Translator's notes:

Is free software a convivial tool ? is first a talk in french by Benjamin Grassineau at a the free software congress Journées du logiciel libre in Lyon in 2024 (presentation, video). A transcription has been made by the transcription group of April, the main french organization for promotion of free software. Here is a translation of this transcription. It is somewhat hard to read, because written orality is not very readable in general, and translated written orality is worse. Ans also because I'm neither a professional translator nor a native english speaker.

In french, we have 2 distinct words for "free":

• gratuit, which means free as in free beer
• libre, which means free as in free speech (or free software)

The speaker uses both, so to distinguish between those meanings I use here the terms/neologisms gratis and gratisness for the quality of being free as in free beer and free/freedom for the second meaning.

This translation is licensed like the transcription, as Verbatim :

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

---

Reach and limits of the convivial tool concept (I. Illich) for a sociology of free software communities

Let me introduce myself. I'm Brenjamin Grassineau, sociologist. I'm currently working on a project in Paris to make a mobile gartisness zone between neighborhood in an action - research setting, and we're trying to see what impact it has on inhabitants. My thesis was about free software communities. I'm still interested and may work on this topic, but now I'm more focused on questions about gratisness zones.

I'll make a talk today to explore a question. I do not have an definitive answer, we're more on open question: is free software a convivial tool ?

First, to make it clear, we'll explore the question focusing on the convivial tool concept, which is somewhat different from the common meaning of "conviviality". Conviviality, in common sense, means friendly atmosphere, that's not the same thing.

To answer this question, I started by noticing that it may be a convivial tool, but it will depend on where we are in the broad free culture space. Let's notice first that the free software/culture space is not culturally homogeneous. There is, what we call in sociology, ideological trends that will correspond to actions and representations in which people will live. There are projects, economies that will correspond to each trend. That do not mean that these trends will fight each other, but we will be able to distinguish subcultures inside the free software movement. I made categories that seemed to me close to reality. I'll list them first, before going into the details.

1. The free software culture
2. The open source culture. These 2 are the most well-known trends.
3. The engineering culture
4. The commons culture
5. The convivialist culture

We'll first go through these 5 cultures and then we'll spend more time on the convivialist culture.

In the free software culture, we find a lot of representations, values and various political tendencies. On values, we mainly stand for individual freedom. There's a strong influence from research and university. There's this idea of permanent revolution. Obviously, one of the leading figure is Richard Stallman. There are others, but he definitely is one of them. In this culture, the enemy is the proprietary software. I tried to see which film could represent this culture. I found Star Wars: it's Republic against Empire, it's this way of thinking.

Then, there is the open source culture. Values will be to make profits, heralding economic freedom and, notably, economic competition. Politically, it will often tend towards libertarianism, but not always. If we think at a social background, it would be the Silicon Valley. On concepts, let's say that free software would be the perfect market.
A main figure of this culture is Eric Raymond, but he is not so much featured today.
As a cult fiction, I propose Dallas, do you agree with me ?

We often meet people more into a culture which is, let's say, the engineering culture. Important values are efficiency and pragmatism. Politically, we're quite close to a movement that was relatively developed in the 30s, the technocracy movement. A social background: engineering schools. On concepts, I put the pure and perfect distribution.
Among people that influenced this culture there is Norbert Wiener. As a fiction, I propose Foundation by Isaac Asimov.

Then, there is the commons culture. Values will be about equality and share. Politically, there's a strong influence from Marxism. The social background is the social and solidarity economy, with a leading intellectual which is Elinor Ostrom who worked on commons. The main enemy are the GAFAMs. As a symbolic fiction, I thought to the Smurfs, it could symbolize it well.

Then, there is the convivialist culture. Main values will be freedom and non-commercial. Politically, it's closer to trends such as convivialism or freudo-marxism with authors like Herbert Marcuse or Ivan Illich, which follows on Marcuse. On concepts, we will focus on open and horizontal network.
The main enemies will be technology, institutions and professionalization.
As a main fiction, I thought to The Year 01.

Let's say that each subculture develops an idea about what is free software as a tool. In the free software movement, what is developed is the idea of an empowering tool, while in the open source space we'll be more on a tool which, with his properties, will become a lucrative asset. In the engineering culture we'll be on a functional tool. In the commons culture we're developing shared tools. And, at last, in convivialism, we'll try to build a convivial tool.

The convivialist movement

It makes a lot of information, so now I'll present you the convivialist movement in more details.

What can we say ?

