Message 01074 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01074 Message: 1/2 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] OSS & post-development practices (waag, amsterdam, june 3)




Hi there,

I am a consistent reader of the mailing list.

Just curious about the assertion that "free software and commerciality are
orthogonal" made by MJRay on 2003-05-21.

<snip>
OSS, or rather free software and commerciality are orthogonal.  To talk of
the advantages of one over the other is like discussing the advantages
of oranges over self-mutilation.  It makes no sense.</snip>

In what sense orthogonal?  Given that we are not talking at right-angles or
about transformations that preserve vector lengths, the only thing I can
read from the allusion is that the transpose of the object or entity (here,
free software) is its inverse (commercialism).  That is to say that
"commerciality" is the opposite of free software.

Is that the meaning proposed? If so, how does this relate to the mixed
simile/metaphor "like discussing the advantages of oranges over
self-mutilation"? Is it the correspondent's intention to imply, if I have
read the implied meaning correctly, that just as oranges and
self-mutilation are inherently unrelated and therefore to discuss them as
if they were in some way related would be nonsensical, so free software and
"commerciality" are unrelated and so to talk about them together and work
on the assumption that they are in some way related is pointless and makes
no sense?

If that is the intended meaning, then I for one would have to take issue
with the implied proposition that free and commercial are unrelated
concepts.  At a phenomenological level, indeed, either may exist without
the other and both may exist together.  Perhaps, in that sense, we may go
as far as to say that the a priori conditions in which either may emerge
are not necessarily related or dependent on each other.

Epistemologically, however, at the level of what either concept means in a
given social/cultural condition, free and commercial embody the
precipitations, in ideological terms, of very different paradigms,
frameworks so different that each concept (free and commercial) seems to
only be attributed value or be considered valuable from within  its own
framework of reference, and with reference to its own set of values. So, we
have the perennial dichotomy of free and commercial, and though they may
and do coexist uneasily, for validation each *seems* to refer only to
itself.

In fact though, their self-referential natures (perhaps it is the context
of self-referentiality that these two concepts could be considered
unrelated, which would be a mistake, INMHO) reveals that each concept ,
free and commercial, derives its principle (that is, first and most
fundamental) value-reference and meaning from the other concept that is
purported to represent its inverse or opposite.  It is the dichotomy, and
the ideologies and the tensions that underly their contrast that in fact
results in their being deeply related.  Free(dom) is and can only be (at
least presently) measured, appreciated and valued in relation to the degree
to which freedom itself can be proscribed and limited.

I believe. therefore, that free and commercial are deeply related, as
related as any opposite things can be (we may say that two objects that are
the opposite of each other are as related as two objects that are
identical).  The issue is, as it seems to me, not whether free software is
better then commercial, or that a free society is better than one dominated
by the corporation (even those opposed too free software have been known to
acknowledge its attractive points).  The issue is about how to create or
recognise the sociological conditions in which the *choice* between free
and commercial becomes meaningful, imperative and urgent.  I get
frustrated, like many others, at the response I consistently meet (in the
realm of free software) that "(commercial software) is what everybody
uses(and so I can't be held responsible for just going with the flow)" or
"(commercial software) is what I know and I don't have the time to learn
anything else".  Such remarks illustrate to me that the choice itself,
between commercial and free, has not attained, or has not accumulated the
kind of importance and imperativeness that would make the alternative
(free[dom]) meaningful.

For free software and free society to remain a valid and increasingly
meaningful propositions, it must continue to draw its first
meaning-reference or "principle epistemological instance" from its own
negation, the existence of and spread of non-free software and non-free
society, in theory and reality.

Contrary to MJRay, therefore, I believe Lovink is right to indicate the
"advantages of OSS over commercial software" since it is this reference
that lends OSS meaning and relevenace.

Apologies for trying to cram so much into this email.

Regards

--
Merv Hammer

mervyn.hammer ephorate.com
web:   www.ephorate.com

[no useless disclaimer]


|---------+------------------------------->
|         |           MJ Ray              |
|         |           <markj cloaked.frees|
|         |           erve.co.uk>         |
|         |           Sent by:            |
|         |           owner-list-en oekonu|
|         |           x.org               |
|         |                               |
|         |                               |
|         |           21/05/03 10:40      |
|         |           Please respond to   |
|         |           list-en             |
|         |                               |
|---------+------------------------------->
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                              |
  |       To:       list-en oekonux.org                                                                                          |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                    |
  |       Subject:  Re: [ox-en] OSS & post-development practices (waag, amsterdam, june 3)                                       |
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




geert lovink <geert desk.nl> wrote:
In the South (formerly called: the Third World), the use of Open Source
Software (OSS) spreads rapidly. The advantages of OSS over commercial
software are in the field of user freedom and often cost savings.

OSS, or rather free software and commerciality are orthogonal.  To talk
of the advantages of one over the other is like discussing the advantages
of oranges over self-mutilation.  It makes no sense.  Is someone who is
attending this able to approach the organisers and help them understand
the topics, please?

Another concern to me is the talk of "Intellectual Property Rights" which
implicitly accepts the notion that thoughts may be property of someone.

Anyway, can someone give us the stream URL so we can observe, please?

--
MJR   http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   IM: slef jabber.at
      This is my home web site.   This for Jabber Messaging.

How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/





_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01074 Message: 1/2 L0 [In index]
Message 01074 [Homepage] [Navigation]