ii“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 1 — #1

i

i

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 2 — #2

i

i

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 3 — #3ii

SYNWAREsinwɛːʁ
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 4 — #4ii

Synware: free software syndicates
Collection 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 Bertrand, 28 – 1030 Schaerbeek, BE
Copyleft: this is a free work, you can copy, distribute, andmodify it under the terms of the Free Art License.
→ https://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
This work is available in full at
https://thx.zoethical.org/pub/synware

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 5 — #5

ii

L’union fait la force.
The syndicate wrecks the forge.
Traduttore traditore.
:(){ :|:& };:

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 6 — #6

i

i

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 7 — #7ii

SYNWARE
free software syndicatessinwɛːʁ
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 8 — #8iiTable of Contents
Editor’s preface..........................................................10
On software syndicalism........................................12
Abstract..................................................................13
Problem domain..................................................15
Principles...............................................................19
Syndicalism...........................................................25
Opportunities......................................................28
Challenges.............................................................39
A software syndicate, for whom?........................46
Scavenging of free radicals..............................48
Polyglot technologies.........................................53
Proximity transmission....................................62
Community..........................................................76
Supporting resistances............................................80
Dispelling the fog................................................81
Promoting mutual aid......................................84
Asserting ourselves together...........................87
Take me to your leader...........................................90
What is at Stake with Interoperability...........108
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 9 — #9iiConsent & interoperability..........................109
Interoperability & interconnection............110
Interconnection & data portability............111
The threat to free software..................................116
An OFFDEM manifesto.................................116
The factory of technical violence.................123
O4FFDEM Call for Presence...............................130
2-3 February 2024, Brussels...........................132
Post-truth Afterword............................................140
Countermeasures..............................................148

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 10 — #10ii

Editor’s preface

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 11 — #11iiThis collection of essays gathers texts thatwere first published two years ago in French, in
Présence Solidaire. Their English version neverappeared in print. This preface, Take me to yourleader, as well as the OFFDEM Call for
Presence were written for this edition;
Supporting Resistances was edited as well toreflect
petitessingularités’current
engagements.
The present volume inaugurates the Synware
collection (sinwɛːʁ) on free software
syndicalism. This collection explores themodalities of using, creating, and maintaining
digital technologies collectively. Synware
documents decentralized free software, theirusage and community organization as muchtechnical as conceptual, aesthetic and political.

11
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 12 — #12ii

On software syndicalism
by spacekookie

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 13 — #13ii

Abstract
Organisations, groups, and projects undercapitalism have the tendency to centralise. Thisis both because of monetary incentives (itmight be cheaper to just have one of something
than many), as well as authority incentives; itis easier to control an organisation that is
structured hierarchically.
The way that we organise free software
projects is impacted by this societal
framework, which replicates a lot of the issues
that organisations, projects, and companies
under capitalism face as well. Maybe
unsurprisingly our solutions to these issues arealso largely similar: personality based, andhierarchical in nature.

13
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 14 — #14

ii

Projects often also use the same metrics ascapitalist society for success: growth, reach,and audience appeal. This replicates thephenomenon of representative democraticsystems and proprietary technology creators of
pandering to the majority and letting needs byminorities largely go unanswered.
In this essay we propose an organisational
structure for software and technical projects
that removes the notion of “upstream”, andintroduces a collective ownership approach ofsoftware and technical knowledge. Freedom ofideas (the fundamental basis of free software)
is a core requirement for this approach.
This essay can not hope to solve all problems
related to this idea, but to start a discussion
about the merits and advantages of organisingin small-scale, decentralised communities. Our
hope is that this sparks conversation, interest,
14
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 15 — #15

ii

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

Problem domain
Developing and maintaining software is a lotof work, and largely a social exercise, instead ofa technical one. While certain individuals areable to create a project by themselves throughobsession and dedication, it is unlikely for
projects without a community to outlive thefocus period of the original creator.

UpstreamThis relationship between creators andconsumers is formalised by the concept of“upstream”.
Softwaredevelopment
isconsidered a river with an original source, and
15
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 16 — #16

ii

can branch out into different streams andbrooks to adapt to its environment.
While this is an apt metaphor for how
software develops from a centralised source, itdoes come with a lot of burdens andchallenges. A poisonous source can destroy ariver’s ecosystem, and similarly, a rogue
upstream development team1 can doom users
dependent on the downstream ecosystem ofthis project.
Forks will occasionally diverge completelyfrom the original upstream, however this is acommitment that very few are able tomaintain without substantial community
engagement (and public backlash).

1

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

16
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 17 — #17

i

i

Forks
Maintaining a software fork is a lot of work.
While it is difficult to get exact statistics, ourassumption is that most software forks fail due
to lack of community engagement.2 This social
dynamic puts people off forking software
projects that are developing in a direction thatthey do not approve of, or that no longer
represent their wishes and desires: while intheory it is still possible for the software or
technology to be forked, the reality of thesituation needs to be acknowledged that this isout of scope for most 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, andidentified. More research into the field is certainly
needed https://sci-hub.st/10.1007/978-3-642-33442-9
17
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 18 — #18

ii

Organisation
The organisational methods used by softwareand technical projects are often focussed
around central points of authority, similar to
how the code (or design files) itself is treated.
This is a limitation by the nature oforganisation around a single platform and isderived from how a lot of tools are built toaccommodate capitalist ventures where
centralisation is a desired effect.
While it is possible for a small group to
make decisions very efficiently in private, italso means that not all voices in thecommunity can be considered.
However decentralised and open decision
processes have a maximum size, past which
they fail due to sheer volume of feedback,trolls, or both. A prominent community thatrecently ran into this issue is the Rust language
18
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 19 — #19

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

Principles
This section outlines different modes ofcollaborating on projects, their strengths, andhow they can interact and integrate with eachother. These ideas form the basis on whichsoftware syndicalism is built.

The project cabal
A common organisational pattern that exists(albeit not usually with an exact name and very
often hidden) is the “project cabal”. This is agroup of people, often 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
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 20 — #20

ii

expansion of a project. Their knowledge andengagement drives the bulk of the project
forward, and by their hands a lot of requests
from both users, as well as peripheral
developers get implemented.
While many projects have a cabal, few areopen about this dynamic. It is not necessarily abad dynamic, if discussed and adopted openly.
Seeing communities as a collection 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
project.
This uses the concept of “knowledge
bridges”4, which facilitate a way for lessexperienced users and developers tocommunicate their ideas to the cabal of a4

Binding Chaos, Heather Marsh (9781989783009)

20
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 21 — #21iiproject, without having to become experts inthe project domain first.

Distribution and tools
While source control systems such as git are
already decentralised, many organisational
tools built around it are not. GitHub, Gitlab,
and many other projects inspired by them5
follow the same patterns of an upstream
repository, with a central place to trackcontributions and open issues.
Furthermore, this approach affects the waythat software is being distributed to end-users
as well.
A new and growing trend is to task thedevelopers themselves with packaging theirsoftware6. This 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
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 22 — #22

ii

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 projects
that aim to decentralise these collaboration
tools7 around a peer-to-peer protocol such as
ActivityPub8 are not strictly required to put
any of these theories into practice, they dooffer the opportunity to design new ways ofcollaboration that don’t mirror the existing
centralised platforms.

78

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

22
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 23 — #23ii

Upstream vs Mainline
Most of the issues we face in building
distributed collaboration networks areorganisational – not technical – in nature. As
the development process of a project scattersaround different groups, it becomes importantto catalogue and track changes made bydifferent groups that allows others to easilypull them into their own trees.
For this process to work the original sourceof a project (currently called “upstream”) 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 thisproject community.
While it is a subtle difference, language plays
a huge role in how people relate to structuresand processes. The term and concept is taken
23
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 24 — #24

iifrom the way the Linux kernel is developed.
Every three months a new “mainline” kernel isreleased9 into the world, ready to be used bywhoever is interested in it.
However, most people do not run themainline kernel. This is a reference
configuration aimed at pleasing a very specifictarget audience. Most Linux distributions
apply their own patches on top of this version,
remove features they deem incompatible with
their ideals (proprietary firmware as an
example), and re-release this version onto theirusers. Projects must be aware of who theirtarget audience is and no one project can every
hope to appeal to every user in the world.