It's a movement initially influenced by three currents: the 70s counterculture, freudo-marxism - I told you earlier that there is an important author in this field, Herbert Marcuse - and political ecology. All these authors will produce a radical critic of "institutions" in a broad meaning: that could be school, medicine or tools they consider alienating, like the car.

There's also a radical critique against technology, in a broad sense, and in Ivan Illich theory there's a critic of what he calls professionalism.

More generally, in these different intellectuals works, there's a critical look on work as institution and of interiorized oppressions, that became subconscious. Then, each author will develop models about how to organize and provide trails to explore.

Ivan Illich will develop the convivial tool concept, while Herbert Marcuse will develop this idea of open society, the contrary of what he calls a closed society. And an author who goes further in action, in performance, like Jerry Rubin, will advertise dimensions like LSD consumption or living and organizing without money.

Ivan Illich

Let's now look at Ivan Illich.

He had his fame in the 70s, more specifically, we'll say, for three books:

• Tools for conviviality in which he develops his convivial tool concept ;
• The critic of mandatory schooling in his book Deschooling society ;
• and the critic of medicine in Medical Nemesis

He also introduced many concepts which are still in use, like what he calls the counter-productivity threshold, which means that past a certain threshold, institutions that were up to this point productive, improved the lives of citizens, become counter-productive and will eventually alienate people and constitute a radical monopoly.

He also developed the convivial tool concept against what he calls the radical monopoly.

Is it OK ? I put a lot of information in few sentences. I like the funnel principle: start by broadly presenting the field, then we narrow scope on convivial tool and how this concept could be useful for free software. We'll come to it.

The convivial tool concept for Ivan Illich

First, he defines the "tool" concept with a broad meaning. It's not only a material item, it's everything that can be used to reach specific goals and that persists. It can be a hammer - I believe that we are in material world here -, a legal text, a website or, more in the abstract, an institution in every sense: how someone can use an institution to make things he finds interesting.

We can summarize the way he defines the convivial tool:

1. First, the convivial tool will not create a for the user a dependency towards this tool, or a dependency towards other tools. "Dependency" is a concept which he often uses in his books: the tool will not create either a feeling of material dependency or material obligations. Counter-examples are cars and smartphones.
2. This tool can be used, produced and also destroyed by simple means, requiring minimal technology and means
3. The tool will remain under the control of whoever uses it

Let's quote his definition: « Tools foster conviviality to the extent to which they can be easily used, by anybody, as often or as seldom as desired, for the accomplishment of a purpose chosen by the user. The use of such tools by one person does not restrain another from using them equally. They do not require previous certification of the user. Their existence does not impose any obligation to use them. They allow the user to express his meaning in action.

More in details, there is mostly this dimension of freedom in the use of the tool. It's not something that will not impose constraints on the user, current of future.

There's also this matter of openness: nobody needs a diploma to use it. Here, he's thinking about the school and, implicitly, to other areas such as medicine. For example, we can't practice medicine without diploma, and it may be an extreme example, and to a certain extent teaching will be reserved by professionals and, at this point, it creates a dependency for users. It will be more clear when we'll talk about free software. He also emphasizes other aspects. The relation between the person and the organization who will manage these tools, if there is one, will be the relation of a user-producer, integrated in processes that are managed by open organizations. It relies on the idea that this openness should be enforced at the organizational level.

In other aspects, the production, the design of the tool, will be open to the involvement of everyone. He will not create entry barriers, nor barriers inside the activity, that is no division of work, and the work will not be directed by a bureaucratic and centralized authority.

We can go into details, but if we want to summarize the several points that Illich emphasizes, a tool will be convivial if, ideally:

• it is simple to use
• it is simple to produce and repair
• it is open to everyone, and notably it is not captured by a corporation ; there's freedom of access for the user ; it can easily be transformed
• we can easily have access to the production of tools
• the tool is not prescriptive ; we can connect this to concepts developed notably by Carl Rogers, that is we will use it to a goal we have, and not a goal that will reinforce itself, when at a certain point the tool is become over-efficient, deceptive, it will give more focus to the preservation of means than to the ends to which it was designed ;
• it does not create dependency, it stays under the control of the user;
• it's not over-efficient, it will not destroy other means to satisfy needs. Here, we can think to the theme of mobility: from the moment the car become an over-efficient tool, it will make walking obsolete and will create a sort of radical monopoly on the transport activity, on mobility. The convivial tool, on the opposite, is designed so that it allows different ways of doing things, to coexist next to each other ;
• an other aspect is that it will rely on forms of cooperation, and notably on the gift economy.

