[FC-discuss] Free Software and Free Culture

[Crosbie Fitch]

> From: MJ Ray
> Rob Myers
> > Free Software as described by Stallman comes from the fact 
> that software 
> > is functional, it is basically a machine. A novel, a play, 
> a painting or 
> > a concerto are not functional, they are not machines. [...]
> 
> Fortunately, I think the post by Rob Myers goes on to make sense.

Yes.

There is nothing to be gained for the purpose of restoring liberty to the
public by creating spurious borders between works of the intellect (based on
dimensions of utility, aesthetics, cogency, veracity, function, etc.).

Whether knitting pattern, bouille abaisse recipe, music score, stage play,
or the agenda for a meeting, it doesn't matter if you wear it, eat it,
listen to it, watch it, or suffer it, it's intellectual and it's property,
and if it's yours, then you can do what the flip you want with it: use it,
copy it, learn from it, improve it, sell it, etc.

Everything someone pays their mind to is art. It matters not how useful, how
functional, how pretty, how replicable, how instructional, how tangible. 

So, is everything art?

No, that which no-one pays their mind to is not art. Navel lint is not art -
though it is if you place it upon a pedestal. A nail is not art unless you
admire the aesthetic purity of its design. A sheet of paper is not art -
unless you find its perfect ratio pleasing. A cloud is not art - unless you
remark upon its form. A tree in a forest is not art - unless from your camp
fire you remark upon its vivacious shadows. An electric kettle on a
production line is not art - though its design is.

Art is thought realised.

Art that you apprehend is your intellectual property, and you are free to
keep it, share it, give it, or exchange it. The truth of its creation or
discovery remains inviolate.

Suspending the liberty of the public to share and build upon the
intellectual property they exchange is an unethical commercial privilege.