Hi janet, aymeric + all

I have followed the discussion so far as someone who does not know much
about open source. But there are a few things in the mails I find
interesting to think about/expand.

> Well it doesn't have to be usable, but yes, if we want to build a
> theory on this, or just attempt to analyze things such as FLOSS,
> we need to be quite strict on how things are defined to limit 
> miscommunication and misunderstanding.
> Of course, the downside effect of trying to define this as 
> precisely as 
> possible will then lead to only spend time listing special cases and
> prevent any form of theoretical unification.
> This is particularly true for areas like this one, which are obviously
> transdisciplinary and where conflicts of definition/interpretation are
> due to happen depending from which point of view things are defined
> (economical, artistic, political, social, technical...).
> However, no matter how difficult it can be, it is in my opinion very
> important to take time to merge or separate some of these 
> definitions, as
> the announced openness varies greatly from one field to another.
> If we want to build up something that makes sense in terms of
> philosophical openness, we need first to focus on the structure (which
> seems contradictory for openness).

Is there not also a question of a shared language I order to share
thoughts? how do micro-communities relate to larger communities, and
Other communities  (open source - art - ...)  

> In that respect, is a good example of this
> effort, while at the same time it shows the complexity of doing so 
> even when
> things are narrowed down as much as possible. (the discussions tabs 
> of 
> the site are very interesting in terms of witnessing the process).
> Best
> a.

The narrowing down of complex issues .....
Most authors, whatever their field of activity, whatever their amateur
or professional status, have a genuine interest in favoring an ecosystem
where works can be spread, re-used and derived in creative ways. The
easier it is to re-use and derive works, the richer our cultures become.

Is re-use the ultimate aim? I wonder what it means to make ‘everything’
as easy as possible to make our culture “richer”. I wonder where the
rich-ness of a culture lies?
And what does it mean to be critical in this economy?
I think it is interesting to think about being witness of a process;
With the focus on re-use and participate, i am curious about the silence
of a witness, the not-actively engagement. How does this operate with
open source systems. 

maybe this leads into what Janet says in her last mail.   


> Imagine an exhibition on value. Perhaps the whole expression of the
> exhibition could be a series of actions which the visitors engage in
> to progress through the exhibition - paying in different ways buy a
> ticket, pull a ticket from a wall, make a comment, go through a
> turnstyle counter, would later stages include things that the visitors
> could make as their own pieces of process to add to the end.
> do people need to bring with them all of the things which they will
> add to the end of the process through the process itself
> would it be filmed. is filming a stage of process. do some aspects of
> the process exist outside the building, does this change the
> relationship between open v closed and access. is it still interesting
> if it is open in a park and there is no real restriction of progress.
> how much is the progress a function of restriction of the 
> exhibition space.
> j

what restrictions are there with open source, are they 'productive',
limiting, progressive,...??

Are they built into the system of open source?? and if yes, in what
ways? how do they appear?