Andreas Broeckmann wrote:
> that we aim to encourage open source projects, rather than the promotion of
> closed and proprietary softwares. director and shockwave are owned by
> companies that can choose to withdraw their product from the market any
> day, making it illegal for people to continue running their scripts. this
> is, obviously, a ludicrous situation, and it cannot happen to you when you
> are using free software.
What exactly do you mean by 'making it illegal for people to continue running
their scripts'? Do you maybe mean impossible rather then illegal? This sounds so
strange to me. And if the makers of director et al choose to withdraw their
software from the market that does not mean it cannot be used anymore, does it?
It would not make sense to sell people software that would become illegal to use
once the company does not produce any packets of it (and updates of it) any
more. Transmediale's choice for open source projects is a political statement
and a kind of aesthetic choice too maybe.Your above argumentation against the
other art codes does not seem to make much sense to me. Or is there more?