RE: [-empyre-] meanings of meanings of exchange

[joncates <joncates@criticalartware.net>]

in Subject: RE: [-empyre-] meanings of meanings of exchange
Ian wrote:
>  > I think the backup.lounge lab project
>  > really offers an important indicator for future development and 
> the "opening
> >  up" of art practice. Of course it brings with it endless areas of discussion
> >  and debate about how best to proceed or what meanings are revealed on
>  > various levels.

Yes, absolutely. This discussion itself raises interesting 
dissonances in terms of multiple and conflicting interpretations and 
uses of terms and processes.

in Subject: RE: [-empyre-] meanings of meanings of exchange
Ian wrote:
>  >Rhizomatics - the GPL and LGPL licensing system used in open source software
>  >has allowed or encouraged a complex branching of software projects into
> > application specific / personal / and project based versions, leading to
> > often chaotic strata all inheriting in some way from the original code base.

Yes, and does not in any way necessitate "improvement" as the only goal.
In addition, other areas of interest and interrelated activity include:

"Open publishing is the same as free software" version 0.5.2 (June 2002)
by Matthew Arnison <maffew@cat.org.au>
http://www.cat.org.au/maffew/cat/openpub.html

"Three Proposals for Open Publishing:
Towards a transparent, collaborative editorial framework"
by Dru Jay <dojy@mta.ca>
http://www.dru.ca/imc/open_pub.html

"Framework for Intercreative Publishing (fip)"
by Dru Jay <dojy@mta.ca>
http://dru.ca/fip_/

"<nettime> info"
by Geert Lovink, Pit Schultz (feb 96)
modified by Ted Byfield, Felix Stalder (july 99)
http://www.nettime.org/info.html

"Open Publication License" Draft v1.0, 8 June 1999
by David Wiley <dw2@opencontent.org>
http://opencontent.org/openpub/

These and other documents and resources deeply informed and effected 
the development of criticalartware. These resources have also shaped 
the language and intent we use in our User Agreement + Conditions of 
Use. Of course, previous to these, we were deeply informed and 
influenced by "Radical Software", the first journal of Video Art 
which was released in the early 1970's w/the following statement 
printed on the  Contents page of every issue:
"Xerox (year/date of publication) All contents of this issue may be 
freely copied for non-commercial use. They may not be copyright or 
reproduced for profit without the specific permission of the authors."
This publication set an important standard and operated out of the 
artists' belief in open systems and distributed resource sharing.
The following resource on copyleft and applying the GPL to 
non-software may be of interest in terms of this discussion:

Applying Copyleft To Non-Software Information
by Michael Stutz
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html

Looking forward to further discussion,
Jon
--
/**
* <JonCates>
* <http://www.criticalartware.net>
*  <joncates@criticalartware.net>
**/