douwe on Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:12:04 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Free Software / Free Solutions |
Hi Nettimers, It has been suggested on this mailinglist that the Free Software approach might be extended other areas (among others in the Six Limitations to the Current Open Source Development thread). I fear myself that this is like trying to gain a freedom we used to have and that we seem to have lost without noticing it. When Richard Stalman started the whole Free Software movement, he did not think it was something new. Software had been free (as in free speech) until the age of the shrink wrapped software. You wouldn't really have all rights to software in the early days, but you would have access to the source code. If something was wrong with software, you'd fix it and send it to the original writer of the code, who would probably own the copyright. Then at one point, it became normal not to distribute the source code, but only the compiled version. Ever since, if you would buy a program with bugs in it, you could no longer fix it, even if you knew what was wrong. Richard Stalman didn't like this, thought about how to fix this and came up with the Free Software Foundation. What happened to the software world, is also happening in the non-virtual world. It used to be the case that if I bought a car, I could do whatever I wanted with it. Now, with the DMCA and the coming European IP Enforcement directive, these freedoms are threadened. Reverse engineering is a freedom we're losing, so we need open car design or even open cola. To me the worst thing, is that we're losing the right to tinker (see also my blog at: http://douweosinga.com/blog/0308/2003Aug27_1) If, as suggested in atreyu42's article at: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/25/232239/774 fabbers become a feasible way of producing things, I fear that this will not lead to greater freedoms, as in that the consumers will be able to download designs as much as they want and produce what they want. To me it seems more realistic that the designs will be protected by some Digital Rights Management scheme and the copying or exchanging of designs will be made illegal, much as has happened to the music industry. If somebody invented a way to produce things for free, like a matter duplicator, would that really get rid of poverty, or would the powers that be decide that unauthorized copying should be illegal? In the end, I think Free will win, because a society based on Free would be more efficient and more attractive, but this will take some fundamental changes in the way we think about production. Douwe Osinga http://douweosinga.com # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]