading昀甀nding.
For the la猀琀 昀椀ve years European free so昀琀warecommunities have increasingly been 昀甀nded bycascading 昀甀nding from conso爀琀iums appointed
by European Commission's NGI programme.
吀栀e facility put in place is a great success and arelief for mo猀琀 developers, a simple,
lightweight do-autocratic mile猀琀one-basedmodel matching the development work昀氀ow,
where you get the money when the task isdone, with no admini猀琀rative burden: the
keyword here is e昀케ciency.

99

Still here comes the issue with the "European
Giant": when many di昀昀erent organisations areunited under a sole model, diversity is at risk.
As many reso爀琀 to the same centralised preset
resource allocation via a unique organisation,
as benevolent and suppo爀琀ive as it may be,di昀昀erent issues can arise.
What happens if our benevolent di挀琀ator ishit by a bus? We have no dire挀琀 access to the昀椀nancial infra猀琀ru挀琀ure, since we havedelegated all our representation into the handsof one entity. Although we're dealing here with
European tax payer money, public 昀甀nding,none of the bene昀椀ciary individuals andorganizations have any so爀琀 of in猀琀itutional
representation at EU level. We tru猀琀 thebenevolent di挀琀ator to do the right thing, butwhen many di昀昀erent organisations are united
under a single banner, it is simply very easy to100replace a key person by any corporate 昀椀end,
and simply lose all our own infra猀琀ru挀琀ure atonce. You've seen that before, haven't you?
Another issue is the lack of visibility overboth a琀琀ribution conditions37 of 昀甀nding andthe decision 猀琀ru挀琀ure of the Commission
programmes. Both the Commission andbene昀椀ciaries seem to disregard the conditionsof a琀琀ribution of cascading 昀甀nding; there is no
repo爀琀 over the composition of expe爀琀 reviewer
juries nor any feedback channel to discuss
ongoing choices; claims voiced on publicchannels o昀琀en remain without re猀瀀onse. It issymptomatic that many grantees do not evenknow that the cascading 昀甀nding they receiveis a琀琀ached to a conso爀琀ium. Conso爀琀ium
members do not discuss their conso爀琀ium's
own orientations internally. 吀栀ere is no37 Not to be con昀甀sed with eligibility conditions.
101momentum nor place where free so昀琀warea挀琀ors organize to discuss 昀甀nding mechanisms,
their pe爀琀inence, a挀琀ual diversity of needs
within the movement, in order to formulate
demands towards 昀甀nding 猀琀ru挀琀ures.
De猀瀀ite its impressive success in reaching out
to the free so昀琀ware movement and suppo爀琀ing
development, NGI proje挀琀-based cascading昀甀nding does not suppo爀琀 medium or longterm views, and only grants money to hardcore
coding: no money for community building,nothing for care and few for maintenance 38; itdoesn’t really ma琀琀er if the code will be used, aslong as it is able to di猀瀀lay its technicalexi猀琀ence, as ephemeral as it might be.
38 E.g., so昀琀ware packages may be created on-demand
as a service to developers via the cascading 昀甀nding
mechanism, but these may not be maintained
because the developers' community members are
not involved as package maintainers, and theoriginal packager does not use that so昀琀ware either.
102

Rationalisation of the 昀甀nding schemes seemto be in order to 昀椀t all in one size, leaving notime to discuss colle挀琀ive obje挀琀ives, diversityof needs, and upcoming processes; only code islaw. 吀栀is is a dangerous path for diversity, as
repo爀琀ed biases39 may not be addressed, andtherefore contribute to their legitimation andcontinued reinforcement, and the fa猀琀er thebe琀琀er.
ASAP though may not mean what you think
it does: a琀琀entive scrutiny a昀昀e挀琀s power. Sure
diversity is bothering and slows down
decisional processes, yet in a world trending
towards uniformity, it is a guarantee forsurvival and resilience. A one-猀琀op shop for
public 昀甀nding of free so昀琀ware threatens theidentity of free so昀琀ware, as it channels ways
and means into a single approach – here an
39

https://sleepmap.de/2023/operating-system-bias-in-nextgeneration-internet-and-nlnet/