9

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

24
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 25 — #25

ii

Syndicalism
Before we can discuss how to build software
syndicates we need to define what a syndicate
is, and how syndicalist cooperation functionsin practice. One definition of syndicalism is “aradical political movement that advocatesbringing industry and government under thecontrol of federations of labour unions by theuse of direct action”10. The term is also often
used in relation to “anarcho-syndicalism” 11
which puts this theory into praxis in differentways.
A lot of political activism is done via
syndicalist structures. They offer 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
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 26 — #26

iiorganisation, or following the same exact plan.
Alignment with each other’s ideals andprinciples is foundational for this mode ofcollaboration to work, while avoiding many ofthe problems outlined in earlier sections.
Technology is inherently political in how it
is created, maintained, and used, and softwaredevelopers 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 participate (for example because
they have a different political background or
are from a different part of the world).
Syndicalism embraces political ideology
around the work that we do and asks ofeverybody participating in this work to reflect
on their own biases, assumptions, andbehaviours. This does not require political
26
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 27 — #27

ii

uniformity (often dubbed “unity”). It attempts
to make social collaboration more transparent
and easier to understand, and primes 12
developers and users to understanding theirown biases and assumptions based on feedback
that they get from other communities.
Different syndicates can also approach groupcollaboration and decision making differently,
while still working on the same overall vision
for a project 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. Software syndicalism is the act oforganising in syndicates and applying it to thedevelopment and maintenance of software.

12

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/primed

27
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 28 — #28

ii

Opportunities
Proximity and knowledge silos
Centralised software communities tend torecreate colonialist power-structures throughthe distribution of developers and choice oftarget audience. This creates knowledge silos 13
in these countries which is detrimental to theempowerment and autonomy of bothdevelopers and users from different countries.
There are more subtle differences (for example
looking at northern vs southern, and westernvs eastern Europe), but most prominent inboth European and white American
communities, compared to the rest of theworld.

13

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

28
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 29 — #29ii

One of the opportunities of creating
syndicates around the creation andmaintenance of software projects is breaking
this relationship. To understand how thisworks we also need to discuss the concept ofsocial proximity14.
The communities we belong to are based on
the social relationships we have with people,
and vice versa. These are bi-directional
feedback mechanisms. Via the internet
proximity (or locality) can exist both in thephysical world, and in a metaphysical sense of
belonging.
Users and developers of projects can exist indifferent proximities to different software
syndicates, which lowers the barrier of entry,
and gives users and developers more choices ofcontact points to a software project. If the14

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

29
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 30 — #30

iimainline syndicate around a project isconsidered hostile to work with outside of acertain peer group, other syndicates will allow
alternative communities to spring up.
It’s important to note that none of this is
impossible under the current view ofdevelopment. A hostile or malicious upstream
development team can be circumvented byforking the project. This however comes with a
lot of unexplored social responsibilities thatmany people shy away from. Forking, and thenmaintaining a fork community, is a lot of workthat is often not seen as an option.
To start a software syndicate is notnecessarily easier on its own, but comes with
the idea of inter-project and international
solidarity built-in. No one syndicate aims to
speak for the whole project, or satisfy all users.
And thus collaboration is key.
30
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 31 — #31

ii

Identification
Proximity and community are about
belonging and identification. This requires
self-identification of users and developers,
exploring existing communities. Human beingsare complex, both individually, and in terms of
the relationships with each other. Labels ofidentification are an important tool in thisregard, but must not be used to bikesheddefinitions.
Much like anything else that humans havecreated language for, identity labels are vague
and have a certain amount of flexibility. A
software syndicate might exists for a usergroup with specific needs, or for a group of
developers (and thus users) based in a different
country, operating in a different language.

31
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 32 — #32

ii

Syndicates must self regulate theirmembership, but at the same time
identification with the target audience of a
syndicate should be enough for someone tobelong to this syndicate’s user group.
Forming new syndicates based on existingones if the need for more granular
identification becomes apparent this should be
encouraged and not hindered. Largecommunities (as outlined in earlier sections)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 syndicates
32
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 33 — #33

iishould aim to be more formalised. Syndicalist
cooperation is based on solidarity.
Fragmentation is a real concern in thisregard and demands cross-collaboration
between syndicates in terms of basic specs,
core components, and design choices. This is toensure that software made and maintained bydifferent syndicates remains as compatiblywith other versions as possible.
However, just as with identification ofsyndicate belonging, diverging projects should
not be hindered if this serves the need ofdifferent user groups. Neither software not its
user base is monolithic and projects may
diverge from each other if their goals no longeralign. An effort should be made to allow for
future cross-collaboration, but there is no
point in spending energy on drama andconflicts if developers and users would be
33
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 34 — #34

ii

happier with two separate projects rather thanone.
This space offers a lot of opportunities 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 custom version of a piece of software that isconfigured and compiled just for them, basedon a mainline version and patches that are
maintained by different syndicates.

Decision models
Decision making processes may differ
between syndicates which offers a choice toboth developers and users in terms of how theywant to engage with the software they use.

34
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 35 — #35

iiCasual users of a software might choose a
syndicate which does not make decisions basedon user feedback and instead trusting the cabal
to guide the development and maintenance of
their tool. On the other hand “power users” ofa software 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 differently whileallowing for cross-collaboration on importantfeatures.
Decision models can be aligned on two axes:
knowledge
andtrust15.
Knowledge
relationships are based on agreement on
15

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

35
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 36 — #36

iitechnical ideas and what is commonly usedcurrently in “meritocratic” systems. Trust
relationships
are
based
on
mutualunderstanding of the principles that go into
making a decision and developing a software.
These two relationships can interact ininteresting ways.

36
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 37 — #37iihigh trust^||
CONSENSUS|
UNANIMITY||| high agreement<---------------+---------------->
low agreement ||DISSENT|TECHNICAL|AGREEMENT|v
low trust

37
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 38 — #38

iiCollaboration 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 trust each other, atechnical relationship can be formed. This
usually involves a specification 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 astrong trust 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. This means that individuals candisagree with specifics but find some common
ground that they can both “live with”. Thismeans that decisions are based on the comfort
16

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

38
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 39 — #39

iiedges of all participants. There is no voting as
this would enforce a majorities view over any
minority and every stakeholder in a system canexercise a veto right to stop a decision.
These processes only work in small groups,
which is why syndicates are also encouraged toform pure technical relationships.
The
quadrants“UNANIMITY”
and“DISSENT” should be avoided as they either
result in an echo-chamber effect in terms ofdecision making, or don’t allow for effective
collaboration at all.

Challenges
While the previous sections outlined
opportunities solve (and improve on) the
existing problem domain, this idea is notwithout its own challenges. This essay
attempted to propose solutions for some of
39
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 40 — #40

iithese, but can of course not hope to becomprehensive.

Technical fragmentation
Existing projects that use a similar
approach17 can suffer from “fragmentation” or“fracturisation” (commonly also called“balkanisation”). This is the process by which
communities diverge so significantly that they
are no longer compatible with each other. In
the case of Freifunk this means that the coresoftware is still developed communally
between all “chapters”, but configuration andnetwork setups vary so widely that moving
between networks requires fundamentally reconfiguring infrastructure devices.

17

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

40
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 41 — #41

iiCreating small syndicate communities
around all sorts of software projects may sufferfrom the same problem if not managed
accordingly. This 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 software development
is the “not invented here syndrome” (NIH18)
which prompts companies to rewrite technicalprojects created by other parties because theyeither don’t like or don’t understand theexisting (and available) solution.

18

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

41
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 42 — #42ii

Because free software developers do not exist
in a bubble this affects free software projects aswell. Fragmentation in communities, social
and technical differences in understanding,and other factors might contribute to a rise in
NIH among syndicates. This is a problem withno real solution. It can potentially be avoided
with better communication.
On the other hand it is important toconsider that just because something has been
written once that does not mean that noalternative implementations can or should
exist. It is possible to find errors inspecifications
throughalternative
19
implementations .

19https://blogs.oracle.com/developers/building-acontainer-runtime-in-rust

42
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 43 — #43

ii

Political fragmentation
Similarly to how technical differences inopinions may fragment a project, the same canbe said for political ideologies. It is
reductionist to assume that ideology in itself isthe problem (after all not believing in
ideologies is itself an ideology). Labels exist in
language to catalogue and describe natural andcultural things.
The importance is to recognise that different
labels can exist for the same principles, andthat similar political conclusions built on thesame principles are still compatible with eachother.

Outlook
Bringing this essay to a close, we look into
the future. The way we build systems andorganise ourselves in communities has grown
43
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 44 — #44

iiout of the capitalist system that we aim toescape. Furthermore this is not simply about
the development of software (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 systems that we
replicate in how we develop the technologies
that we hope will transform the world. This issorely needed, as boycotting technology is not
the solution to the ever growing surveillance
apparatus created by capitalist systems.
Ultimately, software syndicalism is about
reducing the distance between the creation andmaintenance of technology and its users.

