ARTBASE (3)
PORTFOLIO (2)
BIO
Rob Myers is an artist and hacker based in the UK.
I have been creating images of the contemporary social and cultural environment through programming, design software and visual remixing since the early 1990s. My work is influenced by popular culture and high art in equal measures. My interest in remixing and sampling has led to my involvement in the Free Culture movement. I have been involved in the public consultation regarding the Creative Commons 2.0 and CC-UK licenses. All my visual art is available under a Creative Commons license.
My interest in programming has led to my involvement with the Free Software movement. I developed the Macintosh version of the Gwydion Dylan programming language compiler. All my software is available under the GNU GPL.
I have been creating images of the contemporary social and cultural environment through programming, design software and visual remixing since the early 1990s. My work is influenced by popular culture and high art in equal measures. My interest in remixing and sampling has led to my involvement in the Free Culture movement. I have been involved in the public consultation regarding the Creative Commons 2.0 and CC-UK licenses. All my visual art is available under a Creative Commons license.
My interest in programming has led to my involvement with the Free Software movement. I developed the Macintosh version of the Gwydion Dylan programming language compiler. All my software is available under the GNU GPL.
Re: Linux and free art tools
A non-free Linux won't happen.
SCO have produced no evidence, and unless there's some reality-bending legal kryptonite in the old BSD settlement, they are looking increasingly desperate. If they do ever produce evidence that they own the code that Novell also claims ownership of, and evidence that IBM copied that code into Linux, the offending code will be removed from Linux in a matter of hours. Their code claims so far were been disproved once people changed the font they hid their presentation in back from a Greek font to an ASCII one. I don't think SCO knew what to do with themselves when IBM chose to fight rather than just buy them up...
What this case *has* highlighted is how IP risk in GPL-licensed works is passed on. This can be tackled with *general* insurance, rather than the single-vendor indemnification some vendors are now offering. This will increase costs slightly but not to the hundreds of dollars SCO claim to want.
It's also highlighted that the advantages of Free software go beyond it's usual cheapness. Linux isn't costless, if you download it over the internet you pay for electricity and ISP time. It's important aspect is its *freedom* as defined by the FSF, and that is being defended rigorously. I pay for Darwin when I buy MacOSX, and I'm happy that the source being Open has advantages over it being Closed that make it worth more than the hidden security black-hole of Microsoft's code. If I could get Illustrator's source code under an Open Source license I'd frankly wet myself and I'd upgrade for the first time in almost a decade. * But I'm writing my own Free vector editor to make sure I can have the source code and modify it however I want (http://www.robmyers.org/minara).
If SCO move the case to a parallel universe where their arguments have merit, and they win, and Linux isn't fixed, and people get sued, and monkeys fly out of my butt, we can fall back to BSD, Darwin, HURD or one of the many other free UN*X-like operating systems available with all the APIs you're used to. Your ISP probably already uses BSD, and BSD settled a lawsuit from SCO's ancestors out of court some time ago. **
I second your recommendation of Groklaw. It's a brilliant application of Open Source methods to a non-software project, and a real eye-opener. And the SCO license, for something they don't own and that if they claim to own they're breaking the license they distribute much of their own software under, is always good for a laugh. :-)
- Rob.
* - Yes, I understand how FOSS licences work. I'm not trying to misrepresent the fact that if Illustrator were open you could get the code for no cost, I'm trying to emphasise that being able to get the code *adds value* and supporting this is worthwhile.
** - BSD could have won, but for some strange reason they added a couple of copyright headers to a couple of source files instead and everyone went home.
On Thursday, February 05, 2004, at 10:51AM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
>Considering the fact that there have often been discussions on the list
>regarding the tools used to create digital art and their cost, I'm a bit
>surprised that there hasn't been any discussion about the whole
>SCO/IBM/Linux issue. I feel that Linux and the whole Open Source concept
>is an extremely important issue to the internet and software based arts
>(so I almost understand why they got that Golden Nica a few years ago). I
>wonder if anyone has considered the potential impact that a non-free Linux
>might have on the field. I know for one that I wouldn't be doing what I'm
>doing now if it weren't for Open Source and Linux, hosting prices would
>probably go up and being bound to proprietary software would seriously
>limit various possibilities for experimentation.
>
>If you have no idea what I'm talking about, here are a couple of websites
>on the issue:
>
>http://www.groklaw.net
>http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
>
>Pall
>--
>Pall Thayer
>artist/teacher
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>http://130.208.220.190/
>http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
>http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
SCO have produced no evidence, and unless there's some reality-bending legal kryptonite in the old BSD settlement, they are looking increasingly desperate. If they do ever produce evidence that they own the code that Novell also claims ownership of, and evidence that IBM copied that code into Linux, the offending code will be removed from Linux in a matter of hours. Their code claims so far were been disproved once people changed the font they hid their presentation in back from a Greek font to an ASCII one. I don't think SCO knew what to do with themselves when IBM chose to fight rather than just buy them up...
What this case *has* highlighted is how IP risk in GPL-licensed works is passed on. This can be tackled with *general* insurance, rather than the single-vendor indemnification some vendors are now offering. This will increase costs slightly but not to the hundreds of dollars SCO claim to want.
It's also highlighted that the advantages of Free software go beyond it's usual cheapness. Linux isn't costless, if you download it over the internet you pay for electricity and ISP time. It's important aspect is its *freedom* as defined by the FSF, and that is being defended rigorously. I pay for Darwin when I buy MacOSX, and I'm happy that the source being Open has advantages over it being Closed that make it worth more than the hidden security black-hole of Microsoft's code. If I could get Illustrator's source code under an Open Source license I'd frankly wet myself and I'd upgrade for the first time in almost a decade. * But I'm writing my own Free vector editor to make sure I can have the source code and modify it however I want (http://www.robmyers.org/minara).
