These alternatives in software, Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), are highly pragmatic, doing the work required of them but also reinventing forms of production in ways that set up real possibilities for freedom. (Page no 13)
The Free Software Definition3 states that free software contains the following freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom2).
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvementsTo the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
Access to the source code is a precondition for this. (Page no 16)
Thoughts —
The author compares the idea of architecture development with software development and its related system types and freedoms working with it. Particularly open source software with access to source code and data. Is this saying about architectural data like building designs, city plans and collected data from people time to time?
(Freedom 0)– Architecture and spaces are the mostly static physical thing, requires lots of resources to make it happen a trial and error is not possible in terms architecture. How this freedom will be possible in terms of architecture and building space.
(Freddom1)(freedom2) — Architecture design and data to study is already available, one can modify according to needs. But most of the time modification won’t work completely, factors like climate, location, rules and resources don’t go with an idea. Also personal choice and requirement of investor play a major role. Source code, in this case, is design drawings and authenticity of creation could be an issue in this situation. Creativity comes with one’s pride and it’s a push force to create next. In open source scenario city will might look like monotonous and fewer creations will be there.
(Freedom3)—Freedom to involve and improve is a really fantastic idea. But in another perspective it might not end up with that great achievement, public opinions and feedbacks come in large numbers and with lots of glitches. Needs lots of time to gather data and participants also need a lot of time to involve which they don’t want to give for free. Evaluating them is issue and result might disappoint many participants. Participation in architectural problems needs professional skill sets to think and it’s not common. Giving inputs for free is opposite sometimes to its professional behavior.
—————————————————————————————-
Architecture is merely an epiphenomenon of the political, monetary and material requirements of certain dominant fractions of society, perhaps all such an open aesthetics of organization would tend to do is to render such processes “democratic.” (Page no 18)
Architecture is epiphenomenon could have another perspective looking toward it. Architecture is in Harmony one could say. That doesn’t mean its byproduct of political, monetary and material requirements of certain dominant fractions of society. Political, monetary and material requirements or restrictions are planned set of rules by the scholar in that field. Otherwise, cityscape could look like chaos. For example, an old roman city used to have similar kind of architecture which was built under political, monetary and material conditions. It’s about Freedom but the result could be Harmony or Chaos.