44
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 45 — #45

i

i

45
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 46 — #46ii

A software syndicate,
for whom?
by natacha

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 47 — #47ii

Who is concerned by a software syndicate?
How can a software syndicate embracetransformational forces? As we are observing
worrying political drifts, a clear consolidationof control society, and possible rise of fascist
discourses, we know from experience that the
stake of maintaining an independent
infrastructure of communication is crucial toresistance networks who will take the charge ofa further social response. However it feels that
this important concern is often being held as
secondary.
Advocating for a global approach to address
modalities of the technological society often
makes you qualified as idealist, since power inplace greatly favours militaro-industrial
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 envision
47
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 48 — #48

iihere how concerted actions at a small scale cancontribute to a global thinking on the topic.

Scavenging of free radicals
While the centralization of data andprivatization of software, favoured by the neoliberal economic dysfunction, occupy almost
all domains, there are still many activist
projects that continue to propose singular tools
and models of community organization; someradical technical collectives maintain their
existence, providing long lasting independentcommunication tools, for example Riseup.net
or Autistici/Inventati20 (moreover, A/I, in
their orange book21 document theirinfrastructure for activist projects, an
20+KAOS: Ten Years of Hacking and Media

21

https://www.autistici.org/orangebook/

Activism ISBN: 978-94-92302-16-8

48
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 49 — #49

ii

important step to allow the transfer ofexperience so others can reproduce theirprocess22); other initiatives, such as the Lorea
project23, have had a short and intense life byengaging in resistance organizations; more
recently, more structures 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 useful software areavailable, well organized communities, whoprovide secured tools that can be configured
according to needs, they are most often unused
or at least not used to their full extent.
22 The list is long and Riseup maintains a partial listof radical technical collectives :23

https://riseup.net/en/security/resources/radical-servers
https://web.archive.org/web/20151103003019/http://lorea.org/

24

https://chatons.org/

49
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 50 — #50

iiPopular protests that bring hundreds ofthousands of people into the streets most often
rely 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 concerted
digital organization in resistance networks.
Most often a discourse rejecting technology
dominates in activist circles, this position
seems unrealistic 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) trust them to manage ourdata.
Technology production is undoubtedly partof colonialist exploitative history, its operation
benefits the empire. The nature of digital tools,
50
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 51 — #51

iiwhich do nothing better than reproduce
information, is curbed by copyright while
corporate practice largely favours the tracingof those who produce information; leaving theinfrastructure in the hands of corporations
alone only aggravates the problem. On thecontrary, the experience acquired over theyears makes it possible to envisage a controlled
use and a better understanding of the stakes,
which necessarily requires, as we know, thesharing of documentation, the creation of
spaces for reflection, debate and active
pedagogy in order to rethink our relationshipwith technology.
Facing the lack of collective reflection about
the technologies used to coordinate social
movements and resistances, it is useful toconsider free software in its structuring
capacity: both an approach to bring software
51
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 52 — #52

ii

code into the public domain and amethodology to coordinate contributions andthe maintenance of digital tools. To this end,
this text starts by addressing the observationthat free software projects face systemic
limitations, those are particularly sensible andlimiting in the social organisation attached tofree software production; it conforms to anorm established in an essentially masculine
and Western 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 meaningful discourses/claims inpolitical or academic circles.

52
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 53 — #53

ii

Polyglot technologies
Free software programmers form aninternational community that agrees oncollaborative work methods and specific tools,
such as the version control software git. This
community often shares social characteristics,
creating knowledge silos that influence thedirection of software development.
• Free Software projects are almost
always coming from people with EuroAmerican cultural background, thosepeople with a Western heritage tend toreproduce existing patterns ofdomination.
• When programmers realize they are
creating a knowledge silo, and maybe
are not creating a welcoming
environment for others, they often
53
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 54 — #54

ii

remedy this by turning to themainstream, either by imitating theinterfaces and structures of proprietary
software, or by trying to be compatible
with existing corporate tools rather
than asserting the construction of adifferent technology.
• This reasoning results in social andtechnological environments that limit
dissent thinking and make fordifficulty 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 direct result of colonial history andWestern domination of education and access to
infrastructure, most software, and even more
open source software, is developed by people
54
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 55 — #55

ii

who have better access to university education,and the identity conveyed by the community
or workplace does not help to transform thesituation.25 With respect to the West, Charlton
Mc Ilwain explains that, from the beginning,certain populations have been historically anddeliberately excluded from the institutions
where technology is developed: “The Folks at
MIT and those like them were building a newsociety they made the de-facto decision to
exclude Negroes from designing, building, or
deciding what computer systems would bebuilt”.26
In this context, developers bring theirculture with them and organize social
structures, their proposals are not always
25

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

26 Black Software, The Internet and Social Justice fromthe Afronet to Black Lives matter, Charlton D. Mc
Ilwain, Oxford University Press 2020, p.21
55
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 56 — #56

ii

welcoming to people from another backgroundor country. While contributions to Free
Software projects come from global sources 27,
this is not visible in social spaces (festivals,
conferences, hacker camps, etc.) where peopleinterested in technical issues meet, nor indecision-making processes. Unfortunately, forvarious reasons (intersectional issues toocomplex to be discussed here), it seems that the
population of free software programmers ismore uniform than the population incorporate environment.15 The uniformity of the
population is often the first thing that strikes aperson attending a large free software
conference for the first time28. Also these27 Who is an open source software 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
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 57 — #57

iiwestern and gendered social practices, often 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
structure and do not allow for the sharing oforganizational modalities specific to Free
Software.
On another hand, despite the evidence of
their toxicity, a great deal of tolerance is given,
even in critical circles, to the use of
surveillance capitalist software. More often
than not, the explanation given emphasizes thedifficulty of changing existing processes, anddenies the need to think about the benefits of aconcerted transformation. From this situation,
where the lack of dialogue and collective
reflection is obvious, the result is the
crystallization of a structure of domination
57
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 58 — #58

ii

where programmers keep a grip ontechnologicalchoices.
The
resistanceorganizations, on the other hand, argue thatthey are fragile and lack the time andknowledge to continue to feed the flows 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.
There are many attempts to remedy thissituation, but because of the reality describedabove, discussions about technology happens
in closed circles and often fails to consider thepeculiarities of Free Software; they are notconsidered as specific systems, and loosing
sight of their singular possibilities. The samething happens when it comes to meeting the
58
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 59 — #59

iineeds of “users”; the very successful campaignof the French Free Software provider
Framasoft, called Dégooglisons Internet29, offers
free of charge Free Software alternatives tomost main centralized online services.
However, by providing “alternatives” that insome way try to keep the familiarity of theuser’s habit with centralized corporate
software, we still subject civil society
organizations to the world view that thesecompanies promote, identity based on gratis
usage and focus on serving individual projects,
rather than exchange and collaboration. The
reasons for this choice are obviously pragmatic,
it is difficult to break away from the dominantmodel; highlighting the possibility of anotherorganization fostering the visibility of adifferent paradigm requires a voluntary and29

https://degooglisons-internet.org/

59
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 60 — #60

ii

persistent work from different groups acrossexisting social organisation. Transdisciplinary
andinclusive
conversations
about
technological production and usage would help
to approach Free software production as aprocess that allows a different way offunctioning, which would give another accessto the digital tools, notably by offering thepossibility of discussing the different
technological choices and would allow a sharedunderstanding of the technical stakes, of theneeds and of the social functioning necessarily
associated to digital communications. There
are very few spaces where transdisciplinary
exchanges take place, very few knowledge
bridges where free software developers learn
and share their experience with otherdisciplines, other experiences and engage

60
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 61 — #61

iireciprocally to give life to proposals that
respond to expressed and different needs.
Faced with the obvious signs of theconsolidation of a techno-fascist domination,
we are left with the desire to organize in order
to set up a radically transformative social andhuman way of functioning and rethinktechnology together. It is time to find places
where we can exchange and function in acollaborative way. As we have seen, there are
few of these, they are split between
programmers and activists, and above all thereis hardly any structured arrangement for thetransmission of knowledge. The need to createan activist milieu to discuss technologicalpractices in a society where computers are
dominant is apparent, this can take different
forms, meetings, workshops, writings, digitalexchanges but in all cases and it must be a
61
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 62 — #62

iishared project inhabited both by people
contributing to the development and use ofsoftware and all the people who are generally
excluded from these debates.

Proximity transmission
The virus tactic•••

Modalities of technology are unknown
because most people are kept
dependent by corporations.
Activists don’t have time to invest inunderstanding the technology, they are
already divided and overloaded.
Difficulty/impossibility to get feedback
from users at the software developmentlevel because they have no reference insoftware, only in identity-based
enterprise products.