103interpretation of code is law – at the service ofthe neo-liberal world view. Diversity is a猀琀rength that belongs to the grass-roots, andCyclops have been trying to embrace it andquench it many times in hi猀琀ory, for it enables
people over time to challenge hegemonic
ruling.
Now, you might ask, who decides what is昀椀nanced? Well, our benevolent di挀琀ator is the昀甀ndamental
joint
here:
recruiting
independent expe爀琀s, onboarding grantees,
sometimes repo爀琀ing40 to Commission people
who drink those words and learn each timebe琀琀er what free so昀琀ware is about. Some thinkthat is a good thing™ because he knows, he has
been doing it success昀甀lly for decades to thebene昀椀t of the larger free so昀琀ware and opensource communities and we should tru猀琀 his
40 https://nlnet.nl/NGI/reports/NGI-Study-ISBN9789279864667.pdf

104

experience. But how do we learn from it inorder to di猀琀ribute this amazing capacity
across multiple people and organizations?
As so昀琀ware is omnipresent in every a猀瀀e挀琀 ofour societies we have long under猀琀ood that it
does not exi猀琀 only by its source code but also
through its inner social organisation that
informs technical choices, implementation,and conditions its adoption. As we discussso昀琀ware syndicalism, 昀椀nancing our endeavours
seems a crucial point where syndicali猀琀s needto organize beyond the available 昀甀nding
sources, to sit down together and summarize
the needs and priorities to be 昀甀nded.
Formulating adequate claims for 昀椀nancing is
key to think e昀昀e挀琀ive organisational means toaccess to the 昀甀nding sources, legislative
processes, and ultimately to the overarchingeconomic 猀琀rategy that will grant free so昀琀ware105

an a挀琀ual 猀琀atus of public digital infra猀琀ru挀琀ure.
How could we suppo爀琀 each other acrossproje挀琀s in clarifying our needs for 昀椀nancing
and the diversity of possible sources as we wish
to avoid creating dependence on a centralised
source? Shouldn't we also share a public 猀瀀ace
where we discuss our choices for 昀椀nancing
models and decentralisation of 昀甀nding
sources?
A digital society with an internet forhumans creates a way to discuss publicly andformalize colle挀琀ively our technical needs as
citizens and as society. Citizens mu猀琀 have ways
to in昀氀uence the allocation of public resources
towards
world-transforming
technical
ensembles. Beyond the exi猀琀ing and quite
success昀甀l
code-oriented,
proje挀琀-based
昀甀nding e昀昀o爀琀s, we demand infra猀琀ru挀琀urebased community 昀甀nding for scopes beyond a106

single proje挀琀, that a昀昀e挀琀 more than one
so昀琀ware and demand peer cooperation, andalso care-based 昀甀nding to suppo爀琀 community
development and integration of free so昀琀warein social life, that is not limited to blanket
surveillance and military apparatus.
Let us discuss! Share a tea at Congress, a beerat OFFDEM, organize working sessions
yourselves and repo爀琀 to the community ofpeers at offdem.net and across the Fediverse.
Share your concerns, publish your 猀琀udies andyour results to bene昀椀t the world. Let us gather
and formalize non-pro昀椀t entities to go beyond
the arbitrary proje挀琀-based division of digitallabour, and produce a grass-roots, long term
citizen political vision for a digital society that
does not suppo爀琀 the alignment of forces on
runaway indu猀琀rialism, extra挀琀ive capitalism
and militarily legitimized mass murder.

107

What is at Stake with
Interoperability
by petites singularités

Until now I could escape Facebook : I
have no intere猀琀 in “having to” talk to
people “on Facebook” or to give myconsent to this company’s pra挀琀ices
incompatible with my ethics. Given its
dominant position, I have a doubt in myindividual capacity as a citizen to resi猀琀
an interconne挀琀ion with Facebook thatwould be imposed from above.

Consent & interoperability
吀栀e General Data Prote挀琀ion Regulation(GDPR) provides explicit consent to data usage.
But within the scope of interoperability,refusal to consent to any predatory use mu猀琀 notinterfere with communication. In other words, thepredatory platform, if it becomes interoperable
by force of law, mu猀琀 not acquire the capacity109

to monitor pa爀琀icipants in a conversation
between its users and people exterior to its
platform: this would be a serious violation ofprivacy of the people in communication.

