On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Gabriel Menotti
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Cinelerra framework insists on the closed ouvre, on the separation
> between production and consumption (i.e., producers and consumers),
> while Pure Data explodes this completely. In fact, every "movie" made
> in puredata is actually a software piece, processual systems naturally
> open to interventions and contaminations.
> All in all, I think that, if we're to think open source seriously, we
> must look at it as a particular poetics, not only as a collection of
> products ou a community.
Interesting comparison regarding make or view projects/software
compared to make and view projects/software.
I think it is interesting that in critique of free software people
often say 'you should' do something in a different way. Presumably
people participating in the projects they do are doing what makes them
smile. So if other things make other people smile there is an
opportunity for folks to get out there and make something different.
I feel a lot of that kind of you should conversation feels a part of
the subscriber perspective.
A more flossy approach might be we could? how could we?
Squeak and scratch are open source kinds of media tools used in schools
The user can make media and can also change the interface which is
constructed the same way. etoys on olpc XO laptops use the same
There is probably some tension between making beautifully poetic code and making
a smooth flow between using and participating without coding knowledge.
There is probably also a tension between groups which prioritise
collective process or specific product priorities.