On 17/11/11 02:52, Eduardo Valle wrote:
> 1) Software is a product or a service ?
>
> Because if we look at that as service , for the users they are equal.
> And as product even worse they had the same lay out and the same GUI.
> So, no innovation on both. They are both products on the market.
Consumerisation of software ("decommoditization" as Microsoft called it)
is a problem whether of a service or a product.
Free Software is the solution to this *at the level of software*.
> 2) How can you say that for example Wikipedia does not have a moderator
> ? (the others sites that you mentioned i will check)
Every site has a moderator. The difference is in their institutional
character:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2010/isoc-ny/FreedomInTheCloud-transcript.html
There is a project called "FreedomBox" where the moderator is you:
http://freedomboxfoundation.org/
We set up a precursor to that at FooCorp:
http://foocorp.org/projects/fooplug/
> What CC mostly say is use this license (i know that are various types of
> it) so you are "protected", but it turns to them no problem in having
> your content, since they will not sell them, because what they care is
> to sell technologies, systems and control the content without any legal
> problems in case you accept the license.
But as I say, CC is entirely unnecessary for Web 2.0 sites to function.
We simply cannot blame CC for the success and harm of Web 2.0, and if CC
disappeared tomorrow it would not affect Facebook or Twitter or Google
at all.
CC is however very important for peer to peer and federated
*alternatives* to Web 2.0 sites.
> Facebook and Twitter have terms of use, we supose people know it. But
> putting _a brand _CC on your site it is cool and hype but this in fact
> allowed anyone to have your content, without any legal problems.
Some CC licences are better than others. BY-SA or BY aren't hype, they
are genuine restorations of the ability to work with culture.
> _3) Whats the legitimacy in countries with different legal systems ?_ UK
> empire did not accept, for example.
The CC licences have been upheld in several jurisdictions. They have
been ported to dozens of different legal systems to better fit them,
including those of England & Wales and of Scotland. And the unported
licences rely only on the common international copyright treaties.
As I say, I think the big issue for the UK government was the licences'
suitability for data, which is a known issue to be tackled in the next
version.
> Years ago the theme of Ars Eletronica was Goodbye Privacy !
This is separate from the issue of free culture and free software. I do
recommend the Franklin Street declaration.
> We live in a world with a lot of Cultures and Digital Culture is a
> restrictive term that must be rethinked.
>
> You can see, that with the widespread of "personal" computers and the
> net , we are seeing the digitalization of a lot of different cultures,
> what is very different than Digital Culture.
The cultural smog of the internet? Hipsterism trumping cyberpunk?
Is this economics more than culture?
I'm reading about the early days of British computer art at the moment.
It's strange learning about a time when there was more computing in art
than in society.
> So, Intel dictatorship, ICANN dictatorship, Apple Dictatorship (it was
> Microsoft on the 90s), Google dictatorship ... but the software is
> "free", digital culture is "free" too, living in "free" culture and
> with "free" data.
The people are free, not the software or the data. It's possible to use
non-Intel, non-Apple hardware, to root that hardware and install a free
system on it, and the FSF and other groups are keeping up the pressure
on those corporations. Alternatives to ICANN are being worked on.
Is there more to be done? Always.
> Dont get me wrong it is time for revision, open source software
> certainly is not free , it is just open, and even open for the ones
> that wants to learn programming. But if you offer the same as the others
> in terms of GUI , what to say ? With no innovation things will be hard
> for open source software, they can sell to enterprises and goverments
> because the prices are lower, because there are no royalties, but they
> will not get any far without innovation.
"Innovation" is one of the great lies of the managerial class. It means
stealing from the academy.
> 8% for the Pirates on the last Berlin elections.
Yes that is excellent. :-)
> I will not even mentioned the dictatorship of the files.
>
> http://books.google.com.br/books/about/Teor%C3%ADa_digital.html?id=WfJDAQAAIAAJ
> - the chapter of Ted Nelson talks about the files dictatorship.
I don't seem to be able to read that? Is he talking about Xanadu?
The web is a pale mockery of true hypertext, but Xanadu's backlinks and
the way it would charge for access to documents have privacy and
equality implications
> And about the satelites ? Are they free too ?
There's a campaign to buy one:
http://buythissatellite.org/
And:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/251588730/kicksat-your-personal-spacecraft-in-space
Also, mesh networks. :-)
> In 2013 will be for example 20 years of the first web browser with
> images, maybe 2012 will be a good year for a meeting to discuss about
> what is going on after all this time.
Free software now leads the browser market as well as the server market
- with Firefox, Chrome and Safari's WebKit.
One thing about the Flat Rate Culture Tax is that it has to be based on
invasive tracking of personal cultural consumption. It requires either
centralized culture silos like iTunes or deep packet inspection of the
open net.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