Interoperability & interconne挀琀ion
Yes, interoperability is necessary, but it is nota miracle solution to limit the power of andthe capacity to exchange with these services
could depend on our identi昀椀cation to them,thus our acceptation of their conditions.
imposes explicit consent for the treatment of
personal data (a爀琀icles 4.11 and 7) that we, nonusers of these predatory services, re昀甀se to give:
we won’t be able, a priori, to intera挀琀 with theseaccounts with whom we can only conne挀琀 to byaccepting the unacceptable terms of service of
their operators, hence interoperability cannot

110work since it resolves into an “interoperability
without interconne挀琀ion.41”

Interconne挀琀ion & data po爀琀ability
Before rushing on the idea ofinteroperability of the internet giants with
open 猀琀andards, it is therefore necessary toensure the implementation of the so that users
trapped in the platforms can expo爀琀 their data
through the use of 猀琀andards (e.g. A挀琀ivityPub).
吀栀us, by allowing users to regain their digital
sovereignty and regain control of theirpersonal data, we can kill three birds with one
猀琀one: weaken the giants with que猀琀ionablepra挀琀ices, 猀琀rengthen exi猀琀ing European law,and observe the emergence of social media
41 On the di昀昀erence between interoperability andinterconnection, see Laurent Chemla,“Interoperabilitay”, on February 22, 2020.
http://www.non-droit.org/2020/02/22/interoperabilitay/111

decentralization in line with European values
and the cha爀琀er of 昀甀ndamental human rights.
Interoperability,interconne挀琀ionandconsent seem to us to be the nerve center ofthe debate, however it remains complex andover昀氀ows in all dire挀琀ions, for example – andthis remains open to discussion without being
exhau猀琀ive:• 吀栀e exi猀琀ence of interoperable open猀琀andards, such as A挀琀ivityPub, XMPP,
etc. mu猀琀 be suppo爀琀ed, notably toallow users in silos to change
services – but
without
losinginformation,e猀瀀eciallybecause“personal data”, usage hi猀琀ory andexi猀琀ing conversations, conta挀琀s, etc.
cannot be transmi琀琀ed (cf. the Google
Reader precedent).

112

•

•

•

A
minimali猀琀
approachtoauthorizations to grant a挀琀ors during
interconne挀琀ions – see notably thedi昀昀erence between the theory behindauthorization, e.g., OAuth, and theira挀琀ual implementations of all or nothing(or: why do you need access to myconta挀琀 li猀琀 to pass a message?)
Interoperability does not mean
decentralized, the Facebook algorithms
will remain dominant and predatory,
and will work in parallel to
independent decentralized services.
Citizens cannot accept that public
services use or impose usage of private
services: why not then 猀琀a爀琀 with
explicitly exposing the issue ofcentralization
andcommi琀琀ing
ourselves to unwind their presence113within our in猀琀itutions, our schools,
our health sy猀琀em, our admini猀琀rative
communications. In猀琀itutional suppo爀琀
to open 猀琀andards, as pra挀琀ised by theCommission within the scope of Next
Generation Internet, would reinforce
them in猀琀ead of giving implicit
legitimacy to centralized sy猀琀ems bymerely asking those to be compatible
with 猀琀andard protocols.
In other words, interoperability alone
remains insu昀케cient, and can even prove
harm昀甀l.

114

115

吀栀e threat to free so昀琀ware
An OFFDEM manife猀琀oby petites singularités吀栀is text was originally published on January 5 th,
012020 HE and was revised for this edition.

"It is this sum total of these moderna琀琀empts to perpetuate colonialism whileat the same time talking about ‘freedom’,
which has come to be known as
neocolonialism."— Nkwame Nkrumah, NEOCOLONIALISM
吀栀e La猀琀 Stage of Imperialism, London,吀栀omas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., 1965
117

We42, as a group of free so昀琀ware a挀琀ivi猀琀s,
have decided in 2020 to organize OFFDEM, aninterse挀琀ional gathering around colle挀琀ivepra挀琀ices and free technology produ挀琀ions. Ourreasons have been explained in a friendly po猀琀
on p.s.: forum: https://ps.zoethical.org/t/whyoffdem/2867

It now seems about time to voice our
feelings towards the a猀琀onishing pre-emptionof the developers communities by surveillance
capitali猀琀 corporations. While there has been
large social movements to claim “Fuck O昀昀
42 OFFDEM was organized by a group of di昀昀erent
collectives based in Brussels, such as le HCKLABXL,
les GNUragist.es, Neutrinet, la Voix des Sans
Papiers, la Maison des Migrants, Source radio
show, the Hashët collective, and petites
singularités.
We thank Instant City Harbor, HSBXL,
Delta.chat, EDri, ActivityPub SocialHub, the
Tor Project, CCC and all the collectives who
enjoyed the gathering.
118

