15 Jan
2010
15 Jan
'10
5:55 p.m.
Been a chaotic day of poly-tasking so as I switched my brain-state
momentarily back to Rosea's question and my last reply I realized I
wanted to state the essence of the issue, if for no other reason than to
re-focus on it in my own mind, and to simply hear myself say it.
I know the world doesn't need me to issue any kind of statement on the
matter of OS/software Freedom but the underlying philosophical
commitment of the original Packet-In collaboration for RPM08 was the
purest application of the concept and the practice. EVERYthing about
what we did was Free, and for all the classical reasons. We used all
free OS and software tools and offered our work under CC by SA also as
unencumbered and Free.
We wanted to be able to "give" everything to anyone interested in
revisiting our work, retracing our footsteps, remixing and extending
what we created - building up and out from where we left off.
Nobody said it better than Newton in his comment about seeing further by
standing upon the shoulders of giants. LOL, we are NOT the giants in
that metaphor...well, actually we are but modesty, if not reality,
compels me to reject any such characterization.
I mean, this is the essence of what was always the academic way, and the
scientific way, and the philosophical way...before the Age of
Intellectual Property, Copyrights, and Patents. Knowledge built upon
freely shared prior knowledge, and tools inspiring the creation of
greater tools.
We hoped others might build upon our music and anticipated the delight
at hearing a remix, or someone substituting their soaring vocals or
guitar for my humble efforts. It never happened, but I can't think of a
greater "reward" for what we did should it ever.
So, think of it as a kit that you can Freely give to anyone who is
interested, and who can in turn Freely pass it on, inside which are ALL
the parts needed to first do everything we did but more importantly to
start at that point and do something we never imagined.
Frank
15 Jan
15 Jan
6:01 p.m.
I'm not meaning to hi-jack the thread but would anyone from Packet-in be
interested in being interviewed for "The Open Source Musician Podcast?"
Daniel Worth
Host
The Open Source Musician Podcast
http://opensourcemusician.com
6:05 p.m.
Daniel Joshua Worth wrote:
I'm not meaning to hi-jack the thread but would
anyone from Packet-in be
interested in being interviewed for "The Open Source Musician Podcast?"
Daniel Worth
Host
The Open Source Musician Podcast
http://opensourcemusician.com
Daniel,
Drew Roberts would be my choice as spokesperson for the collaboration.
He was there from the start, steered us into the first RPM Challenge in
2008, and blogs on the central issues I noted. He'll see this and speak
for himself.
Frank
7:21 p.m.
On Friday 15 January 2010 17:01:34 Daniel Joshua Worth wrote:
I'm not meaning to hi-jack the thread but would
anyone from Packet-in be
interested in being interviewed for "The Open Source Musician Podcast?"
I would be happy to... (Well... is the podcast under a Free license?) ~;-)
I think it would be worth your while to interview as many of us (past and
present) who are willing. It has been a pleasure to work with everyone.
Daniel Worth
Host
The Open Source Musician Podcast
http://opensourcemusician.com
all the best,
drew
16 Jan
16 Jan
5:22 a.m.
frank pirrone wrote:
We hoped others might build upon our music and
anticipated the delight
at hearing a remix, or someone substituting their soaring vocals or
guitar for my humble efforts. It never happened, but I can't think of a
greater "reward" for what we did should it ever.
I don't think that should come as a surprise. This is art, not science,
so I don't think Newtons words can be applied.
I really respect your idealistic premise for PACKET-IN, but cannot see
myself apply it in practice. We all have different "borders", whether
they're ethical or practical or something else. I cannot see myself use
a Windows PC, but others here dual boot, or have a separate windows
machine for certain things. On the other hand I found that limiting
myself to FLOSS tools is limiting my artistic outcome. There are closed
source apps available for linux, that are so good (and cost next to
nothing) that not using them for the FLOSS cause would be stupid of me.
Let's not make this a discussion over me being in PACKET-IN, btw. I'm
doing my own thing for rpm2010, and might follow you guys on the
sideline, and contribute if I feel inspired to do so. And I do know how
to operate FLOSS tools, so it's not a problem.
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
18 Jan
18 Jan
6:26 a.m.
frank pirrone wrote:
Nobody said it better than Newton in his comment about
seeing further by
standing upon the shoulders of giants. LOL, we are NOT the giants in
that metaphor...well, actually we are but modesty, if not reality,
compels me to reject any such characterization.
I mean, this is the essence of what was always the academic way, and the
scientific way, and the philosophical way...before the Age of
Intellectual Property, Copyrights, and Patents. Knowledge built upon
freely shared prior knowledge, and tools inspiring the creation of
greater tools.
