> also uses the open-source metaphor.
I'm confused about the use of the term for architecture. (I assume people are talking about the literal, building sort of architecture.)
Open source for software essentially means that it is clear how the software works (i.e., the source code is visible) and others are allowed to change and/or distribute the software with few restrictions. It does not imply that any particular instance is created cooperatively or that it involves anyone other than the person writing the code (except that later creations can be based on it.)
In that sense, a printed document that is freed from copyright restrictions is, by analogy, open source. (A machine made cooperatively by its users but depends on a part that is patented or sealed from observation of its function is not.) How much architecture is proprietary in either the sense of others not being able to see how it works or others being restricted from using the original product as the basis for further architecture?
> This PhD thesis is about Christiania, which is an "open source" town.
What does that mean?
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1910 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
USA
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
at East Carolina University:
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 328 2839
|