[spectre] content vs. tools (was: Sharing is Sexy.org is live)

[jaromil]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


re all,

good old dichotomy, still interesting... let me elaborate please

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:55:09AM +0100, zeljko wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2008 11:04 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> > This cannot be described as "Open Source"
> 
> True. But  not so relevant.  It  is much more  interesting what this
> can inscribe then be described.
> 
> > because commercial use is not
> > allowed. This breaks the Open Source Definition, Debian Free Software
> > Guidelines, Freedom Defined and the Free Software Definition. Using
> 
> wrong argument.
> ...you are mixing Free Software and Open Source (in 2008 ;-)...
> 
> > BY-SA rather than BY-NC-SA would solve this.
> 
> ...with CC  licencing schemes, which do  overlap to a  point but are
> separate.

The fundamental difference here is between *content* and *tools*:

The  FOSS movement  is about  software tools:  as many  other creative
tools, the  importance to be  free (as in  speech, not as in  beer) is
related to the autonomy and independence of productive use - access to
mediatic production means - possibility to create local economies.

It is a  captious error to relate the *social need*  of FOSS (and more
in general  for an idealistic total freedom  in reproducing production
means) to the *strategy* of total freedom in content, where freedom is
not a  social priority, but  eventually a viral strategy  for emerging
statements.

Not even the Free Software Foundation enters the merit of distribution
of art  and cultural  production, where a  similar freedom as  the one
advocated with FOSS could render the economy not sustainable anymore.

On the  contrary, in case of  tools that are sensible  to the people's
communication,  to  the expression  of  their  creativity  and to  the
circulation of culture,  there is the need for  a neutral, transparent
and modifiable framework of production shared by all.

If you  consider the  case that a  graphic designer  using proprietary
software  might  find  it  difficult  to show  and  reproduce  her/his
creations, you understand why the need for FOSS is urgent.

On the contrary,  until just a few decades ago, it  was much easier to
build or borrow a brush and  the distribution of a painting was mostly
bound to logistical problems and not licensing issues of the canvas.

Unfortunately in  the field of  cultural production nowadays  there is
very  little  public  support  for  people building  free  and  shared
creative  infrastructures,  while  there  is  a big  waste  of  public
resources  for the  statements of  fewer people  affording proprietary
means for their  cultural production: no wonder why  the nature of the
project  opening  this  discussion  is  antagonistic,  while  it  also
sympathises with open source practices.

ciao

- -- 
(_ http://jaromil.dyne.org _)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHljA9e2QxhLU0C14RAoh2AJwOxphYmYOG8JaX67MGfQI1hUV5gQCg5N4t
IWU7zjylkYW/GHbo+qaX+UE=
=VTHx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----