Re: [-empyre-] cybernetic liki

[John Hopkins <jhopkins@uiah.fi>]

hallo m-pyres

I'm a little bit baffled between what I would see as a conflict of 
concepts between "open source" and

"Participants retain all copyrights to materials, resources and posts 
sent to and/or through criticalartware. Once these materials, 
resources and/or posts have been transmitted, criticalartware holds 
non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right rights to 
archive, modify, edit, deploy, create derivative works from and 
repackage these materials, resources and/or posts in any current or 
future technologies.criticalartware as a platform is committed to the 
pursuit of active community development, subjective hiistoricization, 
software oriented arts theorypractices and the open development of 
shared archival materials."

In the User Agreement.

Or is there some inherent meaning in the phrase "open source" related 
to the fact that the sourcing is open, but the destination or 
intermediate/final-use can somehow be locked in? 

And also, isn't a UA  just simply an application of one of the tired 
forms of top-down relation (setting up a power-relation dialectic 
between criticalware and user)?  (invoking jurisprudence, 
enforceability, termination, assymetric 'rights,' and 'bound by the 
terms.'

Just pondering the meaning of it all...  reminds me of the rhizome debacle...

jh
--
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tech-no-mad::hypnostatic:: nifca artist-in-residence
sibelius academy::center for music & technology
domain: http://neoscenes.net
travelog: http://neoscenes.net/travelog/weblog.php