62
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 63 — #63

ii

Most of the arguments for not considering
the possibility of other technologies are selfdeprecating: “technology is not for me”,
“I don’t understand anything”, “I don’t havetime”, etc. Yet screen time is constantly
increasing, and the indispensable operations ofdaily life are increasingly intermediated bycapitalist surveillance platforms.
These observations are banal and often
dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders,reflecting a feeling of powerlessness. Activists
are already exhausted by too many
responsibilities, the technology they use should
support them in their activities and not require
more time, as those based on an attention
economy promoted by many platforms do. On
the other hand, free software projects feel theneed to reach a wider audience, they rightly
assess the need to better respond to users’
63
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 64 — #64

iineeds, to get feedback, to do design UX;
however, in the absence of shared structures
for reflection on technological developments,
the point of comparison remains the dominant
tools This comparison is reinforced by the fact
that, when asked about the desired
functionality of free software, “users” who are
not well informed about the possibilities offree software and who are not engaged in a
broader reflection about technology will use
the most well-known software as a point ofcomparison.
We need organized working groups to care
together for the terms of the technologicalsociety: transdisciplinary software syndicates.
There we can think about directions and makedecisions for the development of software thatwould feed into strategies of sharing, from andwith resistance networks. Software syndicates
64
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 65 — #65

ii

are understood here as proximity-based
structures that can serve as a basis for strategy
development and the transfer of informationand knowledge, decentralized and online
decision-making processes and the federationof needs.
Furthermore
thecomprehensionofsurveillance capitalism formalized by hacker
communities could support activist projects;
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 technology
actors and activists, to build a ground forthinking about technology for resistance, tobecome knowledge bridges.

65
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 66 — #66

iiKnowledge Bridges•

Need for systemic adoption of open
infrastructure.

This is not a proposition to rethink theuniverse, the assimilation of always newtechnologies and infrastructure exhausts 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 software techniques and tools thathave steadily permitted over time theappropriation of technological functions, andpermit to fix a standard for adapted todifferent uses and practices. In the same way,
the persons who set as knowledge bridges
from/to programmer environment to activists
have an interest in relying on existing social
66
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 67 — #67

iiorganizations rather than building again a neworganisation, in particular by working withexisting civil society structures and resistanceorganizations who have a experience in theiraction. From this point of view, theintermediary role of knowledge bridge isessential, it is not necessarily a question ofdeveloping more or better tools, or otherstructures, but of knowing how to manipulate
the existing ones, to install the necessary tools
and to transmit an understanding of theirmodalities of functioning so that their use
meets the needs of the engaged collective. It isalso a question of understanding and easingother people’s understanding about how themost widespread technologies are free softwareand they function differently. The practical
documentation of technical processes is reallyrare and the time spent to realize these
67
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 68 — #68

iidocuments is often not considered as a valuecreating activity, yet it is essential to the life of
the software, its adoption and its futuretransformation.
The example of Andrea’s work in the Campi
Aperti30 community is an inspiring example of
how it is possible to integrate both governancework within a community seeking to exist in ahorizontal relationship, and existing open
source tools developed within their own
communities and rarely used in this context.
Andrea proposes several principles:• Do not do things alone.
• Testing environment.
• Document everything and explain the
choice of algorithm.
• Give yourself the time to study.
• Do not be too much specialized.
30

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

68
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 69 — #69ii

She explains how she was able to engage theCampi Aperti community around the setup of
their dedicated network and their own servers.
Every technological decision was integrated
into their choices of organization andcollective validation, and the people involved
were quickly able to take ownership of the
proposed technologies.
Several initiatives have thought of projects
integrating different software in a sharedenvironment aiming at facilitating theirinstallation, among other things by using
dedicated hardware. These projects areimportant spaces for the construction oftechnical independence. The person who isable to pass on technical information andsupport others, a knowledge bridge, mayintervene temporarily or over time, may or
may not have a technical and/or activist
69
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 70 — #70

iibackground, or both, the essential thing is that
she acts in a spirit of sisterhood andcommunity knowledge building throughmutual self-learning and support.

Relationships, locality, proximity,
community and globality
Taking into account the different
observations often shared about the modalities
and structures allowing for the development of
free software, we can specify a little themodalities of a software syndicate.
Local reference is immediately accessible.
Local information, networks of common
goods, cartography.
•

Local is important for human relations
and further communication.

70
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 71 — #71

i

•

i

For software, geographic location is not
significant
and
can
lead
to
redundancies in development.

The notion of locality often comes up in
current social contexts, nurturing battles andutopias, it also is very present in the discourseof radical technologies and independent
providers. While the idea of locality seems
obvious in an immediate definition: “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 historicaldomination, colonial for example, notacknowledging that our wealth and welfare
system is heavily constructed on exploitative
systems still in place. Indeed locality needs to
71
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 72 — #72

ii

be understood as different from autonomy
because the existence maintained locally in theWest depends largely on global structures of
exploitation. Furthermore what does locality
means in terms of software development.
For example, the question of a local
community associated in the development ormaintenance of a software or a code base seems
to be associated with a particular vision of
locality, some urban centres where asufficiently large number of programmers arefound to form a local community, but this is
not the case for most rural spaces.
Technological knowledge is situated, and itis crucial that the people who hold it
implement structures for dialogue with othersocial spaces, and in the current situation
where corporation attack every piece of land it
is all the more crucial for radical technologies
72
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 73 — #73

iithat are most often thought in urban contexts,
to keep in touch with the various territorial
struggles that are most often rural.
Development based on proximity
Taking in account the previously mentioned
issues and limits, locality seems on otheraspects an important asset for radical and free
software technology development andorganisation.
••

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

Software development relies on humanorganisations that are both localised in certain
urban centres and at a distance historicallyformalising online ways of organisation, thatallows them to keep track of their projects and
73
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 74 — #74

iicommunities in a decentralised manner very
adaptable and reliable. Those tools allow toform
affinitygroupsover
specific
software/type of software where technologicalchoices are discussed for their pertinence but
also for some more obscure reasons that canresemble a form of attachment to a certain
identity, aesthetics or , even what some mightcall political reasons (most of the time
unacknowledged). For example adhesion to
decentralisation, or technological minimalism
has definitive political groundings, most of thetime not presented as such.
Developer’s affinity groups form proximity
relations that are not solely depending on theirlocality and constraining them to a local
implementation would be absurd, contrary to
the networked quality of the technology.
However Free Software development most
74
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 75 — #75

ii

often happens among a network of peers,organized in groups of belonging and identity.
People are localized and meet in hackerspaces
for example, they meet there independently of
specific projects, but these social spaces are theoccasion to implement relational spaces where
technological practices and different needs arethought. Identifying local representatives ofsoftware projects could create a referential
bridge for local user groups.
The programmer’s time is usually taken up,
so they don’t see the need to devote themselvesto the dissemination of the software they are
working on. Conversely, for outsiders,engagement in thinking about a program or its
documentation is an opportunity for reflection
on systems and technologies, and perhaps theformation of critical thinking. The hackerspaces

75
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 76 — #76

ii

and hacklabs31 can be the venues for theseencounters, they allow different people toshare an interest in the technology, and somewill then serve as intermediaries to sharesystemic
understandingandsupportcommunity building.

Community••

Community technologies must be
understood from the beginning as anopen source system.
Radical technologies can be thought ofby a diverse community.

The diversity of communication spaces 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

https://hackerspaces.org/

and https://hacklabs.org/

76
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 77 — #77

iihave seen repeatedly in recent events, far rightfundamentalists know that getting their hands
on digital media is key to the consolidation of
their social influence; they are aided in this by
centralized platforms that practice double
standards in moderation, tolerating, forexample, racist violence and threats. Moreover,
the techno-fascist control society sets up
standards which are, by their requirements andtheir modalities adapted to corporations, thosestandards are not favourable and exclude defacto small and decentralized organizations
favourable to the common good. Under the
impact of these different threats, thinking of
the digital infrastructure as a free anddecentralized software commons is the first
condition for its survival and for the possibilityof maintaining a diversity of speech andopinions that is essential to shared thinking.
77
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 78 — #78

ii

Such systems, in order to exist, mustnecessarily be designed with the participationof communities from the start. Confronted
with the importance 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 resistance environments to implement
another technical functioning.
As a conclusion I would like to affirm that
Including digital issues in the design of ourresistanceorganizations
allowstheformalization of a complex thinking that goesbeyond the simplistic opposition forming
against digital tools, which also recognizes thepossibilities of a practice of digital commons;
while being aware of the flaws of computers
and their seating in a logic of surveillance. The
means of this organization are community78
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 79 — #79

ii

based and reside in practices ofcommunication,
documentation
andknowledge sharing, such a reflection would bea pillar for software syndicate that offers aspace to rethink the existing systems in theservice of active social movements.