'G̶ভ굞a̴঩ꦜি뿶g̵‫ٵ‬疎!l̷‫ډ‬褞% e̴& ,*‫ن‬䙞+ ”, and prote猀琀s again猀琀 A̷01/‫ق‬䉸 m‫ن‬䙞3 i̴5 ᮫̛‫ٱ‬煿̶!7ͱ熃̶9n̷+'‫ٴ‬瑿*7 bur猀琀

all over the world, large prote猀琀s in India
again猀琀 F̶̶̈ࠥ㙨̶k@ ̋ତ ͧ杜̶bC ̴㒊̴ͼ籛F z̷C̎ฝ , those companies and otherbrands are promoted by our “community”
events, which also receive individual donations
and are organized by people who are o昀琀envolunteers.
We 昀椀nd unacceptable that our communities
be associated with such companies: in猀琀ead ofsuppo爀琀ing people around the world who
oppose their domination, we cross their picket
line. If free technology producers do not 猀琀andup to surveillance capitali猀琀 corporations, who
will?
OFFDEM is open for freedom, desire,emancipation, meaning. It was a 昀椀r猀琀, necessary猀琀ep to a昀케rm the exi猀琀ence of free so昀琀ware
outside of the reach of surveillance capitalism.

119Someone had to do it. We took the risk, and all
the people who a琀琀ended with us43.
Do we need such large events?
OFFDEM vouches for decentralization, asmo猀琀 people only have one life and can achievea limited number of proje挀琀s, we do not need
to be all at the same time at the place, let’sorganize and promote smaller and more
focused meetings on di昀昀erent topics aiming atpra挀琀ical achievements for the communities
they suppo爀琀.
Do we a挀琀ually reach out to our audiences?
吀栀e organization of small events can be done
at a lower co猀琀 and in be琀琀er conditions thanamassing a large number of professionals
without asking the que猀琀ion of the uses, the43 including some who came to OFFDEM who were
not attending FOSDEM.
120

intentions nor the modalities of technicaldevelopments. Opening up to otherness
consi猀琀s in working in proximity withresi猀琀ance networks, on the ground, in order toopen up to plural realities.
Do we que猀琀ion the power relations intechnical produ挀琀ion?
吀栀e comfo爀琀 of privilege blinds us to the猀琀akes of technique. We are numerous and weare well informed! However, we arepermanently in an entre-soi favoured by anindividuali猀琀ic culture that limits theorganization. For example, we 猀琀ill do notreach the regions of the world outside of theWe猀琀, where half of our workforce is located,
and who are confronted with even harsher
forms of domination: we are hardly aware of
the concrete problems generated by oura挀琀ivity, nor of the alliances we could make.
121

Since 2020, OFFDEM has been proving its
relevance, because the moments 猀瀀ent together
are materialized in a挀琀s, the choice ofdecentralization opens up possibilities andexplores new paths outside of surveillancesy猀琀ems.
We want to a昀케rm the possibility ofgathering in a di昀昀erent way, in conviviality,
comfo爀琀, benevolence and ho猀瀀itality; we want
to remind that this form of convivial gatheringre昀氀e挀琀s the values of our community much
more than any intensive corporate event,which FOSDEM has become over the years,
shaped by the mentality of surveillance
capitalism and Silicon Valley. 吀栀is is not likeus, and we will not let them crash our pa爀琀y.

122吀栀e fa挀琀ory of technical violence吀栀e material origins of powerlessness
Change comes only through a挀琀ion, but thesimple猀琀 a挀琀ion seems una琀琀ainable. As
producers of technology, we remain caught up
in the dominant operating models, de猀瀀ite ourawareness of the reality of the situation: oura挀琀ions continue to bring de猀琀ru挀琀ion beyond
our borders.
吀栀e infra猀琀ru挀琀ures that organize ourcommunications and indu猀琀rial produ挀琀ion are
in the hands of a挀琀ors who seem beyond ourreach. If contemporary a挀琀ivi猀琀s have never had
so many means to organize, the scales ofde猀琀ru挀琀ion and violence of the militaryindu猀琀rial complex are exponential, leaving
barely any inter猀琀ices for our a挀琀ion.

