>
>I'm not saying there aren't limits to the availability of FLOSS
>because there are. Somebody who only runs Windows would have a hard
>time installing Fluxus, for example, but FLOSS goes to a
>considerably greater length in making the language available to
>everybody and additionally would give a particularly dedicated
>audience-member the chance to review the internal nature of the
>language itself in order to understand what was "said" and how.
>Likely nobody would actually do this after a set but if we want to
>get away from obscurity in performance it can be important that one
>*could*.
>
>>From there on one might even argue that it's preferable to use tools
>written in a language that's itself open and using a open compiler,
>even.
>
>Yours,
>Kas.
And in addition to this, a lot of code is "closed source" in the
sense that practically no one ever looks at it (and no one wants to),
because it works. I'd say livecoding is about reading code just as
much as writing it. Also FLOSS challenges closed source approaches by
assuming that one should be able to read code just as one should be
able to read a book.
I also like the article!
--
.
Received on Wed Apr 02 2008 - 08:52:31 BST