So let's examine these points.

Convivialist movement and free software culture

You'll tell me: "OK, nice, but what is the connection with free software ?"

It seems that this concept is well suited to certain dimensions of free software culture, at least in the convivialist part of it.

First, if we take the history of Internet, we can go back to Fred Turner's From Counterculture to Cyberculture in which he demonstrates the importance that counterculture had in the development of a certain type of computing.

We can also thing a the importance of the hacker culture.

In the free software culture, there are also elements that draws from the influence of some freudo-marxists intellectuals such as Erich Fromm. There is the revolutionary aspect we often find there, at least in words, in the fight against proprietary software.

There is the idea of spontaneous cooperation, of simplicity as a goal.

Obviously, organizations are thought in terms of communities.

And, more often than not, there's a suspicion against bureaucracy. We will focus on making, on the development, on the practical part of the job.

It connects also to a dimension of the convivial tool that I did not mentioned: this idea that the convivial tool must match an actual situation, we could say adhere to a local problem, something which is not taken out of his context, which stays within a limited scope.

On the question of free access, obviously, we're totally in. A lot of projects are open. De facto, there are a lot of projects that are also gratis: we can use the software freely - which does not mean we should not contribute by helping to develop the project.

Something we often stumble upon is the possibility to make an exit, which means we are not held hostages by the tools. We can't say this about some software which, today, are offered on smartphones and that fall under a different logic.

It seems that there is also a critic against work, which is not unanimous, with a certain form of meritocracy, this idea that everybody could equally contribute. Everyone can modify the source code.

There's also the promotion of amateur work and of volunteering.

With, I would say, a sort of rejection of constraints for work to focus more on what is called, in psychology, intrinsic motivation, that is the interest we will have, for example, to develop a software. What will be the center will be the pleasure to make things. It's important. If we're on extrinsic motivation, the idea is what we will expect as rewards, potentially on the long term. It coexists, but we'll say that the interest that we have into the activity by itself is, in my opinion, the most important.

I analyzed quite a bit, I talked a lot. We'll have the time to discuss.

Free software as convivial tool

Now, we focus more precisely on the convivial tool concept and not only on the convivialist movement.

There's the principle of open contribution, which means that everybody can contribute by developing, sharing, using it, by organizing a community or, going further, for example by creating a license which allows its distribution. All in all, it's close from the principle of open publication.

There's the principle of free access, which holds thanks to licenses, but not only, because there are also hardware constraints which are, I think, defined in the AGPL [GNU Affero General Public License].

There's the prohibition of dependencies: we always let users free to use other software or other formats and, what I said earlier, to make an kind of exit.

There's the non-discrimination principle: nobody is prevented from contributing to a software based on his diploma, and we can also use it freely. It's something important, because, we can say, it's not the case in education: without certain diplomas, you couldn't access to certain educational resources. We can be a contributor or an user, provided that this distinction matters, regardless of our motivations, our income, our status, our goals, etc. The non-discrimination principle is pushed strongly.

We often find, in some projects, the non-prescriptivism principle, that is we can act, for example develop a software, as we like it. First, we contribute and then there is moderation: was it liked or not ? It's the rule on some projects such as Wikipedia which, by itself, is not a free software but, let's say, which is strongly inspired by the free software culture. There's this idea, we could say, of de-purposing: we use it for the purpose we like. Whereas, on the opposite, on a proprietary software with a commercial vocation, the goal is imposed to the user. The user can be OK with it, it can be the subject of an "informal" negotiation who is happening through the market mechanisms and maybe it gives the expected result. Anyway, in free software the user does not fall under commercial interests, contrasting to a software that is developed in a commercial and proprietary logic.

There's also a strong emphasis on gift and share economy and a principle of community development in some free software communities.

I would say that there is an attention to the practical situation that I mentioned earlier, it's somehow the principle of primacy of facts. There's is no institutional interface that will disrupt the relation we have to the tool. The local situation will prime, taking into account some traditions inside a project, and that's also the peer community which will create meanings, rules inside the project. We could say this is a bit inductive.

Limits

In this talk, I put some limits to the convivial tool concept. Let's quickly examine these limits.

First, a visible limit today is the hypertrophy of "the digital" which leads to a kind of radical monopoly of computers on the means of communication. This hypertrophy can worsen when dependency to digital tools deepens. Illich uses the concept of destructive tool. When considering the ecological impact of digital economy, we can observe a destructive effect on climate.