79
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 80 — #80

ii

Supporting resistancesby hellekin

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 81 — #81ii

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

Dispelling the fog
In the field of software development,
support for resistances does not necessarily
involve a radical personal change, but more
simply the dissipation of the propagandist fog
that makes knowledge a commodity among
others. Supporting resistances thus proceedsfrom an “inversion of responsibility”, to abuse
a computer science term, where one discovers
81
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 82 — #82

iithat a change of view allows the conceptual
collapse of a system of oppression that waspreviously imposed as obvious.
The software industry, dominated bycapitalist interests and methods, determines a“market” according to the consecrated terms ofcompetition and scarcity. Producers ofsoftware, conceived as products, engage in awild competition. It is a frantic race where
talents are competing to produce as quickly as
possible a software (or its promise) that will
attract the attention of a predator. The biggest
companies buy up the most “innovative” startups in a ritualistic, predestined business planin which a wealthy buyer phagocytes the seller
to take over or eliminate its competingproduct. The industry continues to apply its
strategy of “embrace, extend, extinguish” tohide its own misery.
82
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 83 — #83

ii

But these mythological terms are so far
removed from reality that the capitalists
themselves still use an inversion of meaning tohide this fact. Thus, they call “permissive
licenses” those that permit predators to avoid
the non-reciprocity of the value added by thesoftware produced in common, and “restrictive
licenses” those that restrict or abolish any
capacity for exclusive appropriation of thesoftware they cover (extraction of its value).
But in the face of the abundance of code, theidea that this “commodity” could share thecharacter of scarcity of oil or coal borders on
the grotesque; and its cooperative mode of
production makes any claim to competition
futile and derisory. The consideration ofcooperative,
non-exclusiveandnoncompetitive knowledge technologies invites
reflection on the scope of a competitive vision
83
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 84 — #84

iiwhen resources do not meet the condition of
scarcity on which the whole edifice ofcapitalist extraction is based. In such a context,
it is the whole political orientation of societythat is turned upside down, making a largepart of the software industry obsolete.

Promoting mutual aid
A common – communalistic – approach togeneralized software production could benefit,
for example, the professions of the
independent book sector or doctors; anagreement to support the development of free
software for their own use would significantly
reduce the cost of developing and maintaining
common software – considered a common
resource; these costs would be much lower inthe long run than maintaining an industry
designed to extract value rather than provide
84
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 85 — #85

iiit. A professional union could advantageously
pursue the invention of a common technicalpole for which only the characteristics linked
to national differences (e.g. legal) would
impose local overheads; most of thefunctionality forming a common good, thewhole profession would benefit from atechnical and social innovation – properly
technological – determining the improvementof the working conditions of all professionals.
The lifting of the smoke curtain of siliconed
capitalism would reveal all the interest of
establishing a public digital infrastructure on
free software that would favour its cooperativemodes of production and would also satisfy the
declared European political will of an open andcompetitive market between its small andmedium-sized businesses, but on the solid

85
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 86 — #86

iibases of a technical floor maintained collectively
for the benefit of all participants.
Not only technical, but also organizational,
this evolution would accompany the verypractices of the user communities and would
thereby shape their relationship to technology,
allowing them to appropriate it and to
consider it from a collective and politicalperspective. Little by little, the bad habit ofabandoning technical choices to corporations
would fade away and be replaced by a will ofgeneral interest carried by software syndicatesthat would themselves be dedicated to theimprovement of the conditions of their own
users in proximity. Private interests and theirgoals of value extraction would be replaced bya logic of improvement of uses, of invention
for the general interest, the respect ofdifferences and the taking into account of
86
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 87 — #87

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

Asserting ourselves together
From then on, it would become possible andeasier to harmonize legal and soon legislative
instruments beyond the specific conditions ofeach nation; thus, professionals could influencein a much more rational and efficient way theevolution of their profession in a supranational context. The cases of the independent
book sector and doctors are helpful inunderstanding the benefits of standardizing
digital tools (software) as a common good.
Other domains, such as accounting,architecture, or the relationship of legal
persons to administrations, offer a similar
opportunity beyond each corporation, in a
87
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 88 — #88

iicontext that could be described as syndical ;the anti-capitalist struggle for the abolition of
the exploitation of workers would naturallyfind its expression in cooperative, nonexclusive and non-competitive knowledge
technologies.
In other words, an approach to software
production as a provider of a common
infrastructure not only makes the user thecentral force of proposition, but also renders
obsolete the artificial fragmentation of an
entire industry based on what can be called an
intellectual racket. The capitalist mode of
production is antithetical to the functioning ofa digital commons: the cooperative approachof the commons is infinitely more adapted tosoftware production than is an exclusive
approach.

88
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 89 — #89

i

i

89
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 90 — #90iiTake me to your leader
by petites singularités

i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 91 — #91ii

The NGI has no hidden agenda, otherthan to restore the balance of power at a
global scale.
— Next Generation Internet 2025,
ISBN 978-92-79-86466-7
We reject: 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 facts rather resembles a
dictatorship.

91
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 92 — #92ii

So-called benevolent dictatorship32 is an oldschool free software governance practice, thatsounds very strange to French ears. Brought up
in the republican schooling model where theylearn that the enlightened absolute monarchy
practised in Versailles was in the end
dethroned by the very republican revolution,
the French quickly learnt that the enlightenedmodel didn't have the effective means to backits claims of absolute power. In fact, thecurrent neo-liberal model of global
surveillance has far more reach that any
absolute monarch ever had. But still what doesit mean when both models are associated,when self-confident old school free software
32 Benevolent Dictator designates in the free softwarecommunity the person taking the lead andunilateral decisions regarding a software project,most of the time this situation is correlated to thefact that many projects originate in the idea andaction of one person who starts writing the code.
92
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 93 — #93

iifigures, acting as sole decision makers in their
domain, partner with the financial leverage of
neo-liberal
economies,
sometimesingovernmental context?
Code is politics33: governance of the internet
was born of the rejection of politics byengineers; the free software movement wasborn of the rejection of an opaque, nascent
software industry; Copyleft appeared as a way
to subvert the extractive nature of copyright.
The essential quality of free software is to be
developed, maintained, and eventually
reproduced and forked by independent humanbeings supporting each other in this endeavour
according to, in the best case, their sharedvision of society. Of course no one exists awayfrom capitalist system, long-lasting projects
33 Opening sentence of Software freedom your way.

https://ps.zoethical.org/t/sfyw-software-freedom-yourway/19

93
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 94 — #94

iicannot run on a voluntary basis and require
funding. A proper software infrastructure thatallows for the multiplicity of free software
initiatives to exist and serve the growing needs
for reliable, convivial, frugal, and secure digital
tools requires public financing.
Currently there is an important andwelcome move from European authorities tosupport developers, software infrastructure,and build some form of European sovereignty.
Different programmes are supported that giveaccess to some means and a better visibility toEuropean software, emphasizing open-source
and free software, supporting European
developer's expertise that has been largely
under-recognised until now. Among others the
NGI programme and its associated cascading
funding – petites singularités acts as amentorship organization within the NGI Zero
94
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 95 — #95

iiconsortium – has benefited many essential free
software projects (needless to say, the verylarge majority of them originates inNorthwestern Europe and are led by whitemen). In fact European authorities clearly voice
their objective 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 software, and what does it entail?
Free software values many forms of
independence, and despite a blatantly
monochromatic milieu, a diversity of visions
are still represented, and code generally
considered a contribution to the digital
95
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 96 — #96

iicommons towards general public usage; alongwith the pattern among many free software
projects to seek some autonomy from direct
State and corporate control. Decentralisation
has historically been a critical affordance tosupport a degree of independence and adiversity of organisational models.
It is more than time to start negotiating thefinancial conditions of our independentendeavours, to control public resource
allocation and discuss openly the attribution
criteria. It's time for free software developers
to get a hold of their capacity to assess theneeds of their communities and express themwith agency, withdrawing from the myth thatfunding is alien.
Not so long ago, the free software movement
was in pain and at risk because no one caredthat essential pieces of our technical
96
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 97 — #97

ii

infrastructure would be maintained voluntarily
by a few isolated individuals. Stephen Henson
single-handedly maintained OpenSSL, without
fair compensation, when Heartbleed struck.
From the grass-roots, a few organised andtaught each other about ways and means toaccess public funding, while philanthropic
non-profits created funding infrastructurefrom scratch, looking at European Commission
programmes.
Do not be mistaken: it's not because thismoney comes from our taxes that anyone caneasily access it, as the Commission lobbying
structure is official and regulated. You must
form an eligible34 consortium involving many
partners, fill and submit one or more 70-page
34 Theoretically only European organisations are
eligible, this can be circumvented by creating a
dedicated legal structure in the EU to capture EC
funding.
97
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 98 — #98

ii

proposals that must be accepted by anindependent jury of experts (whom you could
join35), sign multi-year contracts and aconsortium agreement, then process a burdenof administrative reporting for the duration of
the programme and beyond. This process istheoretically doable by anyone36, yet in fact,
only informed groups have access to it.
In addition, it is a known fact thatorganisations
fromtheNorthwestern
European countries have very good access,furthermore 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-funding at 32C3
https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7300-,
and hellekin made a presentation at FOSDEM'18
hacking_eu_funding_for_a_decentralizing_foss_project

