Re: [h2o-discuss] low profile

[Manuel Gutierrez Algaba <irmina@ctv.es>]

One important point, It's not about OpenEverything but...
NotClosedEverything. The real problem is we are heading to a
rather closed world. A kind of intellectual proteccionism.

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Stefan Keel wrote:

> 
> Eric E. brings up some very valid points in regards to 'open.'  But is the
> objective to focus on digital media, code, or other?

Sometimes code involves a bit of digital media.

> 
> 
> So is the coding community some faction of a greater idea - OpenEverything?

Obviously.

> Is it something like attempting to convince the mass-populous, overnight,
> that Anarchy is better than the system of government that they are currently
> operating under?

In fact, It's an attempt to keep current FREEDOMS. And BTW, 
ecology and environmental issues were some worries of anarchist 
of XIX century.

> 
> Excellent!  But what marketable product do we have to work with?

It's simply unacceptable to "own" intellectual products that
are basic for the development of people and countries. And it's
unacceptable that the very same who stablish the property , decides
who can own it or not. Marketable products ? Non essential products:
Food, basic industrial processes, basic computer programms...

>  But the industries that have rooted
> themselves in the positions they currently hold may not give.

No, the problem is the people, we overconsume. We simply don't need
so much things, and what's worse the economy needs this unbalanced
situation.

> 
> The software industry is just young enough to be swayed.  The people who are
> buying software are still looking for something that is better - and looking
> for some better way to understand it all.  The passion that goes behind the
> creation of new media, operating systems, or scientific discoveries is

Scientific in general are not as nice as computer scientist and hackers.
:)

> native tongue.  The paradox that comes to mind is baffling.  What would have
> happened if the Romans had claimed some ownership of their lettering system?
> Where would we be today?

Well, the Romans have a nice system of privileges,  different for
every city of the Empire, a kind of patent. And the Roman empire
succeeded until all cities were equal and the empire was so uniform
as a dead horse.

> 
> So, to me, it's something we've thought of before.  Then, in Eric Eldred's
> defense, why didn't the companies who published Joyce, do so for free?  Is
> it really that confusing?  Are we really that afraid of sharing what we
> never really 'owned' in the first place?

The companies who publish Joyce need to cover the cost of paper
and edition.
> 
> 
> My confusion here comes from wondering if these 'Open advocates and
> thinkers' are some kind of elite, or just pawns peddling the greater idea.
Elite of course.

> 
> It's surely not easy to bring a few people together to make discussion about
> an issue that is important.  This list is a good example, as the writers
> grapple for topics of discussion - ranging from OpenCode, OpenBooks,
> OpenMedicine, OpenLaw, to OpenEverything.  Consider bringing an even larger
> audience to such a venue.

It'd be fairly enough to make people understand this:
"Share a bit of that you know, try to explain a bit of that you know,
because, another one will do the same with you,and at the end all
of us will be wiser."
The question is cooperation or competition. The answer is :
The best competition is when there's a basic cooperation in the 
basic rules. 
The cooperation can be done when the competitors have reached 
certain level. 

Patent system have nothing of cooperation and in fact, it's
destroying competition , giving too much power to a small group
of people.

> 
> I don't believe that there is any 'one' who will come along and be able to
> explain everything to everyone and watch them get it.  There may be a few
> who explain things better, but they continue to act as conduits, or nodes to
> a portion of the audience.  Will bringing together those nodes, with the
> intent to develop some manner or method really help?  Or, would it be a
> better idea to bring those nodes together in order to share their resources
> with one another - thus expanding the whole?

The idea of cooperation will be more and more evident as natural
resources and telecommunications show all of us that in fact we
are all the same, humans.

Open software, linux, ONG, ecology, human rights... cooperation
and mankind. I think it's fairly simple. 

Regards/Saludos
Manolo
-------------
My addresses / mis direcciones: 
a="www.ctv.es/USERS/irmina"
b=[("Lritaunas Peki Project", ""),
   ("Spanish users of LaTeX(en Espanyol)", "/pyttex.htm" ),
   ("page of drawing utility for tex ", "/texpython.htm" ),
   ("CrossWordsLand","/cruo/cruo.html")
   ]
for i in b:
  print i[0],":", a+i[1]

  Nasrudin walked into a teahouse and declaimed, "The moon is more useful than the sun." "Why?", he was asked. "Because at night we need the light more."