With the convivial tool concept, we saw that there is this idea of open production. In some situations, a project could be more or less open to new contributors. Some communities may not always be welcoming.

Codes can also be made unintelligible in some cases. I do not have the technical skills judge by myself, but I've been told that this is something that, at a certain point, could limit the ability to grasp the code structure and to transform the tool.

Generally speaking, a question bothers me: should we continue to focus on licenses to preserve the conviviality of tools ? License are indeed a key factor, but we should also take the material aspect onto consideration.

Finally, there may be a risk in free software communities to stay apart from the rest of the world, a tendency which could actually become inhospitable. If think it's Pierre Mounier, if I recall correctly, who wrote a book on this point, who warned against free software becoming a ghetto (fr.) : will we head towards a revolution by free software or, on the contrary, to a marginalized community ? I'm not sure it was a book, I think it was an article.

So, in summary, the limits of free software as a convivial tool are all this background that tends to make a purported convivial tool less open, more exclusive or inducing dependencies.

Limits of limits

Now, let's notice that there are some limits to these limits. I think a first limit is that Free Software communities try to develop more simple tools, in the idea that technology should remain under the control of its users. We'll develop functional solutions, straight to the point and will avoid creating dependency.

I'd like to say that if there is a digital hypertrophy and a growing dependency to technology, the subject of conflict is the commercial aspect of it. And why ? Because commercial actors have an interest in creating alienating tools, what Illich would call manipulatory tool, that is a tool which produce a demand that companies will try to meet.

If we think about some projects going closed-source, I think that effectively the reproducibility of source code and the free software economy, which makes that we appreciate contributions, make this phenomenon rather unusual. More often, what will happen is the lack of contributors.

On the question of free software licenses, I think that what is fantastic is to see that there's also all a free software culture that developed around and largely exceeds the question of licenses. The JdLL [ndt: this event] are a good example, there's a complete fantasy developed around that aspect.

On the ghetto problem, i wonder if it's really a problem. Of course, comparing to 2000/2010 years, there's probably a relative weakening of free software culture, but it seems to me that subcultures take a very long time to emerge and that free software culture is, still today, fully alive and with a lot of resources indicates that, on the contrary, it is solid and can continue to grow.

I initially planned a part comparing the concept of convivial tool and the concept of common good. I think we can stop here and, if you like, we open the discussion.

Q&A

Public: We could talk about one point. Sometimes, there's this idea that free software is for a new elite.

Benjamin Grassineau : Actually, it is often perceived as such.

Public: Also because free software is mixed-up with technology. Elitism is no more about free software than about digital skills more generally. Elitism is not about free software in itself, there's a somewhat obscure image of technology.

Benjamin Grassineau : Actually, it can be perceived as such. If we'd like to develop a convivial aspect of free software, I think there are already many things made in that direction. But it also reveals how difficult it is.

When speaking of this convivial tool concept, developed by Ivan Illich, it's not something that will set up easily. It can be about some resources. Previously, we talked about walking. The fact that we can use our bodies to walk, we could say that it is a convivial tool. In some situations, it's difficult, it's not something we will spontaneously be able to do, we have to find solutions to walk.

On elitism, how to prevent that skills may become a barriers against the involvement, and how to make that everybody could, with his own skills, become also an actor and a producer of the tool ?

Public: Maybe a solution could be the creation of convivial tools for accessibility.

Benjamin Grassineau : That's an a example, for sure.

Public: So the tool can be a solution to this problem ?

Benjamin Grassineau : A convivial one. It relates to the question of technology. Indeed, a technical tool always work depending on other technical tools. Ivan Illich actually writes about this in his book, Tools for Conviviality. Nowadays, computing relies on electricity — maybe there are other means to make computers work —, but let's recognize that, globally, it mainly works with electricity. Some ways of producing electricity are not convivial. For example, would it be wise to open a nuclear plant ? Probably not.
It's true that at a certain point, the concept of a convivial tool will have a limited scope. It's about what we're looking at.

You had a question.

Public: Do you have an example of a convivial free software ?

Benjamin Grassineau : There are quite a lot. I often use a software called PmWiki, not very famous, to develop wikis. On one side, it's open, everybody can contribute easily. We can use it, obviously, for whatever goal we have. Yes, there are some examples.