We hoped others might build upon our music and anticipated the delight
at hearing a remix, or someone substituting their soaring vocals or
guitar for my humble efforts. It never happened, but I can't think of a
greater "reward" for what we did should it ever.
So, think of it as a kit that you can Freely give to anyone who is
interested, and who can in turn Freely pass it on, inside which are ALL
the parts needed to first do everything we did but more importantly to
start at that point and do something we never imagined.
There is at least one
difference. Scientists get payed for their
job/work by the university. Who's gonna pay the musician who is making a
cd (and is not an live musician)?
Playing the advocate of the devil here...
\r
11:33 a.m.
On Monday 18 January 2010 05:26:46 rosea grammostola wrote:
frank pirrone wrote:
This will require some experiments...
Some thoughts:
1. the people who want your fancy, numbered, limited edition boxed sets?
2, the people who want to use it in their blockbuster film which they do not
want to license BY-SA?
See: http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Income
for even more thoughts. Basically, I just write lyrics when it comes to music.
So who is going to pay me?
Nobody said it better than Newton in his comment
about seeing further by
standing upon the shoulders of giants. LOL, we are NOT the giants in
that metaphor...well, actually we are but modesty, if not reality,
compels me to reject any such characterization.
I mean, this is the essence of what was always the academic way, and the
scientific way, and the philosophical way...before the Age of
Intellectual Property, Copyrights, and Patents. Knowledge built upon
freely shared prior knowledge, and tools inspiring the creation of
greater tools.
We hoped others might build upon our music and anticipated the delight
at hearing a remix, or someone substituting their soaring vocals or
guitar for my humble efforts. It never happened, but I can't think of a
greater "reward" for what we did should it ever.
So, think of it as a kit that you can Freely give to anyone who is
interested, and who can in turn Freely pass it on, inside which are ALL
the parts needed to first do everything we did but more importantly to
start at that point and do something we never imagined.
There is at least one difference. Scientists get payed for their
job/work by the university. Who's gonna pay the musician who is making a
cd (and is not an live musician)?
Playing the advocate of the devil here...
Well.... who is going to pay you for your stuff when so many are doing the
Free thing? Back at ya.... ~;-)
\r
all the best,
drew
5:10 p.m.
drew Roberts wrote:
Well, I rarely advocate the devil, but fully support your right to do so!
Seriously, Rosea, these are indeed interesting, and valid questions, but
I believe most folk's reflexive assumptions and answers are subject to
scrutiny. We've ALL had our brains washed...and creme rinsed, I
suppose. Go back and reread Bill Gates' open letter to the Homebrew
Computer Club to see just how entrenched his assumptions were at such an
early stage, and then trace the subsequent course of proprietary
software, copyright, patents, P2P, lawsuits, SPA/RIAA/MPAA, etc. to
gain some appreciation for exactly how big a red pill you'd have to
swallow to shuck the influences under which we've labored to even begin
to see the alternatives.
On Monday 18 January 2010 05:26:46 rosea grammostola
wrote:
Greetings Rosea and Drew,
I was making a broader philosophical, and political, point about how the
advance of human knowledge and technology occurred via the process of
building upon prior work, for most of history - freely shared.
Absolutely nothing novel or profound here. It's the essence of the
concept of Free Software, and the essence of what was lost when
knowledge became proprietary.
It's what Stallman wrote about, and the reason for the GPL, or
copyleft. Raymond's bazaar is largely where Open Source resides.
The point here is more circumscribed and sharply focused. First, we did
not even offer to sell our music - we simply gave it away. I'm not sure
if we ever even had a donation link up. I don't believe so. However,
had we offered our work for sale, in addition to what Drew cites above,
the answer to your question is...our customers. Anyone wanting to buy
our finished CD could/would have paid for it. Especially if we posted
no freely downloadable mixed and mastered finished tracks.
Think about that in the context of our discussion here: How cool would
that CC by SA/Commercial hybrid model be? We'd still post our
individual tracks, but anyone wanting our "version" of our work could
buy it. ALL our giant's shoulders would be sitting there inviting
anyone interested to come and stand on them. Anyone could download them
and mix and master them as they desire. They could, as I suggested in
my original posting, drop my vocal and guitar parts, record their own,
and polish off a finished derivative work! Sampling would take on a new
meaning in that model.
frank pirrone wrote:
This will require some experiments...
Some thoughts:
1. the people who want your fancy, numbered, limited edition boxed sets?
2, the people who want to use it in their blockbuster film which they do not
want to license BY-SA?
See: http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Income
for even more thoughts. Basically, I just write lyrics when it comes to music.
So who is going to pay me?
<snip>
We hoped others might build upon our music and anticipated the delight
at hearing a remix, or someone substituting their soaring vocals or
guitar for my humble efforts. It never happened, but I can't think of a
greater "reward" for what we did should it ever.
