Liberated, yes, but not necessary libre....
exactly this organic loop of values is how we operate within the community...
this loop is give and take... this value is meta, a rate/commerce
operate within. There's no property to claim..no property to give
away. our work are
produced with the support of this loosely connected network of ours, who
we gladly giving... zoom out, yes, the larger society, take your codes
to wall street and give away... name me a taker!!
we dont need to get back to barter, no e-bay, no bailout...
but i really want to reconsider all these tired words.. i.e. liber, free
and mostly democracy...I can not simply say free beer is the same as
free codes...language machine , yes, particularly, with brico, with
much participation coming from fresh/raw meat!.
well, agitator... maybe..
sl
>
>On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 12:13:51PM +0200, shu lea cheang wrote:
>> I would really like to bring in some sort of barter
>> idea into the concept of exchange and further rendering...
>> give and take...
>>
>> thoughts?
>
>i think barter might adhere to the noun of open source. libre implies
>an ethical concern which gives up personal interest to collective
>interest, establishing a wider and organic loop of values, where the
>author is never really absolute and always begins his piece from
>something that has been already liberated.
>
>it is therefore erroneous to talk about property when referring to
>intellect and libre economies.
>
>regarding libre vs. open source, before starting speculating, i
>suggest having a look at history: at the "open source initiative"
>(funny enough, sharing its acronym with Soros OSI) and the positions
>of Eric Raymond and Bruce Perence, in particular the reasons why
>Perence has abandoned the open source initiative.
>
>ciao
>
>- --
>
>jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org
>
