THE idea of free culture is centred around democratic values. It changes a few economical status quos (e.g. compartments, pyramid schemes), so no wonder it faces so much resistance and sheer opposition from various authorities. All in all, it involves millions of people getting exposure and becoming contributers rather than having a few ‘stars’ reaching millions who get glued to a couch and dream of being superstars. The former is a case of decentralisation of influence, if not of wealth as well.

That is why I continue to urge everyone to made a gradual migration to software which shifts control back to its rightful owner. Do it for, if you ask me — which you might do — the Free software movement, but mainly for your own benefit. Only when computer use is restricted to a point of end-user suffocation will people wake up. As it stands, with DRM, even personal information is set to expire and become no longer accessible. All the advancements made by sharing are suppressed, which once again leads to stifling of scientific and cultural progress. And it’s very sad. It is in a company’s interest to keep us naive and obedient to anything.

Apple’s Open Source licences are geared towards transparency, but nothing scientific for the betterment and extension through sharing (giving and taking). I find great hope in Linux, unless BSD matures to become as easy to set up. OpenSolaris remains a package that is controlled by a company, so it is too early to consider it.

 Comments Off |  Send this to a friend

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 at 3:41 am and is filed under Philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.