So, think of it as a kit that you can Freely give to anyone who is
interested, and who can in turn Freely pass it on, inside which are ALL
the parts needed to first do everything we did but more importantly to
start at that point and do something we never imagined.
There is at least one difference. Scientists get payed for their
job/work by the university. Who's gonna pay the musician who is making a
cd (and is not an live musician)?
Playing the
advocate of the devil here...
Well.... who is going to pay you for your stuff when so many are doing the
Free thing? Back at ya.... ~;-)
> \r
> all the best,
drew
Frank
6:46 p.m.
On Monday 18 January 2010 16:10:22 you wrote:
Well, I rarely advocate the devil, but fully support your right to do so!
Seriously, Rosea, these are indeed interesting, and valid questions, but
I believe most folk's reflexive assumptions and answers are subject to
scrutiny. We've ALL had our brains washed...and creme rinsed, I
suppose. Go back and reread Bill Gates' open letter to the Homebrew
Computer Club to see just how entrenched his assumptions were at such an
early stage, and then trace the subsequent course of proprietary
software, copyright, patents, P2P, lawsuits, SPA/RIAA/MPAA, etc. to
gain some appreciation for exactly how big a red pill you'd have to
swallow to shuck the influences under which we've labored to even begin
to see the alternatives.
Something that is really telling to me is the lengths the big boys feel they
need to go to to make the old ways work with the new tech available these
days. See: Is Copyright Dangerous To Democracy?
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-copyright-dangerous-to-democracy.html
drew
drew Roberts wrote:
Surely, although there were / are other ways to keep knowledge out of the
hands of some even without copyrights and patents.
On Monday 18 January 2010 05:26:46 rosea
grammostola wrote:
Greetings Rosea and Drew,
I was making a broader philosophical, and political, point about how the
advance of human knowledge and technology occurred via the process of
building upon prior work, for most of history - freely shared.
Absolutely nothing novel or profound here. It's the essence of the
concept of Free Software, and the essence of what was lost when
knowledge became proprietary. frank pirrone wrote:
This will require some experiments...
Some thoughts:
1. the people who want your fancy, numbered, limited edition boxed sets?
2, the people who want to use it in their blockbuster film which they do
not want to license BY-SA?
See: http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Income
for even more thoughts. Basically, I just write lyrics when it comes to
music. So who is going to pay me? <snip>
We hoped others might build upon our music and anticipated the delight
at hearing a remix, or someone substituting their soaring vocals or
guitar for my humble efforts. It never happened, but I can't think of
a greater "reward" for what we did should it ever.
So, think of it as a kit that you can Freely give to anyone who is
interested, and who can in turn Freely pass it on, inside which are ALL
the parts needed to first do everything we did but more importantly to
start at that point and do something we never imagined.
There is at least one difference. Scientists get payed for their
job/work by the university. Who's gonna pay the musician who is making a
cd (and is not an live musician)?
It's what Stallman wrote about, and the reason for the GPL, or
copyleft. Raymond's bazaar is largely where Open Source resides.
True, buy RMS makes a distinction wrt functional works.
The point here is more circumscribed and sharply focused. First, we did
not even offer to sell our music - we simply gave it away. I'm not sure
if we ever even had a donation link up.
I don't think we did anything for income.
I don't believe so. However,
had we offered our work for sale, in addition to what Drew cites above,
the answer to your question is...our customers. Anyone wanting to buy
our finished CD could/would have paid for it. Especially if we posted
no freely downloadable mixed and mastered finished tracks.
Of course, that play could turn off our fans as much as get them to buy. I
would be interested in experimenting with the limited edition set sale if we
ever get a popular album / single recorded Frank. Perhaps you and I can work
on that some after Feb this year if you have some time.
Think about that in the context of our discussion here: How cool would
that CC by SA/Commercial hybrid model be? We'd still post our
individual tracks, but anyone wanting our "version" of our work could
buy it.
I would suggest we offer it for download at a set your own price (including
$0)
ALL our giant's shoulders would be sitting there
inviting
anyone interested to come and stand on them. Anyone could download them
and mix and master them as they desire. They could, as I suggested in
my original posting, drop my vocal and guitar parts, record their own,
and polish off a finished derivative work! Sampling would take on a new
meaning in that model.
They could then offer theirs for download at a set your own price (with
whetever lower limit they like)
We could also offer other licenses at a cost to those refusing to do BY-SA. (I
think once you publish a song, you can't prevent some of this anyway so we
may as well play that game if the opportunity arises.
Playing
the advocate of the devil here...
