For me, open-source is more a community-oriented attitude towards creative works, rather than a subject for it.
There's a spectrum of sharing creative works.
The vast majority of the corporate world has pushed all the way to the right end of the spectrum, hoarding rights in lust for money. Ringtones are classified as "derivative works," formats are proprietary, and the world seems a series of gated housing developments.
Many people recognize the wrong in this, but react just as unfortunately, running to the left edge and proclaiming that everything is free, no one owns anything, and everyone should have access to anything. Their view of the creative world seems one of anarchy, where one should be just as free to set a neighbors home on fire as he is to eat a peach off their tree.
At the center (or slightly left of it) is the concept of one's work being protected from plagiarism. Slightly to the right is the protection from others making money from your works without your permission. The maxims of "two heads are better than one," and "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" most accurately describe the community where resources and ideas are shared. Everyone lives in their own home, and that isn't invalidated by inviting neighbors to the backyard for a barbecue or to the garage to work together on restoring a car.
The world should be a friendlier place than it is. And if we treat it that way, gradually it will become such.
2 comments:
It's a very self-conscious example of it, yes.
For me, open-source is more a community-oriented attitude towards creative works, rather than a subject for it.
There's a spectrum of sharing creative works.
The vast majority of the corporate world has pushed all the way to the right end of the spectrum, hoarding rights in lust for money. Ringtones are classified as "derivative works," formats are proprietary, and the world seems a series of gated housing developments.
Many people recognize the wrong in this, but react just as unfortunately, running to the left edge and proclaiming that everything is free, no one owns anything, and everyone should have access to anything. Their view of the creative world seems one of anarchy, where one should be just as free to set a neighbors home on fire as he is to eat a peach off their tree.
At the center (or slightly left of it) is the concept of one's work being protected from plagiarism. Slightly to the right is the protection from others making money from your works without your permission. The maxims of "two heads are better than one," and "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" most accurately describe the community where resources and ideas are shared. Everyone lives in their own home, and that isn't invalidated by inviting neighbors to the backyard for a barbecue or to the garage to work together on restoring a car.
The world should be a friendlier place than it is. And if we treat it that way, gradually it will become such.
You're right: This is a content example, not one of form.
Post a Comment