[p2p-research] Is the P2PFoundation a Shill for Proprietary Software?

[Stan Rhodes]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi this is an interesting situation. It is about a software tool for
> network analysis. It is ignored but it would be perhaps useful instead of
> hypothesizing about whether this person knows about user freedom or p2p to
> make that statement after you have talked to them and perhaps if they are
> oblivious to it to engage them in the process. Secondly, it is an invitation
> to review, to be critical of the product. If it is a very expensive licensed
> software targeted at corporations (which is what it seems to be) then why
> not try it and constructively compare and contrast with p2p products and so
> on.
>
>
Athina, it's basically a spam form letter from marketing trying to get media
coverage for their packet sniffer.  To rest all doubts, this should look
familiar:
http://socialmedia.mikegannotti.com/Lists/WhatCanIDoForYou/DispForm.aspx?ID=53

Looking back, I didn't make it absolutely clear that it was spam.  Now that
I have, I figure it's pretty uncontroversial that spam should not be
included in the P2PF research mailing list.  Michel probably just glanced at
it, not realizing it was a quasi-targeted spam.  We all miss stuff once in a
while in the attention arms-race.


> It seems this raises again the issue of ideology I think in p2p which so
> far has been a bit conveniently thrown under the carpet, especially in
> relation to the commercialization and promotion of the open source and open
> products in general.
>
>
I don't think it's been thrown under the carpet at all.  Upon close
inspection, the notion of a general ideology in p2p itself is a nonsensical
concept.  P2P is a phenomenon / process.  Participants may have diverse
ideologies (e.g. profit-only vs freedom-only), but as long as they agree on
the basic principles of production, that doesn't impact the process.
Ideological differences can and do impact organizations participating in p2p
production, and that has come up regularly (e.g. Wikipedia).

Kevin has no problem with the commercialization of open-source (if it's
FOSS), and neither do I.  Whether it contributes to social injustice
compared to something like Kleiner's copyfarleft is certainly a point of
debate, and one I wouldn't mind participating in at some future time.  I do
have a problem with people publishing media that is not open-source, and
that restricts user freedom, because I think it immoral.


> Either you view this product as something you can criticize constructively
> and propose an alternative open product, or you bar proprietary products
> from reaching the list in the first place. This means fixing an identity for
> the p2p list and excluding anything outside that identity, which needs to be
> decided collectively I should think.
>
>
That's a false dilemma; those options are not mutually exclusive.  The
product CAN be criticized constructively, but it would be a waste of time
for the P2P researchers on the list.  Anyone gung-ho about packet sniffers
is likely already on a packet sniffer / sysadmin mailing list.  I can assure
you that anyone that wants to try out proprietary software such as this,
particularly if that person offers a review in exchange, is guaranteed a
free evaluation.   You don't have to wait for a spam "invite."

As far as barring material from the list, the identity of the list is fuzzy:
material relating to p2p research.  In my view, spams are not even close to
the "fuzzy zone."  Open alternatives to proprietary products can and do come
up on the list all the time.  While the current size of the "fuzzy zone" may
be a bit too big for my tastes, I'm not convinced any identity needs to be
fixed.  We can continue to be diverse, and deal with things as they come up.



> In any case, I think personally its fair enough to want to keep the list
> strictly on p2p and open products and ideas.
>
> Thanks
> Athina
>
>
>
I agree, and hopefully people will speak up if they feel too many emails
outside of the p2p research scope, or otherwise inappropriate, are coming
through.

-- Stan


>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Even if this software was open-source, it seems far, far outside the
>> already quite broad scope of this list.  Her email shouldn't have been
>> forwarded--it probably should have just been ignored.  Jane is obviously
>> just fishing for media coverage, and I'm sure she has no idea what the P2PF
>> actually is, nor cares much about user freedom.
>>
>> -- Stan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> What does promoting user-subjugating software have to do with a
>>> Peer2Peer economy?
>>>
>>> Unless the users have access to (at least) the virtual sources of
>>> production (source code in this case) - even if the user does not have
>>> the skills to operate them (program in this case) - they are being put
>>> into a hierarchy that gives undue power to those that withhold those
>>> sources for the ultimate purpose of extracting more value (profit)
>>> from the user than the real labor-value and other costs that were
>>> inserted.
>>>
>>> Withholding sources is unjust because is stops the users' freedom to
>>> hire any qualified worker.
>>>
>>> It is a strategy of monopolization that unfairly concentrates wealth
>>> beyond what "the market" would be willing to pay for that same work
>>> and resource usage.
>>>
>>> How can the P2P Foundation not be aware of this troublesome issue, and
>>> if they (you, Michel) *are* aware, then why are you not sensitive to
>>> it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/10/19 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
>>> > I'm forwarding it to some other people who might be interested,
>>> >
>>> > Michel
>>> >
>>> > 2009/10/19 jane.hu <jane.hu at colasoft.com>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello Michel,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> This is Jane from www.Colasoft.com, we are looking for an editor who
>>> can
>>> >> help us write a product review, our product is a wireshark-like
>>> network
>>> >> analysis software, I believe you are the right person who can help us
>>> write
>>> >> a product review and get it published。
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Please visit following page for detailed product introduction and key
>>> >> features:  http://www.colasoft.com/capsa/index.php?click=text
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Would you please consider writing a review for Colasoft Capsa? We’ll
>>> be
>>> >> pleased to provide you a license key for your evaluation purpose. A
>>> recent
>>> >> review from techrepublic can be viewed here:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://blogs.techrepublic.com/products/?p=709
>>> >>
>>> >> if you are interested in our offer, please take a second to write a
>>> reply,
>>> >> thanks for your time!
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >>
>>> >> Jane
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091019/4d0bfba3/attachment.html>