[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] OS (openly suspicious)



------=_NextPart_000_1CB02_01C3A1DB.855FBE60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>> Does anyone think a microsound mp3 project using totally open source
>> software would be a good idea (anyone excluding myself)?

>I like it: audio that's free through the whole creation & distribution
process. Something like>organic food.

Interesting idea, but I have to say I'm still suspicious of the kind of
discourse of purity that accompanies, e.g, OS and organic food. And I'm
extremely suspicious of *any* discourse of freedom, especially when it's
accompanied by technology. The "if you've got purity and freedom, then
everything's OK" trope makes me extremely wary, especially when OS is
fast becoming the new marketing rhetoric for software giants (for whom
OS tends to be a nice way of saying "our developers work for free"). 

>Nicely symbolic, but also a practical answer to those who still argue
that we need>commercial sw to make art that's "advanced," rich,
sophisticated, etc.

But, conversely, not much of an answer to those, for example, who don't
think we need software at all to make art.

>The concept might be modified to include people using exclusively open
source sw tools>despite their non-open-source operating system, so
Wintel / Mac people can play too.

Need I point out that the OS X kernel is "open-source"?

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

See also: 

http://www.opendarwin.org/

The OS X example brings up a question: when we say "open-source", what
license do we mean in particular? GPL only? Or are licenses like Apple's
predatory "open-source" agreements admissible? What about Microsoft's
(oh, sorry: Micro$oft) "shared-source" license? What exclusions,
repudiations and disavowals would be necessary to maintain the organic
purity of our project? What is the constitutive outside of our "pure
freedom"?

Sorry to be so suspicious and critical, but I'm not always impressed by
the OS rhetoric. It seems too "easy-way-out" to me, and often avoids
some of the thornier issues involved in working with technology.
Especially now when OS is being touted as a viable business model (see
www.opensource.org), it makes me wonder how revolutionary the OS
approach really is. And after all, isn't revolution just a fancy word
for going around in circles?

If we did have a "100% OS" project, I would likely participate, since,
despite everything, the idea of OS is (theoretically) worth supporting.
I just hope we all continue to consider the issues at stake, and don't
let ourselves get washed up in a tide of uncritical support for
something which often (but, of course, not always) turns out to be a new
kind of marketing rhetoric. It all depends on how we mobilize the ideas
of "purity" and "freedom". 

Phil

"The gravest danger our Nation faces 
lies at the crossroads of 
radicalism and technology."

George W. Bush
17 September 2002

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
Phil Thomson 
http://www.sfu.ca/~pthomson/
http://centibel.vze.com/ 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/databenders/
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

_______________________________________________________________
Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at
http://www.mail2world.com

  

------=_NextPart_000_1CB02_01C3A1DB.855FBE60--

------------------------------