I've chosen to use primarily f(l)oss software and free content (except where appopriated/[un]fairly-used), so I sympathize with this, but find myself uncomfortable with applying a rigid framework of aesthetic purity to the practice of 'free cultural expression'.
It's hard to fight alienation with alienated means, but I can see how this could be taken to an extreme that would alienate a lot of people. Would we cancel Barbie In a Blender day if we found out Forsythe used Photoshop over GiMP to treat the photos? I'd hope not. peace &upheaval, a Matt Lee wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Nina Paley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sep 10, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Fred Benenson wrote: >> >> It is not about requiring proprietary software, it is about whether free >> culture should require free software. >> >> Free culture can't require anything. It's free. >> > > Not if people aren't free to modify it because software prevents them > from doing so. > > Free culture needs free software. How can a culture with a dependency > on secrets and against sharing be free? > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