https://archive.fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/eufundingthat led petites singularités to join the NGI Zeroconsortium.
98
i

i
i

i

i

i
“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 99 — #99

iifunding had been entitled to technicalinfrastructure in NW Europe. Therefore some
non-profit philanthropies had the capacity tobuild upon their previous experience andproximity to the funding sources, they wisely
structured while providing the larger
community access to dedicated cascading
funding.
For the last five years European free softwarecommunities have increasingly been funded bycascading funding from consortiums appointed
by European Commission's NGI programme.
The facility put in place is a great success and arelief for most developers, a simple,
lightweight do-autocratic milestone-basedmodel matching the development workflow,where you get the money when the task isdone, with no administrative burden: the
keyword here is efficiency.
99
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 100
#100

i
i

Still here comes the issue with the "European
Giant": when many different organisations areunited under a sole model, diversity is at risk.
As many resort to the same centralised preset
resource allocation via a unique organisation,
as benevolent and supportive as it may be,different issues can arise.
What happens if our benevolent dictator ishit by a bus? We have no direct access to thefinancial infrastructure, since we havedelegated all our representation into the handsof one entity. Although we're dealing here with
European tax payer money, public funding,none of the beneficiary individuals andorganizations have any sort of institutional
representation at EU level. We trust the
benevolent dictator to do the right thing, butwhen many different organisations are united
under a single banner, it is simply very easy to
100
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 101
#101

i
i

replace a key person by any corporate fiend,and simply lose all our own infrastructure atonce. You've seen that before, haven't you?
Another issue is the lack of visibility overboth attribution conditions37 of funding andthe decision structure of the Commission
programmes. Both the Commission andbeneficiaries seem to disregard the conditionsof attribution of cascading funding; there is noreport over the composition of expert reviewer
juries nor any feedback channel to discuss
ongoing choices; claims voiced on publicchannels often remain without response. It issymptomatic that many grantees do not evenknow that the cascading funding they receiveis attached to a consortium. Consortium
members do not discuss their consortium's
own orientations internally. There is no37 Not to be confused with eligibility conditions.
101
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 102
#102

i
i

momentum nor place where free software
actors organize to discuss funding mechanisms,
their pertinence, actual diversity of needs
within the movement, in order to formulate
demands towards funding structures.
Despite its impressive success in reaching out
to the free software movement and supporting
development, NGI project-based cascading
funding does not support 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 matter if the code will be used, aslong as it is able to display its technicalexistence, as ephemeral as it might be.
38 E.g., software packages may be created on-demand
as a service to developers via the cascading funding
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 software either.
102
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 103
#103

i
i

Rationalisation of the funding schemes seemto be in order to fit all in one size, leaving notime to discuss collective objectives, diversityof needs, and upcoming processes; only code islaw. This is a dangerous path for diversity, asreported biases39 may not be addressed, andtherefore contribute to their legitimation andcontinued reinforcement, and the faster the
better.
ASAP though may not mean what you think
it does: attentive scrutiny affects 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-stop shop for
public funding of free software threatens theidentity of free software, 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
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 104
#104

i
i

interpretation of code is law – at the service ofthe neo-liberal world view. Diversity is astrength that belongs to the grass-roots, andCyclops have been trying to embrace it andquench it many times in history, for it enables
people over time to challenge hegemonic
ruling.
Now, you might ask, who decides what isfinanced? Well, our benevolent dictator is thefundamental
joint
here:
recruiting
independent experts, onboarding grantees,
sometimes reporting40 to Commission people
who drink those words and learn each time
better what free software is about. Some thinkthat is a good thing™ because he knows, he has
been doing it successfully for decades to thebenefit of the larger free software and opensource communities and we should trust his
40 https://nlnet.nl/NGI/reports/NGI-Study-ISBN9789279864667.pdf

104
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 105
#105

i
i

experience. But how do we learn from it inorder to distribute this amazing capacity
across multiple people and organizations?
As software is omnipresent in every aspect ofour societies we have long understood that it
does not exist only by its source code but also
through its inner social organisation that
informs technical choices, implementation,and conditions its adoption. As we discuss
software syndicalism, financing our endeavours
seems a crucial point where syndicalists needto organize beyond the available funding
sources, to sit down together and summarize
the needs and priorities to be funded.
Formulating adequate claims for financing is
key to think effective organisational means toaccess to the funding sources, legislative
processes, and ultimately to the overarchingeconomic strategy that will grant free software
105
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 106
#106

i
i

an actual status of public digital infrastructure.
How could we support each other acrossprojects in clarifying our needs for financing
and the diversity of possible sources as we wish
to avoid creating dependence on a centralised
source? Shouldn't we also share a public space
where we discuss our choices for financing
models and decentralisation of funding
sources?
A digital society with an internet forhumans creates a way to discuss publicly andformalize collectively our technical needs as
citizens and as society. Citizens must have ways
to influence the allocation of public resources
towards
world-transforming
technical
ensembles. Beyond the existing and quite
successfulcode-oriented,
project-based
funding efforts, we demand infrastructurebased community funding for scopes beyond a
106
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 107
#107

i
i

single project, that affect more than one
software and demand peer cooperation, andalso care-based funding to support community
development and integration of free software
in 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 report to the community ofpeers at offdem.net and across the Fediverse.
Share your concerns, publish your studies andyour results to benefit the world. Let us gather
and formalize non-profit entities to go beyond
the arbitrary project-based division of digitallabour, and produce a grass-roots, long term
citizen political vision for a digital society that
does not support the alignment of forces on
runaway industrialism, extractive capitalism
and militarily legitimized mass murder.
107
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 108
#108

i
i

What is at Stake with
Interoperability
by petites singularités

i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 109
#109

i
i

Until now I could escape Facebook : I
have no interest in “having to” talk to
people “on Facebook” or to give myconsent to this company’s practices
incompatible with my ethics. Given its
dominant position, I have a doubt in myindividual capacity as a citizen to resist
an interconnection with Facebook thatwould be imposed from above.

Consent & interoperability
The General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR) provides explicit consent to data usage.
But within the scope of interoperability,refusal to consent to any predatory use must notinterfere with communication. In other words, thepredatory platform, if it becomes interoperable
by force of law, must not acquire the capacity
109
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 110
#110

i
i

to monitor participants 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 & interconnection
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 identification to them,thus our acceptation of their conditions.
imposes explicit consent for the treatment of
personal data (articles 4.11 and 7) that we, nonusers of these predatory services, refuse to give:
we won’t be able, a priori, to interact with theseaccounts with whom we can only connect to byaccepting the unacceptable terms of service of
their operators, hence interoperability cannot

110
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 111
#111

i
i

work since it resolves into an “interoperability
without interconnection.41”

Interconnection & data portability
Before rushing on the idea ofinteroperability of the internet giants with
open standards, it is therefore necessary toensure the implementation of the so that users
trapped in the platforms can export their data
through the use of standards (e.g. ActivityPub).
Thus, by allowing users to regain their digital
sovereignty and regain control of theirpersonal data, we can kill three birds with one
stone: weaken the giants with questionable
practices, strengthen existing European law,and observe the emergence of social media
41 On the difference between interoperability andinterconnection, see Laurent Chemla,“Interoperabilitay”, on February 22, 2020.

http://www.non-droit.org/2020/02/22/interoperabilitay/

111
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 112
#112

i
i

decentralization in line with European values
and the charter of fundamental human rights.
Interoperability,interconnection
andconsent seem to us to be the nerve center ofthe debate, however it remains complex andoverflows in all directions, for example – andthis remains open to discussion without being
exhaustive:• The existence of interoperable open
standards, such as ActivityPub, XMPP,
etc. must be supported, notably toallow users in silos to change
services – but
without
losinginformation,
especiallybecause“personal data”, usage history andexisting conversations, contacts, etc.
cannot be transmitted (cf. the Google
Reader precedent).

112
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 113
#113

•

•

•

i
i

A
minimalist
approachtoauthorizations to grant actors during
interconnections – see notably thedifference between the theory behindauthorization, e.g., OAuth, and theiractual implementations of all or nothing(or: why do you need access to mycontact list 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 start with
explicitly exposing the issue ofcentralization
andcommitting
ourselves to unwind their presence
113

i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 114
#114

i
i

within our institutions, our schools,
our health system, our administrative
communications. Institutional support
to open standards, as practised by theCommission within the scope of Next
Generation Internet, would reinforce
them instead of giving implicit
legitimacy to centralized systems bymerely asking those to be compatible
with standard protocols.
In other words, interoperability alone
remains insufficient, and can even prove
harmful.

