It's pretty awesome being at the frontier of the Internet--and I really believe that the Internet is just as revolutionary as the
Gutenburg printing press--just because it expands the ease of transmission and sharing of informaion. However, at the same time we're seeing a societal reaction to this development: music sharing and the RIAA lawsuits is a prime example of how, as a society, we're trying to grapple with and hopefully accept the Internet as a new medium of information dissemination. "Stealing"--in regards to "intellectual property," outside of the physical world--has become a somewhat more nebulous definition--mostly because judging the loss of value (especially electronic value, mostly in "micropayment" format) from such acts of "electronic theft" becomes that much more difficult the medium of the Internet. At the same time, "sharing," as well, takes on an entirely new meaning for the same reasons--duplication and transmission of any such intellectual property across the Internet is close to nil--especially as bandwidth increases and cost of access decreases and becomes more ubiquitous.
One response to the new way of distributing information via the Internet medium is the "
open source" movement that's been gaining traction in the last few years. The motivation behind "open source" seems to be the belief that information is better when shared--that information comes into being from people, and the more people who contribute to developing and shaping that information, the better that bit of information will become. It's not just software like Linux, but such entities as Wikipedia that have been leveraging this ideal, and even Linden Labs have made both their Viewer and Server software "open" (it's arguable to say whether or not sites like YouTube and MySpace have also been encouraging a degree of "openness"--but their nature as social sites acknowledge the underlying "open source" philosophies that information, in its very essence, is social and better-off when made accessible to society as a whole--it's also sorta related to the whole discussion about "open" and "democracy"--but that's really another discussion for another blog ;D).
More specifically, I think there's something to be said of the difference between stuff that's "open" and "free." Mostly, these terms apply to software, but I think it's readily applicable to just about any sort of intellectual property--both on-line or off-line/real-world.
"Open" happens to be free a lot, and a lot of times it's even synonymous with "free," so what's the difference really? I'm not going to really delve into a discussion of "copyleft" (a sorta anti-copyright, where instead of limiting usage/modifcation/distribution rights through legal means, such rights are expanded, extended, maintained, and required via legal means), but more about the fine line where "open" is "free." In my opinion, when "open" is "free," "open" still kinda means a little more than "free"--not necessarily "free, but with strings attached"--but "open" seems to be a kind of "free" that implies and encourages a certain social responsibility--a responsibility to further expand upon the knowledge and benefits of such "open" information. Of course, someone could easily utilize an "open" item as if it were merely a "free" item--and there's really no problem with that either.
The difference further between "free" and "open" further extends when one examines the ultimate utility of the item in question: "free" items seem to have a "final" and "consumerist" utility--its utility ends upon its "consumption;" whereas "open" items are constantly evolving--their usefulness transforms and adapts to new situations and scenarios. Granted, an "open" item may eventually become obsolete where its utility is no longer suitable to current situations; in fact, any "open" item that stops evolving will become obsolete just by being unable to fulfill its original destiny of continual improvement and evolution.
That said, I don't believe that I'm necessarily in the
empire-building segment of SL (e.g. Anshe Chung, various others, etc...)--I'm not trying to destroy any fledging skin creators out there by offering free, full permissions skins. My response to those who'd accuse me of undermining their business and livelihood: download my skin textures, ask me for my PSDs, and incorporate whatever improvements, bits and pieces you'd like into your own developments and sell them--my skins are "open," and that's what they're there for. I'd like to think that I'm not an empire-building magnate trying to destroy you, but more of a culture-changing hippie giving you free stuff!
At the same time, I'm not really trying to compete with any of the major, successful skin creators--simply because I can't and I won't: I don't intend on expanding my "store" beyond my 496 square metres of foggy land in Lippert, nor am I really targetting their prime demographic of spendy fashionistas. In fact, a large portion of the comments I'm getting about my free/full-permissions skins are in regards to the fact that they're free--not so much that they include full permissions textures. I guess I'm really only targetting Photoshop ninjas, like
Noam, with my textures, just because anyone who only wants a free skin isn't going to care so much about having its full-permissions textures included (and, in contrast, anyone who wants a full-permissions skin is aware that such a thing previously only existed at exorbitant cost and that mod'ing someone else's stuff in SL is
pretty much taboo--even moar taboo than babyfursex).
So, it's a lot like this whole "open" versus "free" thing--yes my skins are both "open" and "free," and I'd like them to be thought more of as "open," but at the same time it's ok if people assume that they're "free"--just because the concept of "open" hasn't quite become mainstream yet, and that's why I'm here offering full-permissions skins. I'm really hoping that the idea of "open" takes off--and maybe it's just because I'm too enamored by its potential, but if even a small portion of what it promises to accomplish actually happens, it'll be more than enough.
And lastly, should there actually be any kind of Second Life Skin Creators Union, Local 204 that's pissed off that I've violated some kinda
sacred magician-esque code to secrecy, come and break my SL kneecaps. I dare ya.
(well, you'd probably hafta gimme a knee-caps-breaking animation first, and then setup a photoshoot thingy...)