123

We also know from experience that therecurrent re-appropriation of all ourcommunity models by an insatiable sy猀琀emshows the power of our associative capacities.
吀栀is pa琀琀ern of co-option by indu猀琀ry repeats
itself over and over again. “吀栀eir resource radardete挀琀s what can be pumped out for free andcomes to suck the energy, according to thefamousprinciple:
Embrace,
Extend,44
Extinguish. ”

From sy猀琀emic violence to technologicalcannibalism
We can observe, in our ultra-libe爀琀icidal,
madly capitali猀琀 world, that everything our
produ挀琀ion sy猀琀em touches is immediatelyde猀琀royed, ju猀琀 like the legendary King Midas
who turned everything he touched into gold,
44 Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish124

until he could no longer eat or drink. 吀栀esefatal consequences are borne by all ecosy猀琀ems
and by the mo猀琀 vulnerable people in oursociety.
It is a widely accepted fa挀琀 that we haveblood on our hands, that every day our
comfo爀琀 is provided by soldiers who monitor
the mines, 昀氀y the drones that will erase lives
through a screen, out of sight, out of mind,昀甀nded by “猀琀ru挀琀ural programs” to “defend”
access to “our territories,” by politicians whodelegate atrocities to “regimes” set up andmaintained by “diplomatic”, “commercial”, and“democratic” coercive forces. 吀栀e propaganda
is unquenchable on the bene昀椀ts of“civilization” — ours, but remains silent on its
mass graves — theirs. Similar is that which
resembles us and which indu猀琀ry can assemble;
beyond this utilitarian di猀琀in挀琀ion, we fall into

125

the implausible – yet the norm. Yet this reality
is mo猀琀 o昀琀en impossible to address at the hea爀琀
of our organizations, and we have ju猀琀 passed apoint where the discourse of power “saves lives
one by one” while, in the meantime,
technological solutions to social problems are猀琀ill being sought, in vain. For the propaganda
猀琀rives, with disconce爀琀ing ease and success, toput all the weight of the re猀瀀onsibility of thesy猀琀em on individuals — not colle挀琀ively, en
masse, but in isolation, in a detached way,
intimately accused – on the individual
atomized by this sy猀琀em that decon猀琀ru挀琀s him.
吀栀e proposal to OFFDEM is to tru猀琀 in thecapacities and knowledge of our networks ofresi猀琀ance, the only ones capable of inhabiting
the inter猀琀ices, of forging links according toother modalities, lively, perennial; in the faceof insurmountable pressure, to take a 猀琀ep126

aside and erase the burden by le琀琀ing it fallunder its own weight in order to consider the
facets that usually remain invisible: those猀琀rings pulled and frayed, those empty words,
those shareholders without a挀琀ion, those昀椀nanciers without thickness, those one-way
mirrors where the emptiness of accusing anddemotivating 猀瀀eeches is re昀氀e挀琀ed ; thenwatch, from the embankments where we are,the train of progress and growth pass by,hu爀琀ling towards a mountain whose tunnel atthe end of the rails, however real, has ju猀琀 been
painted by a mischievous Geococcyx
californianus who will revel with the audiencein the deva猀琀ating compa挀琀ion of the ultimate
crisis – if the audience ever survives it. On theembankments grow grasses, fragile and thir猀琀y,carrying the whi猀琀le of the winds even a昀琀er thecata猀琀rophe.

127

OFFDEM and THX are the points ofconne挀琀ion where we will continue to think
together and build the tools, the methods, thecolle挀琀ive, that will allow us to take that side猀琀ep we talk about all the time; to branch o昀昀,to pull the brake, to continue elsewhere,di昀昀erently, here and now…
What are the conditions for escaping fromsy猀琀emic pressure? We imagine them in thecolle挀琀ive. We wish them out of thecompromise. We know that they are subje挀琀 tothe ine爀琀ia and tentacles of reality. Far fromsumming them up as a life recluse behind ascreen, between four walls, behind an
explosion engine or next to another jet engine,or surrounded by men in arms, we conceive
them, intimately, also as propitious to anotherrelation to the world, subje挀琀ed to a desire tolive together, to the will of a good life.

128

What is alive is dephasing to be no longer
oneself – and this is how it remains. 吀栀e side猀琀ep, it is this dephasing, this force of the living
to accept nothing of the inelu挀琀able, to make itnull and void every time that it comes toannounce its triumph. 吀栀e life is what resi猀琀s
entropy, to the ultimate homogenization, theuniformity of the world towards the sand oftime, the announced end of the universe; but
in the meantime, we are there, here and now,
everywhere to a昀케rm compossible living
worlds.

129

O4FFDEM Call for PresenceOFFDEM is an interse挀琀ional fe猀琀ival aboutcolle挀琀ive pra挀琀ices & free technologies
produ挀琀ion.
O₄FFDEM will happen on the 昀椀r猀琀 week-end
of February 2024 in Brussels, as you might
expe挀琀.
吀栀is is not a Call for Pa爀琀icipation but a Callfor Presence, since this is that quality we expe挀琀
from all people involved with OFFDEM.
At OFFDEM everyone contributes to themaking of the event. we do not hold individual
presentations but conversations, all the
propositions sent will be shared on our forum
and developed colle挀琀ively.
We welcome proposals from colle挀琀ives
intere猀琀ed in exploring the following topics
and sharing their experiences with others.

