[-empyre-] agreements

[jonCates <joncates@criticalartware.net>]

the UA which is being discussed is located @ this addy:
http://www.criticalartware.net/dottxt/agreeconds.html

the UA needs revising. i personally think the first should revision 
should be a find-and-replace  of the word 'user' w/'participant'. the 
spelling error in the quote jh choose is also a first order fix.

criticalartware does not represent itself as a [group/project] as 
'open source'. we are committed to offering shared resources to a 
growing community of participants. as artists + as a project, 
criticalartware is interested in open source as a concept, esp in 
relation to the (X) of Radical Software, copy-it-right ethic of Phil 
Morton + Dan Sandin + other pre-'open source' strategies for the 
development of decentralized, open + community based resources.

liken, as an application, is not open source:

"open sourcing liken"
node = savegame 377!379

i am not going to attempt a performance of an authoritative voice on 
matters of 'open source' as i am not [versed/experienced] enough in 
the particularities of 'open source' or 'free software' as 
[movements/moments].

in terms of criticalartware's agreement, we first considered offering 
promises rather than agreements. we then determined that we should 
offer an agreement + conditions of use. i began researching the 
models [active/available] @ the time. we (the developers [involved/in 
conversation] @ that point of the process: blithe riley, christian 
ryan, jonsatrom, bensyverson + myself) discussed what should be 
covered. our intention was to be as inclusive + respectful as 
possible  to a community that had yet to form. on 02.10.23 we 
finalized + upLoaded the agreement + conditions of use document. on 
03.01.13 we released the beta version of the [appplication/platform].

jh wrote:
> isn't a UA  just simply an application of one of the tired forms of 
> top-down relation

i personally dislike engagements with 'purity' + find that hybridity, 
slippage, fluidity more [functional/useful/exciting] propositions in 
terms of binaries such as 'open vs closed'. i am however very 
concerned w/hypocrisy + coherency.

jh wrote:
> setting up a power-relation dialectic between criticalware and user

it has been + continues to be our intention to be an application 
w/[functions/features] + a community based platform for the 
[discussion/development] of [sets/systems] of shared resources. these 
[mixed/simultaneous] goals are [defined/realized] by the activities 
of the participants, contributingDevelopers + coreDevelopers. the 
agreement that is currently active, if taken as a whole, offers 
anyOne (including the coreDevelopers) to create + use the resources 
we are offering so as to help realize those goals above. to the 
extent, that the agreement + conditions of use doesnot enable those 
activities it should + will be revised.
--
//jonCates
 ---> criticalartware coreDeveloper
http://www.criticalartware.net