Well.... who is going to pay you for your stuff when so many are doing
the Free thing? Back at ya.... ~;-)
> \r all the best,
drew
Frank
9:51 p.m.
drew Roberts wrote:
Something of which you are more familiar than I. I'll take a look to
refresh my memory.
Right. I recall its having come up briefly in a
discussion, and I
suppose you'd actually have to develop an argument for posting ANYthing
on the Internet without including a "Donate" button. Well...maybe not
vacation photos!
Absolutely! I was not suggesting that, even for consideration, and it
would not "feel" right to me in any event. I'm alway open to extending
Packet-In, but first we've got to create something significant without
some of our key players. I'm frantically practicing my djembe!
Seriously, just over 4 weeks in, I'm making sufficient progress where
I'll likely use this instrument in my compositions, and maybe contribute
tracks of it to others.
A reasonable proposal. I assume Peter could turn on an e-commerce plug
in to PayPal or something.
Sure.
Well, I rarely advocate the devil, but fully support your right to do
so!
Seriously, Rosea, these are indeed interesting, and valid questions, but
I believe most folk's reflexive assumptions and answers are subject to
scrutiny. We've ALL had our brains washed...and creme rinsed, I
suppose. Go back and reread Bill Gates' open letter to the Homebrew
Computer Club to see just how entrenched his assumptions were at such an
early stage, and then trace the subsequent course of proprietary
software, copyright, patents, P2P, lawsuits, SPA/RIAA/MPAA, etc. to
gain some appreciation for exactly how big a red pill you'd have to
swallow to shuck the influences under which we've labored to even begin
to see the alternatives.
Something that is really telling to me is the lengths the big boys feel they
need to go to to make the old ways work with the new tech available these
days. See: Is Copyright Dangerous To Democracy?
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-copyright-dangerous-to-democracy.html
Telling, indeed. Stubbornness yielding to nothing and no one. What's
most puzzling is that those embracing new opportunities are so often
successful, and wildly so...
drew
Frank
On Monday 18 January 2010 16:10:22 you wrote:
Tragically so, Drew.
<snip>
Greetings Rosea and Drew,
I was making a broader philosophical, and political, point about how the
advance of human knowledge and technology occurred via the process of
building upon prior work, for most of history - freely shared.
Absolutely nothing novel or profound here. It's the essence of the
concept of Free Software, and the essence of what was lost when
knowledge became proprietary.
Surely, although there were / are other ways to keep knowledge out of the
hands of some even without copyrights and patents.
It's what
Stallman wrote about, and the reason for the GPL, or
copyleft. Raymond's bazaar is largely where Open Source resides.
True, but RMS makes a distinction wrt functional works.
The point here
is more circumscribed and sharply focused. First, we did
not even offer to sell our music - we simply gave it away. I'm not sure
if we ever even had a donation link up.
I don't think we did anything for income.
> I don't believe so. However, had
we offered our work for sale, in addition to what Drew cites above,
the answer to your question is...our customers. Anyone wanting to buy
our finished CD could/would have paid for it. Especially if we posted
no freely downloadable mixed and mastered finished tracks.
Of course, that play could turn off our fans as much as get them to buy. I
would be interested in experimenting with the limited edition set sale if we
ever get a popular album / single recorded Frank. Perhaps you and I can work
on that some after Feb this year if you have some time.
Think about
that in the context of our discussion here: How cool would
that CC by SA/Commercial hybrid model be? We'd still post our
individual tracks, but anyone wanting our "version" of our work could
buy it.
I would suggest we offer it for download at a set your own price (including
$0)
ALL our giant's shoulders would be sitting
there inviting
anyone interested to come and stand on them. Anyone could download them
and mix and master them as they desire. They could, as I suggested in
my original posting, drop my vocal and guitar parts, record their own,
and polish off a finished derivative work! Sampling would take on a new
meaning in that model.
They could then offer theirs for download at a set your own price (with
whetever lower limit they like)
We could also offer other licenses at a cost to those refusing to do BY-SA. (I
think once you publish a song, you can't prevent some of this anyway so we
may as well play that game if the opportunity arises.
Playing the
advocate of the devil here...
Well.... who is going to pay you for your stuff when so many are doing
the Free thing? Back at ya.... ~;-)
> \r
> all the
best,
drew
Frank
11:59 p.m.
On Monday 18 January 2010 20:51:23 you wrote:
Not that I particularly agree with him on this. It may be that his thinking
makes the decision easier or clearer wrt functional works but I think there
are many other considerations that make it worth while to examine the
situation wrt other types of works.
all the best,
drew
True, but RMS
makes a distinction wrt functional works.
Something of which you are more familiar than I. I'll take a look to
refresh my memory.
5452
days inactive
5455
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Atte André Jensen -
Daniel Joshua Worth -
drew Roberts -
frank pirrone -
rosea grammostola