1312-3 February 2024, Brussels
OFFDEM originates from the free so昀琀ware
movement and considers freeing social andintelle挀琀ual produ挀琀ion as well as colle挀琀ive
care and maintenance of so昀琀ware.

吀栀e Call For Presence is OpenOFFDEM already 猀琀a爀琀ed on our forum as wevalue preparing the event together to makesure our common time is fruit昀甀l andagreeable, 猀瀀ent in resolving issues andplanning a挀琀ions rather than li猀琀ening toformal presentations.
Please send the proposal for a contribution
by email to offdem.0x04@offdem.net, explaining
what you have in mind, the people or groups
you will engage, and your needs. 吀栀is e-mail132

will be published in the se挀琀ion of OFFDEM
45
forum dedicated to O4FFDEM that all lo最最ed
in person can see. You should li猀琀 the personal
emails of all people in your colle挀琀ive whowant to pa爀琀icipate, so each will be added to
the @offdem.0x04 group before the event to
prepare material and 猀琀ru挀琀ure yourcontribution, eventually people from the
OFFDEM
community
withsharedcommonality of intere猀琀 will join in theprocess. We will together discuss the details,
including how it a爀琀iculates with otherproposals. When applying, please be preparedto give some time to follow up with yourapplication during the preparation process.

45

https://oxygen.offdem.net/

133

Awareness of war-ness calls wariness. Whileba琀琀le昀椀elds tend to multiply, governments are
increasing their military budget to levels
unseen since the Cold War. 吀栀ese indu猀琀rial
inve猀琀ments are not only engaging armies into
massive killings but are also threatening civic
movements
anddivergent
minorities.
吀栀e militaro-indu猀琀rial complex is not aforeign 猀瀀ace, it is the means of exi猀琀ence ofOccident. As technologi猀琀 we know its not so
far and if we dig a li琀琀le into our network andresources we quickly encounter militarya昀케liation.
We can be concerned in two main ways. In
solidarity with the people aimed by both theso昀琀ware and hardware ±high-tech weaponrydeveloped in our wealthier countries. 吀栀en inconsideration for our own safety and ourcapacity to face potential a最最ression from134

inside and outside those. In the shadow ofhighlighted international binarism (“Either
you’re with us, or you’re again猀琀 us.”), a va猀琀
complex irrigates both sides of everyba琀琀le昀椀eld, taking pro昀椀t in return of their猀瀀reading.
In this context, growing 猀琀rong bonds,
sharing intelligence and joyful care between
communities is ge琀琀ing vital. While theindu猀琀rial economy is accelerating its
de猀琀ru挀琀ive course again猀琀 our environment,
killing all forms of life for the pro昀椀t of thecapitali猀琀s, improving both our knowledge andour cohesion contributes to disarming ourenemies, towards emancipation.
Whatever the walk of life that brings you
addressing those concerns altogether, let’s face
it!

135

OFFDEM topics
It is necessary to consider that there is amachinic essence which is going toincarnate in a technical machine, butalso in the social, cognitive environment,
tied to this machine – the social
ensembles are also machines, the body isa machine, there are scienti昀椀c,theoretical, informational machines.
– Félix Gua琀琀ari, Chaosmose, p.72,
Éditions
Lignes,2022(own
translation) (1猀琀 edition Galilée, 1992)

136

Local Organization

Don’t look up! Look around: the militaryindu猀琀ry
Resistance OPSEC: working together safely
Prote挀琀ing life essentials: water and air
Collective Data Sovereignty

Data hacktivisim
Removing fun挀琀ionality: serene minimalism tosave energy
Joining forces to compose programs thatwork well together
Interoperability & Power Relations

Right to conne挀琀: surviving internet
shutdowns
Public interoperability poisons and remedies
Internet from the military to a public digital
infra猀琀ru挀琀ure, what public agency?

137

WhereOFFDEM is organized in collaboration withcolle挀琀if Zone Neutre and la Voix des Sans
Papiers, both uniting undocumented citizens
in Brussels, in VSP’s occupation rue Fri琀稀Toussaint, at walking di猀琀ance of the FOSDEM
venue near Ixelles Cemetery. 吀栀is is where
we’re going to ho猀琀 OFFDEM – this is thevenue of the 昀椀r猀琀 OFFDEM! We have a small
number of small rooms, we will ho猀琀 a single
track and leave a li琀琀le 猀瀀ace for people whoneed to informally gather and work 昀甀爀琀her
topics. Be sure to notify your proposed
contribution as explained in the Call For
Presence.