If SCO move the case to a parallel universe where their arguments have merit, and they win, and Linux isn't fixed, and people get sued, and monkeys fly out of my butt, we can fall back to BSD, Darwin, HURD or one of the many other free UN*X-like operating systems available with all the APIs you're used to. Your ISP probably already uses BSD, and BSD settled a lawsuit from SCO's ancestors out of court some time ago. **
I second your recommendation of Groklaw. It's a brilliant application of Open Source methods to a non-software project, and a real eye-opener. And the SCO license, for something they don't own and that if they claim to own they're breaking the license they distribute much of their own software under, is always good for a laugh. :-)
- Rob.
* - Yes, I understand how FOSS licences work. I'm not trying to misrepresent the fact that if Illustrator were open you could get the code for no cost, I'm trying to emphasise that being able to get the code *adds value* and supporting this is worthwhile.
** - BSD could have won, but for some strange reason they added a couple of copyright headers to a couple of source files instead and everyone went home.
On Thursday, February 05, 2004, at 10:51AM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
>Considering the fact that there have often been discussions on the list
>regarding the tools used to create digital art and their cost, I'm a bit
>surprised that there hasn't been any discussion about the whole
>SCO/IBM/Linux issue. I feel that Linux and the whole Open Source concept
>is an extremely important issue to the internet and software based arts
>(so I almost understand why they got that Golden Nica a few years ago). I
>wonder if anyone has considered the potential impact that a non-free Linux
>might have on the field. I know for one that I wouldn't be doing what I'm
>doing now if it weren't for Open Source and Linux, hosting prices would
>probably go up and being bound to proprietary software would seriously
>limit various possibilities for experimentation.
>
>If you have no idea what I'm talking about, here are a couple of websites
>on the issue:
>
>http://www.groklaw.net
>http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
>
>Pall
>--
>Pall Thayer
>artist/teacher
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>http://130.208.220.190/
>http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
>http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
Re: almost gibberish
On Sunday, February 01, 2004, at 11:42PM, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It was really only a bit of spleen venting on my part
I can relate to that. :-)
>.. but I have to disagree with you a little ..I think
>engaging with this sort of nonsense legitimises it..it
>becomes ( becomes -who am I kidding -*is*) part of the
>commonly accepted culture..and it's simply a
>substitute for thought..I'm not sure that ironizing it
>does anything either except engage with it on its own
>shallow terms.
I agree that producing something explained in terms of or just illustrating curatorial cyber-wibble* would just legitimise it. However a critical engagement (and "engagement" can refer to a military event as well as a social event...) might be more effective than spleen venting IMVHO.
And I didn't think the proposal was all that bad. Our current political problems have much to do with interface/mediation problems. Or can be phrased in that way. Content doesn't have to be single-layered.
For *real* curatorial wibble you should read the "Artbollocks" page in "The Jackdaw" magazine. :-)
>Sometimes, big things , little things , Iraq War,
>cyber babble , you have to take a stand.
>If it was a choice between going back to a day job &
>only having the possibility of working with dreck like
>this quite honestly I think I'd go back to work.
>best
Or you can send them a urinal.
But I have a day job. I'd rather start with the dreck and come up with something useful. Like making "tupperware" from the sludge it starts out as...
- Rob.
* - Wibble = voluminous nonsense.
> It was really only a bit of spleen venting on my part
I can relate to that. :-)
>.. but I have to disagree with you a little ..I think
>engaging with this sort of nonsense legitimises it..it
>becomes ( becomes -who am I kidding -*is*) part of the
>commonly accepted culture..and it's simply a
>substitute for thought..I'm not sure that ironizing it
>does anything either except engage with it on its own
>shallow terms.
I agree that producing something explained in terms of or just illustrating curatorial cyber-wibble* would just legitimise it. However a critical engagement (and "engagement" can refer to a military event as well as a social event...) might be more effective than spleen venting IMVHO.
And I didn't think the proposal was all that bad. Our current political problems have much to do with interface/mediation problems. Or can be phrased in that way. Content doesn't have to be single-layered.
For *real* curatorial wibble you should read the "Artbollocks" page in "The Jackdaw" magazine. :-)
>Sometimes, big things , little things , Iraq War,
>cyber babble , you have to take a stand.
>If it was a choice between going back to a day job &
>only having the possibility of working with dreck like
>this quite honestly I think I'd go back to work.
>best
Or you can send them a urinal.
But I have a day job. I'd rather start with the dreck and come up with something useful. Like making "tupperware" from the sludge it starts out as...
- Rob.
* - Wibble = voluminous nonsense.
Re: almost gibberish
On Sunday, February 01, 2004, at 11:54PM, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
>epigones.
Cool, I learnt a new word. :-)
- Rob.
>epigones.
Cool, I learnt a new word. :-)
- Rob.
Re: almost gibberish
Then it is entirely gibberish.
Hoorah! :-)
OK, sorry, in plain non-Rob English:
If you don't like what they're saying there are still constructive ways
of engaging with it.
I'm not that keen on this kind of gibberish either, but engaging
constructively with it means that it can be got rid of or redirected.
- Rob.
On 1 Feb 2004, at 21:40, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> Rob
> I don't understand any of your reply.
Hoorah! :-)
OK, sorry, in plain non-Rob English:
If you don't like what they're saying there are still constructive ways
of engaging with it.
I'm not that keen on this kind of gibberish either, but engaging
constructively with it means that it can be got rid of or redirected.
- Rob.
On 1 Feb 2004, at 21:40, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> Rob
> I don't understand any of your reply.