On 9/24/13 11:58 AM, glen wrote:
Understanding how these special cases fit into the general societal
architecture was, I thought, right in line with the purpose of this
e-mail list.
Not objecting to the topic, just not following the logic.
I see open source it as qualitatively different than the subjective
openness one experiences in a large organization where there may not be
day-to-day impediments to getting the information that is needed to do a
job, but there are weak or complicated relationships reaching outside
the organization. For example, a sufficiently large and motivated
organization can get Windows source code [1].
More interesting is how different individuals can be closed in some
respects (private) and open in others. That ability to open and close
channels is what makes people autonomous, and is the basis for a free
society IMO. Communication interaction regimes that are "open
everything" are not in conflict with this. However, non-flat
organizations where people give up the option of opening (or, in the
case you cited: closing) certain channels means they may be less free in
exchange for other benefits. The morons you mentioned just failed to
calibrate to their environment.
Marcus
[1]
http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-opens-source-code-to-russian-secret-service-3040089481/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