114
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 115
#115

i
i

115
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 116
#116

i
i

The threat to free software
An OFFDEM manifesto
by petites singularitésThis text was originally published on January 5 th,
012020 HE and was revised for this edition.

i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 117
#117

i
i

"It is this sum total of these modern
attempts to perpetuate colonialism whileat the same time talking about ‘freedom’,
which has come to be known as
neocolonialism."— Nkwame Nkrumah, NEOCOLONIALISM
The Last Stage of Imperialism, London,
Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., 1965
117
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 118
#118

i
i

We42, as a group of free software activists,have decided in 2020 to organize OFFDEM, anintersectional gathering around collective
practices and free technology productions. Ourreasons have been explained in a friendly post
on p.s.: forum: https://ps.zoethical.org/t/whyoffdem/2867

It now seems about time to voice our
feelings towards the astonishing pre-emptionof the developers communities by surveillance
capitalist corporations. While there has been
large social movements to claim “Fuck Off
42 OFFDEM was organized by a group of different
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
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 119
#119

i
i

G̶̢͈̠̣̓̓̈a̴͖̦̓́̇̒͜ḡ̸̺͇̚̚͝g̨̻̺̣̓ l̷̵ ̞͊̀̿ e̴̫̼̳̊”, and protests against A̷̲̬̐͌m̸̺̫̈̾i̴̛͎͝ĝ̶̻̖ ô̶͍ n̷̳̿ē̸̼̖ burst

all over the world, large protests in India
against F̶̥̈ȧ̶͜k̤̋ ê̶̸̦ b̸̠̎ơ̴̠ọ̸̍ z̷̝̎, those companies and otherbrands are promoted by our “community”
events, which also receive individual donations
and are organized by people who are often
volunteers.
We find unacceptable that our communities
be associated with such companies: instead ofsupporting people around the world who
oppose their domination, we cross their picket
line. If free technology producers do not standup to surveillance capitalist corporations, who
will?
OFFDEM is open for freedom, desire,emancipation, meaning. It was a first, necessary
step to affirm the existence of free softwareoutside of the reach of surveillance capitalism.

119
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 120
#120

i
i

Someone had to do it. We took the risk, and all
the people who attended with us43.
Do we need such large events?
OFFDEM vouches for decentralization, as
most people only have one life and can achievea limited number of projects, we do not need
to be all at the same time at the place, let’sorganize and promote smaller and more
focused meetings on different topics aiming atpractical achievements for the communities
they support.
Do we actually reach out to our audiences?
The organization of small events can be done
at a lower cost and in better conditions thanamassing a large number of professionals
without asking the question of the uses, the43 including some who came to OFFDEM who were
not attending FOSDEM.
120
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 121
#121

i
i

intentions nor the modalities of technicaldevelopments. Opening up to otherness
consists in working in proximity withresistance networks, on the ground, in order toopen up to plural realities.
Do we question the power relations intechnical production?
The comfort of privilege blinds us to thestakes of technique. We are numerous and weare well informed! However, we arepermanently in an entre-soi favoured by anindividualistic culture that limits theorganization. For example, we still do notreach the regions of the world outside of theWest, 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 ouractivity, nor of the alliances we could make.
121
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 122
#122

i
i

Since 2020, OFFDEM has been proving its
relevance, because the moments spent together
are materialized in acts, the choice ofdecentralization opens up possibilities andexplores new paths outside of surveillancesystems.
We want to affirm the possibility ofgathering in a different way, in conviviality,
comfort, benevolence and hospitality; we want
to remind that this form of convivial gatheringreflects 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. This is not likeus, and we will not let them crash our party.

122
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 123
#123

i
i

The factory of technical violence
The material origins of powerlessness
Change comes only through action, but thesimplest action seems unattainable. As
producers of technology, we remain caught up
in the dominant operating models, despite ourawareness of the reality of the situation: ouractions continue to bring destruction beyond
our borders.
The infrastructures that organize ourcommunications and industrial production are
in the hands of actors who seem beyond ourreach. If contemporary activists have never had
so many means to organize, the scales ofdestruction and violence of the militaryindustrial complex are exponential, leaving
barely any interstices for our action.

123
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 124
#124

i
i

We also know from experience that therecurrent re-appropriation of all ourcommunity models by an insatiable systemshows the power of our associative capacities.
This pattern of co-option by industry repeats
itself over and over again. “Their resource radar
detects what can be pumped out for free andcomes to suck the energy, according to thefamousprinciple:
Embrace,
Extend,44
Extinguish. ”

From systemic violence to technologicalcannibalism
We can observe, in our ultra-liberticidal,
madly capitalist world, that everything our
production system touches is immediately
destroyed, just like the legendary King Midas
who turned everything he touched into gold,
44 Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

124
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 125
#125

i
i

until he could no longer eat or drink. These
fatal consequences are borne by all ecosystems
and by the most vulnerable people in oursociety.
It is a widely accepted fact that we haveblood on our hands, that every day our
comfort is provided by soldiers who monitor
the mines, fly the drones that will erase lives
through a screen, out of sight, out of mind,
funded by “structural programs” to “defend”
access to “our territories,” by politicians whodelegate atrocities to “regimes” set up andmaintained by “diplomatic”, “commercial”, and“democratic” coercive forces. The propaganda
is unquenchable on the benefits of“civilization” — ours, but remains silent on its
mass graves — theirs. Similar is that which
resembles us and which industry can assemble;
beyond this utilitarian distinction, we fall into
125
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 126
#126

i
i

the implausible – yet the norm. Yet this reality
is most often impossible to address at the heartof our organizations, and we have just passed apoint where the discourse of power “saves lives
one by one” while, in the meantime,
technological solutions to social problems arestill being sought, in vain. For the propaganda
strives, with disconcerting ease and success, toput all the weight of the responsibility of thesystem on individuals — not collectively, en
masse, but in isolation, in a detached way,
intimately accused – on the individual
atomized by this system that deconstructs him.
The proposal to OFFDEM is to trust in thecapacities and knowledge of our networks ofresistance, the only ones capable of inhabiting
the interstices, of forging links according toother modalities, lively, perennial; in the faceof insurmountable pressure, to take a step
126
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 127
#127

i
i

aside and erase the burden by letting it fallunder its own weight in order to consider the
facets that usually remain invisible: thosestrings pulled and frayed, those empty words,
those shareholders without action, thosefinanciers without thickness, those one-way
mirrors where the emptiness of accusing anddemotivating speeches is reflected ; thenwatch, from the embankments where we are,the train of progress and growth pass by,hurtling towards a mountain whose tunnel atthe end of the rails, however real, has just been
painted by a mischievous Geococcyx
californianus who will revel with the audiencein the devastating compaction of the ultimate
crisis – if the audience ever survives it. On theembankments grow grasses, fragile and thirsty,
carrying the whistle of the winds even after thecatastrophe.
127
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 128
#128

i
i

OFFDEM and THX are the points ofconnection where we will continue to think
together and build the tools, the methods, thecollective, that will allow us to take that sidestep we talk about all the time; to branch off,
to pull the brake, to continue elsewhere,
differently, here and now…
What are the conditions for escaping fromsystemic pressure? We imagine them in thecollective. We wish them out of thecompromise. We know that they are subject tothe inertia 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, subjected to a desire tolive together, to the will of a good life.
128
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 129
#129

i
i

What is alive is dephasing to be no longer
oneself – and this is how it remains. The sidestep, it is this dephasing, this force of the living
to accept nothing of the ineluctable, to make itnull and void every time that it comes toannounce its triumph. The life is what resists
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 affirm compossible living
worlds.

129
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 130
#130

i
i

O4FFDEM Call for Presence

i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 131
#131

i
i

OFFDEM is an intersectional festival aboutcollective practices & free technologies
production.
O₄FFDEM will happen on the first week-end
of February 2024 in Brussels, as you might
expect.
This is not a Call for Participation but a Callfor Presence, since this is that quality we expectfrom 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 collectively.
We welcome proposals from collectives
interested in exploring the following topics
and sharing their experiences with others.

131
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 132
#132

i
i

2-3 February 2024, Brussels
OFFDEM originates from the free software
movement and considers freeing social andintellectual production as well as collective
care and maintenance of software.