138

Why
Key points:• Free so昀琀ware requires community,
away from surveillance capitali猀琀猀瀀onsors;• Free so昀琀ware needs to reconne挀琀 withthe re猀琀 of society;• Among free so昀琀ware community, we
promote cooperation and decolonization(猀琀a爀琀ing with our own minds.)

139

Po猀琀-truth A昀琀erword

Ju猀琀 before the world turned upside down inMarch 2020, talking about the a爀琀i昀椀cializing of
the world towards a digital whole, which isdraining life and a琀琀acking relationships as it
brutally removes ore from the bowels of theea爀琀h, was both far from us and yet remarkablyprescient. Achille Mbembe associated it withan Africanisation of the world whose
brutalism threatens our social 猀琀ru挀琀ures infavour of sy猀琀ems of domination.46 吀栀e smoothsociety47 presented on our screens detaches us
46 Achille Mbembe, Brutalisme, Paris, La Découve爀琀e,
2020
47 吀栀e global wage repo爀琀 2020-2021 by the ILO 猀琀ates:
In times of crisis, the level of the average wage canchange signi昀椀cantly simply because of majorchanges in the composition of employment, the socalled “composition e昀昀e挀琀”. When mo猀琀 of those
who lose their jobs are low-paid workers, theaverage wage that is calculated for the re猀琀 of theemployed automatically increases.
141

from real conditions. 吀栀e digital divide48 puts
many people at risk of being marginalised andexcluded from the digital world. 吀栀e digital
divide o昀昀ers the sy猀琀em in place a populationof abusable people who are indi猀瀀ensable tomaintaining the materiality of the world,
because not everyone can be dematerialised.
吀栀is is pa爀琀 of the illusion of progress. 吀栀eque猀琀ion remains of how these margins will
form a society and associate anotherrelationship with the world and with theliving.
It would seem that the conditions ofMbembe’s analysis have been consolidated as
the dominance of the digital, i.e. thedigitalisation of processes essential to society
in our contemporary world, has 猀琀rongly
48 We are considering here the second degree of thedigital divide, linked to the use of technologies. We
will come back to this subje挀琀 in a 昀甀ture opus.
142penetrated the 昀椀elds of admini猀琀ration, leisure,business, the university, creation and the social
link. 吀栀is process, recognised and que猀琀ioned
by many, has neve爀琀heless been imposed
without discussion thanks to a “crisis”;
supposedly temporary “crisis” digital devices
such as teleworking, videoconferencing, online
or conta挀琀less payments, dematerialised andintermediated relations, health checks orcompulsive identi昀椀cation 昀椀nd themselves
anchored at the very hea爀琀 of a societal
upheaval.
For those of us who “come from theInternet”, it is imperative to re昀氀e挀琀 on themodalities that are imposed on us.
Fir猀琀 of all, we mu猀琀 a昀케rm, although it isobvious, that there is no equivalence between
remote digital means of communication and aphysical meeting: one does not replace the143other. Di昀昀erent technical means o昀昀er di昀昀erent
possibilities; if synchronous means ofcommunication are use昀甀l from time to time, it
makes no sense to use them between
neighbours, both technically and energetically.
Other means can be much more e昀昀e挀琀ive inallowing the expression of voices that forvarious reasons cannot travel: passing on
thoughts before meetings, reading the minutes,
commenting a昀琀erwards, etc.; working over along period of time; the methods ofpa爀琀icipation are ce爀琀ainly di昀昀erent, but allow
re猀瀀e挀琀昀甀l exchanges at a di猀琀ance. Preferring
rigorous organisation to a video patch is much
more produ挀琀ive for a group which, out ofre猀瀀e挀琀 for people who cannot join them
immediately, mu猀琀 take the time to synthesise
and read rather than lose itself in theimmediacy of technology.

