>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
>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,
>It would not make sense to sell people software that would become illegal
>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?
there are people who can explain this much better than i can, but i suggest
you read either the software license agreements that most of us click OK
without checking, or the stuff that Richard Stallman has written about
these things (www.gnu.org/philosophy); the point is that with most software
you buy not the code, but the right to limited usage; that is also why you
are not allowed to pass it on to friends or copy it - the code is not
yours, you just pay for the right to use it. that whole legal field is
completely crazy!! read stallman, he is also entertaining.