On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Matt Lee wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:42 PM, aphid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, of course not.
>
> But the photos can be edited with GIMP.
>
> But if it was an iMovie project, then it leaves people without iMovie
> with two choices -- install proprietary software, or be left out.
Why is "Hack the Planet!" not an acceptable answer here?
There is a third choice, as always: Pay or otherwise convince people to
develop a Free Software reader and writer to the proprietary format.
You wrote about the photos being editable with GIMP. That is only true
because GIMP can read the Photoshop PSD file format. Since Photoshop's
format might be the preferred form for modification, it is crucial to us
that it be readable on a computer running only Free Software. (Note that
JPEG photos do not contain layer information, and use compression that
throws away data.)
It's true that (as far as I know) there is currently no freely sharable
(etc., as per the Free Software Definition or the Debian Free Software
Guidelines, etc.) program that reads iMovie files. But in a culture that
encourages freedom of expression without permission, why does the artist
need to take that into account?
That is to say - how about we let the artists do what they want, so long
as it's possible in theory to interoperate? Similarly, for those of us
who already know we want Free Software, why don't we just build everything
we need to interoperate? Let the artists share their work in a format
that, in principle, can be read by Free Software tools (n.b., a format
with DRM cannot in principle be read by Free Software in the USA due to
the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions). Let us Free Software hackers
turn principle into practice.
Why bother frustrating artists who like sharing with this onus to use or
promote Free Software? Let principles be principles, not demands against
pragmatics - so long as in principle we can participate. If some nut
contributes his original work to Wikipedia using the proprietary package
Netscape 4, we don't mind, because we know how to inter-operate.
Gnash and Swfdec now lets me play YouTube on a fully free-software system.
My previous complaints against YouTube as requiring I install proprietary
software are now gone. (Swfdec works better than the name-brand Flash
implementation anyway.)
It used to be that I could not read Microsoft Office documents with only
Free Software. It used to be that I could not use Windows file sharing
networks with Free Software. Back in the 1990s, the only way to use Java
Applets and Macromedia Flash programs was to use proprietary software.
But instead, today is a wonderful day.
I argue for this perspective because I think artists of Free Cultural
Works should want to use Free Software. I also believe that Free Software
should not get a free ride; where insidious peddlers of proprietary
software try to trick artists into selling away their software freedoms
for convenience, the response of Free Software practitioners should be to
demonstrate that the same capabilities are available to those who value
their software freedom. Then we can say, Even if other artists throw away
their softare freedom, you don't have to. Only then is it feasible to
argue for software freedom with a straight face.
I'm tired of Free Software being treated a second-class citizen by people
who want to achieve their goals but are frustrated by real or preceived
limitations of Free Software. I look forward to Free Software continuing
on its march toward better usability and becoming something people want to
use! (Indeed, for many, it is already there.) And I deeply appreciate
the work of artists who choose Free Software for freedom's sake, and I
especially appreciate the work of those who document how to use it.
Free Software is better for freedom's sake, it's true. But many people
don't actually need those freedoms this instant. For them, let's just
trick them into wanting Free Software by making it better and less
user-hostile than the alternatives.
And for the people who realize, as e.g. Dean does, that Free Software is
important, let's make sure there is something that can actually be used to
achieve the artist's goals. Let us try to convince people, as Matt L. is,
that software freedom is important. But to simply throw away work that we
can't read just because we haven't built the reader yet seems silly to me.
Let us build!
-- Asheesh.
P.S. I would rather whine; it's much easier. (Writing emails is even
easier than whining, it seems.)
--
I look at life as being cruise director on the Titanic. I may not get
there, but I'm going first class.
-- Art Buchwald
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