144吀栀e myth of the digitisation of the world,which is a琀琀ached to the idea that the media
can compensate for the lack of relationships,
allows the underlying acceptance of thecontinuation of the myth of progress. 吀栀ispreoccupation is re昀氀e挀琀ed in the words: “theworld before”, “the world a昀琀er”… Yet the
proclaimed urgency avoids any que猀琀ioning
and seems to have no other aim than to cling
to a single vision whatever happens, even if itmeans locking everyone up at home. 吀栀ischoice to sacri昀椀ce populations to the altar of
globalised commercial and digital circuits has
serious consequences.
Is replacing a meeting with a videoconference relevant? Isn’t adding technologicalelements: high-de昀椀nition jingles, home 猀琀udios
and other DIY proposals to make the 猀瀀ace
more intere猀琀ing a second-be猀琀 solution? Such145

additions increase the technological debt, theenergy co猀琀, and the inequalities between those
who can a昀昀ord such sy猀琀ems and those who
cannot…
吀栀e urgency invoked, since March 2020, for
the wide猀瀀read use of digital tools has largely
defeated our capacity to a挀琀, both in terms ofre昀氀e挀琀ion and coordination of e昀昀o爀琀s. We weredismayed by an unexpe挀琀ed change that was
based on screen addi挀琀ion with its corollary
consequences — loss of sensitivity (“people nolonger feel themselves”, loss of a sense of time,screen overdose, dys昀甀n挀琀ion of the circadiancycle, etc.), loss of reference points (“they die
alone in their corner”). However, among theresi猀琀ance groups, it was also an oppo爀琀unity to
get together, to 昀椀nd themselves outside thetime imposed by another urgency, that ofeveryday life, which had su猀瀀ended all146integration of digital techniques, le昀琀 to the
goodwill of corporations.
吀栀e 猀琀ate injun挀琀ion forced us to give up
things without having taken the time todecide, while the society of the 猀瀀e挀琀acle
engages us in a fear of the void (FOMO, Fear ofMissing Out). 吀栀us, in order to lock us up at
home, the authorities relied on a digitalpalliative and the extent of what we wereexperiencing escaped us. It’s hard to believe,
but it seems that few people perceived that thiswas a societal shi昀琀.
Neve爀琀heless, as in a good cyberpunk
scenario, in this process of Africanisation of
the world, the marginalised, whether willing or
not, have o昀琀en unexpe挀琀ed resources at theirdi猀瀀osal. 吀栀e long hi猀琀ory of the relationshipbetween empires and their be最最ars, their serfs
and witches, their barbarians, their mongrels

147

and maroons, their 昀甀gitives, their bohemians
and their undocumented migrants, remains
unknown and hope昀甀l.

Countermeasures
A昀琀er almo猀琀 two years of change, are we notready to catch our breath, to evaluate theconsequences, to regain control of ourtechnical ge猀琀ures?
Let’s take the time to re昀氀e挀琀 on this
imposition of the all-digital world, to observe
our exi猀琀ing knowledge — did we not create theInternet without the intrusive in猀琀rument of
the camera — and to ask ourselves what otherpossibilities exi猀琀 that are not ju猀琀 imposed
palliatives but tools that allow for theorganisation and consolidation of colle挀琀ives.
吀栀us,
asynchronousexchanges,
theenhancement of our close networks, the links
148

that we want to weave across di猀琀ance and theway to weave them durably through the use,thought out with parsimony, of technicalmeans allowing us to avoid the trivialisation of
the exchange.
吀栀e emotional band-aid of ‘containment
drinks’ cannot be the basis of a societal choice.
To address this situation we mu猀琀 now take ana挀琀ive 猀琀ance; when we organise an online
meeting, the 昀椀r猀琀 thing is to recognise thedi昀昀erence, it is a possibility of a di昀昀erent orderthan the time of a meeting in the same sharedplace. If we have to exchange orally with an
intelligence that is on the other side of theplanet, let us do it with joy as a precious thingthat we will prepare, document and whosee昀昀e挀琀s we will try to preserve in the long term.

149

It is essential to di猀琀inguish between the new
possibilities o昀昀ered by digital technology andits imposition on our privacy. It is possible toperform an a挀琀, a form of ritual. Ritualising as
in di猀琀inguishing the bene昀椀t of the digital
when it o昀昀ers a new possibility of encounter;and also making it an exceptional moment of‘synchronous intensity’ which leads toasynchronous follow-up or prolongs it; a挀琀ing
as an ice-breaker: the opposite of an obligationof (omni)presence of/to the camera.

150

151

Achevé d’imprimer en décembre 2023 sur papier FSC
bou昀昀ant naturel 80g en 40 exemplaires
Par l’imprimerie ICN
Zone Indu猀琀rielle des Saligues
98 rue Louis Rabier
64300 o爀琀hez
05 59 69 77 80
icn@imprimerie-icn.fr

152