The Call For Presence is OpenOFFDEM already started on our forum as wevalue preparing the event together to makesure our common time is fruitful andagreeable, spent in resolving issues andplanning actions rather than listening 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. This e-mail

132
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 133
#133

i
i

will be published in the section of OFFDEM
45
forum dedicated to O4FFDEM that all logged
in person can see. You should list the personal
emails of all people in your collective whowant to participate, so each will be added to
the @offdem.0x04 group before the event to
prepare material and structure yourcontribution, eventually people from the
OFFDEM
community
withsharedcommonality of interest will join in theprocess. We will together discuss the details,
including how it articulates 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
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 134
#134

i
i

Awareness of war-ness calls wariness. While
battlefields tend to multiply, governments are
increasing their military budget to levels
unseen since the Cold War. These industrial
investments are not only engaging armies into
massive killings but are also threatening civic
movements
anddivergent
minorities.
The militaro-industrial complex is not aforeign space, it is the means of existence ofOccident. As technologist we know its not so
far and if we dig a little into our network andresources we quickly encounter militaryaffiliation.
We can be concerned in two main ways. In
solidarity with the people aimed by both thesoftware and hardware ±high-tech weaponrydeveloped in our wealthier countries. Then inconsideration for our own safety and ourcapacity to face potential aggression from
134
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 135
#135

i
i

inside and outside those. In the shadow ofhighlighted international binarism (“Either
you’re with us, or you’re against us.”), a vast
complex irrigates both sides of every
battlefield, taking profit in return of theirspreading.
In this context, growing strong bonds,
sharing intelligence and joyful care between
communities is getting vital. While theindustrial economy is accelerating its
destructive course against our environment,
killing all forms of life for the profit of thecapitalists, 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
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 136
#136

i
i

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 scientific,
theoretical, informational machines.
– Félix Guattari, Chaosmose, p.72,
Éditions
Lignes,2022(own
translation) (1st edition Galilée, 1992)

136
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 137
#137

i
i

Local Organization

Don’t look up! Look around: the militaryindustry
Resistance OPSEC: working together safely
Protecting life essentials: water and air
Collective Data Sovereignty

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

Right to connect: surviving internet
shutdowns
Public interoperability poisons and remedies
Internet from the military to a public digital
infrastructure, what public agency?

137
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 138
#138

i
i

Where
OFFDEM is organized in collaboration withcollectif Zone Neutre and la Voix des Sans
Papiers, both uniting undocumented citizens
in Brussels, in VSP’s occupation rue Fritz
Toussaint, at walking distance of the FOSDEM
venue near Ixelles Cemetery. This is where
we’re going to host OFFDEM – this is thevenue of the first OFFDEM! We have a small
number of small rooms, we will host a single
track and leave a little space for people whoneed to informally gather and work further
topics. Be sure to notify your proposed
contribution as explained in the Call For
Presence.

138
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 139
#139

i
i

Why
Key points:• Free software requires community,
away from surveillance capitalist
sponsors;• Free software needs to reconnect withthe rest of society;• Among free software community, we
promote cooperation and decolonization(starting with our own minds.)

139
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 140
#140

i
i

Post-truth Afterword

i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 141
#141

i
i

Just before the world turned upside down inMarch 2020, talking about the artificializing of
the world towards a digital whole, which isdraining life and attacking relationships as it
brutally removes ore from the bowels of theearth, was both far from us and yet remarkablyprescient. Achille Mbembe associated it withan Africanisation of the world whose
brutalism threatens our social structures infavour of systems of domination.46 The smoothsociety47 presented on our screens detaches us
46 Achille Mbembe, Brutalisme, Paris, La Découverte,
2020
47 The global wage report 2020-2021 by the ILO states:
In times of crisis, the level of the average wage canchange significantly simply because of majorchanges in the composition of employment, the socalled “composition effect”. When most of those
who lose their jobs are low-paid workers, theaverage wage that is calculated for the rest of theemployed automatically increases.
141
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 142
#142

i
i

from real conditions. The digital divide48 puts
many people at risk of being marginalised andexcluded from the digital world. The digital
divide offers the system in place a populationof abusable people who are indispensable tomaintaining the materiality of the world,
because not everyone can be dematerialised.
This is part of the illusion of progress. The
question 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 strongly
48 We are considering here the second degree of thedigital divide, linked to the use of technologies. We
will come back to this subject in a future opus.
142
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 143
#143

i
i

penetrated the fields of administration, leisure,business, the university, creation and the social
link. This process, recognised and questioned
by many, has nevertheless been imposed
without discussion thanks to a “crisis”;
supposedly temporary “crisis” digital devices
such as teleworking, videoconferencing, online
or contactless payments, dematerialised andintermediated relations, health checks orcompulsive identification find themselves
anchored at the very heart of a societal
upheaval.
For those of us who “come from theInternet”, it is imperative to reflect on themodalities that are imposed on us.
First of all, we must affirm, although it isobvious, that there is no equivalence between
remote digital means of communication and aphysical meeting: one does not replace the
143
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 144
#144

i
i

other. Different technical means offer different
possibilities; if synchronous means ofcommunication are useful from time to time, it
makes no sense to use them between
neighbours, both technically and energetically.
Other means can be much more effective inallowing the expression of voices that forvarious reasons cannot travel: passing on
thoughts before meetings, reading the minutes,
commenting afterwards, etc.; working over along period of time; the methods ofparticipation are certainly different, but allow
respectful exchanges at a distance. Preferring
rigorous organisation to a video patch is much
more productive for a group which, out of
respect for people who cannot join them
immediately, must take the time to synthesise
and read rather than lose itself in theimmediacy of technology.
144
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 145
#145

i
i

The myth of the digitisation of the world,which is attached to the idea that the media
can compensate for the lack of relationships,
allows the underlying acceptance of thecontinuation of the myth of progress. This
preoccupation is reflected in the words: “theworld before”, “the world after”… Yet the
proclaimed urgency avoids any questioning
and seems to have no other aim than to cling
to a single vision whatever happens, even if itmeans locking everyone up at home. This
choice to sacrifice 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-definition jingles, home studios
and other DIY proposals to make the space
more interesting a second-best solution? Such
145
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 146
#146

i
i

additions increase the technological debt, theenergy cost, and the inequalities between those
who can afford such systems and those who
cannot…
The urgency invoked, since March 2020, for
the widespread use of digital tools has largely
defeated our capacity to act, both in terms ofreflection and coordination of efforts. We weredismayed by an unexpected change that was
based on screen addiction with its corollary
consequences — loss of sensitivity (“people nolonger feel themselves”, loss of a sense of time,screen overdose, dysfunction of the circadiancycle, etc.), loss of reference points (“they die
alone in their corner”). However, among theresistance groups, it was also an opportunity to
get together, to find themselves outside thetime imposed by another urgency, that ofeveryday life, which had suspended all
146
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 147
#147

i
i

integration of digital techniques, left to the
goodwill of corporations.
The state injunction forced us to give up
things without having taken the time todecide, while the society of the spectacle
engages us in a fear of the void (FOMO, Fear ofMissing Out). Thus, 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 shift.
Nevertheless, as in a good cyberpunk
scenario, in this process of Africanisation of
the world, the marginalised, whether willing or
not, have often unexpected resources at theirdisposal. The long history of the relationshipbetween empires and their beggars, their serfs
and witches, their barbarians, their mongrels
147
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 148
#148

i
i

and maroons, their fugitives, their bohemians
and their undocumented migrants, remains
unknown and hopeful.

Countermeasures
After almost two years of change, are we notready to catch our breath, to evaluate theconsequences, to regain control of ourtechnical gestures?
Let’s take the time to reflect on this
imposition of the all-digital world, to observe
our existing knowledge — did we not create theInternet without the intrusive instrument of
the camera — and to ask ourselves what otherpossibilities exist that are not just imposed
palliatives but tools that allow for theorganisation and consolidation of collectives.
Thus,
asynchronousexchanges,
theenhancement of our close networks, the links
148
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 149
#149

i
i

that we want to weave across distance and theway to weave them durably through the use,thought out with parsimony, of technicalmeans allowing us to avoid the trivialisation of
the exchange.
The emotional band-aid of ‘containment
drinks’ cannot be the basis of a societal choice.
To address this situation we must now take anactive stance; when we organise an online
meeting, the first thing is to recognise thedifference, it is a possibility of a different 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 whose
effects we will try to preserve in the long term.

149
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 150
#150

i
i

It is essential to distinguish between the new
possibilities offered by digital technology andits imposition on our privacy. It is possible toperform an act, a form of ritual. Ritualising as
in distinguishing the benefit of the digital
when it offers a new possibility of encounter;and also making it an exceptional moment of‘synchronous intensity’ which leads toasynchronous follow-up or prolongs it; acting
as an ice-breaker: the opposite of an obligationof (omni)presence of/to the camera.

150
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 151
#151

i
i

151
i

i
i

i

i
i

“synware-crop” — 2023/12/11 — 11:19 — page 152
#152

i
i

Achevé d’imprimer en décembre 2023 sur papier FSC
bouffant naturel 80g en 40 exemplaires
Par l’imprimerie ICN
Zone Industrielle des Saligues
98 rue Louis Rabier
64300 orthez
05 59 69 77 80
icn@imprimerie-icn.fr

152
i

i
i

i