Hello all...
A couple of days ago Shlomi Fish shared with us his short story entitled "The Human Hacking Field Guide". If you read it, you can imagine why I would like to see some changes. The story is a good concept though. The obvious issues aside, I found it to be an interesting (albeit accelerated) "fictional guide" for one just starting out. I love the premise of one female mentoring another, however, I am not fond of it's execution and the subplots surrounding it. I invited Shlomi Fish to discuss on my lj what I saw as biases detracting from a story that otherwise has excellent potential (gender roles, Debian, and RMS specifically)and how I would like to change that. No dice. He has not responded. I always, whether I agree with ones views or not, try my very best to respect the work a writer puts into a piece. I feel I have done that to the best of my ability here.
I have copied the entire work (with the exception of the chapter on "abandoning Debian" as I feel it serves no purpose) to a wiki which can be found here http://hhfg.wikia.com. I am going to start remixing it and forming it to its true potential in my free time. It's Creative Commons license allows for this. I believe the works strength lies in its blueprint for becoming a hacker as a personal journey. I also believe that its disparaging subplots can be easily transformed into empowering ones. As a female whose first experience with Linux was past the age of thirty, I wish I had read an empowering short story about a female starting out in the world of Linux/FLOSS in my youth. I want to make The Human Hacking Field Guide into that short story. You are all more than welcome to help if you'd like :)
| | I don't really exist (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small} papertowlbtrfly) wrote in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small} linux, |
- Mood:
sleepy
January 30 2010, 15:09:15 UTC 2 years ago
I think the author probably thought making it CC was a cool idea, but now that you are going to start messing with it, all I can say is "Ohhhhh SNAP!"
January 30 2010, 15:25:16 UTC 2 years ago
I, too, say "Oh snap!" and will likely contribute my writing and editing skills when I can.
January 31 2010, 11:56:05 UTC 2 years ago
January 30 2010, 20:12:30 UTC 2 years ago
The idea may be similar, but your approach and the style and everything will (I hope) be much different than the original story.
That original story was so bad. Oh my gosh, it was so so bad :)
But I really do like your idea of female heroine and female mentor myself :) I dont know if you know of this group: http://www.linuxchix.org/
But they have a few mailing lists and you might get some good input from them as well, and would probably welcome the chance to publish it when you are done on their page.
January 31 2010, 11:55:31 UTC 2 years ago
January 31 2010, 19:41:24 UTC 2 years ago
CC is cool, and it's fun that everyone can do this kind of stuff, but this particular instance sounds a little like CCing for the sake of CCing, or that you want it to change without arseing with it yourself.
January 31 2010, 19:44:31 UTC 2 years ago
but oooh man, I can't read that for long without the insatiable urge to crack out the Red Pen of Grammatical Correcting (+1). This is dangerous ground for my time management capacity. :P
January 31 2010, 21:59:38 UTC 2 years ago
This is a book jacking...
"why not just roll your own"That's an excellent idea she had, and would likely be far easier. However, I'm curious. I'm curious what happens when a CC protected work is remixed in a way where the main plot and subplots are preserved, however, the "spirit" of the work is completely transformed? (the chapter "Committing Adultery in Your Heart is..." is most representative of the "spirit" I would like to see changed). Also, regardless of it's "spirit" I do still think the concept and framework is well done.
I agree that a Creative Commons License was most likely not the best choice for the original author. Will a theme that is empowering to women constitute "derogatory treatment” under the CCPL? Would the original author have been better off choosing the GFDL? Reworking the original (under it's existing license) is a venue to bring these, and other related IP law questions to the forefront while doing relatively little harm. Why waste that opportunity?
January 31 2010, 23:01:03 UTC 2 years ago
Re: This is a book jacking...
Well, if it's a CC derivative, pretty much you can toss the worries out the window. It's the loveliness of the CC.When I was using "to CC" as a verb earlier, I was just being lazy. What I should have been using would be more like "to create-a-derivative-of-the-CC-work".
Also: iIt's the authors perogative to use whatever license they want (as allowed by previous licensing, if applicable). Thus no one is qualified to speculate on what the best choice for the author would be, excepting the author themself.
February 1 2010, 19:46:04 UTC 2 years ago
Re: This is a book jacking...
"Well, if it's a CC derivative, pretty much you can toss the worries out the window. It's the loveliness of the CC. "I agree, that's why I questioned the impact the CC license chosen will have (if any) on altering the "spirit" of the story. As mentioned earlier, there are "moral" protections in the CCPL (yet I could see them being easily defeated). I'm curious how a derivative work radically changing the story's perspective on gender would test those protections.
My main point though, is that I'm curious. Yes I'm speculating, not judging, but that is only out of my own curiosity (I took paralegal in college and am still a bit of a legal bore). That curiosity is focused on the license chosen and its application, not the authors right to choose. That being said, I do realise this is not a law geeks forum and I'll leave it at that :) I was just explaining my reasoning for not wanting to "roll my own".