Public : If my understanding is correct, when we say something is convivial, it is relatively to a need, to a situation and also to a community. In absolute terms, saying that it's convivial, it seemed to me a bit contradictory to what we said earlier, it's convivial for you. The question is to which ends this tool is convivial, it's something really tangible.

Benjamin Grassineau : That is to say, relative to the user, to the interest he can find in the tool. First, ease of access, it's a software available for use.

Public : Can a software be absolutely convivial ?

Public : Is this a relative or an absolute concept ?

Benjamin Grassineau : I think that it is actually a relative concept. What I tried to ease transmission of these ideas – by the way, I'm not sure I succeeded, maybe it's not very convivial, at least I tried – it's something which is relative to intents, to a community, and it's in this way that it's important to relate it to goals that are locals. We can say it depends on the situation.

Public : It's a goal to be convivial, for this conference !

Benjamin Grassineau : Is it a goal to be convivial ? Good question. Can means diverge from ends ? Would it be possible to use other means ?

Public: I know a very nice free software tool that is, from my point of view, really convivial, that could have helped to make this talk a bit more convivial, that is Sozi.

Benjamin Grassineau : I don't know this tool.

Public: It's an equivalent of Prezi, that we should forget. It's a tool to create dynamic presentations, put images, it's a bit like a mind map.

Benjamin Grassineau : OK. Let's say that communication is always a bit complex. Every time, it's a relation. I think that what is important is that ideas flow.

Public : I'm a computer technician and a GNU/Linux developer for individuals. There are some people who manage very well digital technologies, but there is a lack of conviviality, even in free software. It always seems complex. For those who are not used to computers, Linux is less complex than Windows, they will use it more easily, it's more intuitive, but I see nonetheless that there are some progress to make on icons, on handling. There are problems: if you're not fast enough when double-clicking, it does not work. If you move at the same time, it moves icons: these are problems that cause a lack of conviviality for software, including free software. Those developing software don't think about it. It's always created for the people who have skills and know-how and manage very well, but the majority, actually, manages quite badly. It's very difficult to approach computing when we don't have the culture, for beginners.

Benjamin Grassineau : In what I understand, there are 2 sides: the user side and and the producer side, a bit like in this talk. I think that many developers try to create affordable software, that are easy to use, but at the same time it's not always that simple. And on the user side, I do not agree with that. I think that there is a certain habituation to to Windows, to this kind of proprietary software. Maybe it's the case on some particular software, notably for professional software, but It seems to me that a distribution, for example Linux Mint, is not necessarily more complex.

Public : For people that are beginning to use computers, it's a hard step to pass.

Benjamin Grassineau : Wouldn't be lost in the same way with a Windows distribution ?

Public : Linux is more intuitive, but It seems to me that programmers don't put themselves in basic user's place enough. Everybody is mandated to have a computer to do administrative tasks at home today, and a lot of people are blocked.

Public : I'd like to pick up on this. I think that there are actually two things behind. Maybe it's something to take into account in the concept of conviviality: the representation of difficulty and obstacles. I also installed Linux for individuals. There are two types of individuals to which I installed, and even if it's the first time and even if they were not very comfortable with computers: individuals who where enthusiastic, who trusted themselves and who said « anyway, I will get through, especially if it's easier », there was no obstacle for them, it was smooth. The person started by having in mind that it wouldn't be more complicated, so he didn't invent obstacles.

Then, there is representation, because things like Windows, like a lot of proprietary tools, have a commercial strategy to make us believe that it's necessarily easy. I work in a local administration, and you have to realize that at a certain point there are people who are ashamed of not knowing how to do things on Windows or macOS and who don't dare to admit it, because marketing try to convince them that it's necessarily easy. Why ? Because it depicts competitors are necessarily more complicated and they build mental obstacles.

I think there is something to do about this, about these representations. It's a work for a long time, more generally. In politics, when we discuss about very technical topics – local heritage, buildings, town planning–, everybody can have a word to say, as if it was accessible, whereas it's extremely complex. But as soon as you say « digital », as soon as you say « technology », a lot of people invent artificial obstacles: « I don't get it », implicitly they get all the town planning principles for large and small cities, etc. There was a strong and deep marketing, for quite a long time, only about digital technologies, which corresponds to a market strategy of Microsoft.

We can take the example of cars. Initially, everybody knew how to take it apart, nobody really make up barriers, meanwhile it was complex. Today, this new marketing « don't mess with it, you must absolutely go to to the mechanic, it's complex » is approaching. It's important.

Benjamin Grassineau : That's where the convivial tool concept seems important to me.

It ends. Thanks.