-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
re all, good old dichotomy, still interesting... let me elaborate please On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:55:09AM +0100, zeljko wrote: > On Jan 5, 2008 11:04 AM, Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This cannot be described as "Open Source" > > True. But not so relevant. It is much more interesting what this > can inscribe then be described. > > > because commercial use is not > > allowed. This breaks the Open Source Definition, Debian Free Software > > Guidelines, Freedom Defined and the Free Software Definition. Using > > wrong argument. > ...you are mixing Free Software and Open Source (in 2008 ;-)... > > > BY-SA rather than BY-NC-SA would solve this. > > ...with CC licencing schemes, which do overlap to a point but are > separate. The fundamental difference here is between *content* and *tools*: The FOSS movement is about software tools: as many other creative tools, the importance to be free (as in speech, not as in beer) is related to the autonomy and independence of productive use - access to mediatic production means - possibility to create local economies. It is a captious error to relate the *social need* of FOSS (and more in general for an idealistic total freedom in reproducing production means) to the *strategy* of total freedom in content, where freedom is not a social priority, but eventually a viral strategy for emerging statements. Not even the Free Software Foundation enters the merit of distribution of art and cultural production, where a similar freedom as the one advocated with FOSS could render the economy not sustainable anymore. On the contrary, in case of tools that are sensible to the people's communication, to the expression of their creativity and to the circulation of culture, there is the need for a neutral, transparent and modifiable framework of production shared by all. If you consider the case that a graphic designer using proprietary software might find it difficult to show and reproduce her/his creations, you understand why the need for FOSS is urgent. On the contrary, until just a few decades ago, it was much easier to build or borrow a brush and the distribution of a painting was mostly bound to logistical problems and not licensing issues of the canvas. Unfortunately in the field of cultural production nowadays there is very little public support for people building free and shared creative infrastructures, while there is a big waste of public resources for the statements of fewer people affording proprietary means for their cultural production: no wonder why the nature of the project opening this discussion is antagonistic, while it also sympathises with open source practices. ciao - -- (_ http://jaromil.dyne.org _) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHljA9e2QxhLU0C14RAoh2AJwOxphYmYOG8JaX67MGfQI1hUV5gQCg5N4t IWU7zjylkYW/GHbo+qaX+UE= =VTHx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ______________________________________________ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
