I brought up some points for open sourcing code based artwork on Rhizome a while back and I was surprised that a couple of the responses I got were along the lines of the artists worrying that someone would "steal their ideas". I got a bit of a private laugh out of that one. The arrogance of the statement is unbelievable, suggesting that they came up with their ideas out of thin air. But on the other hand it could also suggest that their ideas are so lame and banal that anyone can come along and make them their own.
When I was in grad school, I worked as a research assistant at a lab called the Institute of Everyday Life. I quickly found out how lucky I was to be there. The head researcher (Ingrid Bachmann) was very much into open source and viewed her research assistants as "collaborators" rather than menial workers. I heard about students working in other labs that had to sign non-disclosure agreements and weren't allowed to switch labs because they might inadvertently give away some of the potentially patentable "secrets" of the previous lab. And these were "art" labs. Nothing is born in a void, people. Openness and sharing of ideas and methods benefits everyone involved. The biggest hurdle for me was the sloppiness of my code. I didn't want people to see what a mess it was. But when I came to the personal conclusion that the code is the only truly archival form of the work and also that it reveals concepts and ideas that may not be picked up in the audio/visual presentation of it's running results, that outweighed any concerns I had about my image as an "accomplished" code slinger. Yes, there may be security concerns but... if someone hacks my server and breaks something, I can always set it up again. The code is out there, in various places, free to roam and return home shall I ever need it again. We humans have an unbelievable knack for turning things into major issues that, when you really think about it, don't matter that much. If you open source the code, that's your artwork, right there. Post it far and wide. Regardless of how many times your ideas get stolen or your server gets hacked, you still have a copy of what really matters, somewhere. And that creative product is as much a part of you as your left arm. Someone can try to take it in its entirety but it's never going to look quite as right on them as it does on you. Pall On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:09 PM, james morris<[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > Thanks for this post, makes a great case for using the AGPL. Coincidently > I was browsing about the AGPL the other day and have been considering > open sourcing some of my PHP code arts. > > Thinking about it, it seems strange that I've made an exception in not > releasing the source for my code art which runs on the server. Perhaps > it's a feeling that it's more susceptible to attack if it's known > what's going on in there - a false concern I know. Or the fact that > it's only running on the server, so people don't actually need the > code to experience it. Then there's the fact that PHP seems to be > riddled with security pitfalls if you're not careful. > > Still like you point out, the closed attitude removes freedom... The > freedom of Free Software is an important thing to me, it's close to my > ideals, so it makes no sense for me not to release my code. (the code > i've written which only runs on the jwm-art.net server, all my other > code is free). > > Cheers, > James. > > > On 18/6/2009, "Rob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Restricting the study, production, display, preservation or other uses >>of artworks removes the freedom of those involved in art and thereby >>damages the cultural, social and economic value of art. Where >>restrictions take the form of copyright, copyleft licences are a good >>way of restoring peoples freedom. The freedom of curators, critics and >>academics, collectors, audience, and artists to use software is part of >>their freedom to use software-based net art as art. >> >>For media-based net art the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike >>licence is the best copyleft licence. For software based net art a >>different licence is required (and Creative Commons explicitly state >>that their licences should not be used for software). >> >>The GNU GPL is the best copyleft licence for software that people use on >>their own computers, where it is "propagated" to them from elsewhere by >>downloading it or installing it from DVD. Software delivered to >>galleries or collections, or to other artists, counts as being >>propagated under the GPL, so the GPL is the best copyleft licence for >>software that will actually be delivered to its users. >> >>Software accessed remotely on a server online does not count as being >>propagated, even if it is used as it would be locally but through a web >>interface. To handle this a variant of the GPL called the Affero GPL >>(AGPL) was created. When you use software over a network, for example >>through a web browser, the AGPL requires that you be able to acquire the >>source code of that software just as if you were using it locally under >>the GPL. The AGPL is therefore the best copyleft licence for software >>used over a network. This includes software-based net art. >> >>The average piece of software-based net art will use a free operating >>system, and a free software scripting language, web server and web >>browser. It may use a free software database and many additional free >>software libraries of code as well. The difficulty of the artwork's >>conception or production does not provide an excuse for making it >>non-free any more than the difficulties of creating the far greater body >>of work that it build on did. >> >>It is much easier to install and maintain software that is not >>restricted by its licence and that provides its source code. Art that >>takes the form of software must be installed and maintained to curate >>and preserve it. Critics, artists, students and audience can benefit >>from studying the source code of net art. Even if they don't fix bugs >>they can learn from it and maybe even appreciate it. And if the server >>goes down and you don't have a backup, someone else may and will be able >>to give you a copy back. These freedoms are all protected by the AGPL, >>giving a strong practical benefit to using it. This fact should be borne >>in mind when discussing the curation, archiving and preservation of net >>art as well as when discussing its production. >> >>The support of people's freedom and the practical benefits to artists >>from supporting the curation, preservation and scholarship of their work >>provide strong reasons for making net art free software. Net artists can >>and should protect the freedom of the users of their software using the >>AGPL. See here <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html> for details >>of how to apply the AGPL to your work. >> >>http://robmyers.org/weblog/2009/06/why-net-art-software-should-be-agpl-licenced.html >>_______________________________________________ >>NetBehaviour mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://www.this.is/pallit ***************************** _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
