I think that Martin Luther's story is very similar to modern times with the battle over open-source code. Open Source means that the code for a program, the nuts and bolts about how it runs, is available for everyone who wants it. Linux is an open source Operating system that is extremely popular among many computer scientists due to its complete configuration ability. Since the entire code is available, people can manipulate the code to do exactly what they want it to do, and not have to worry about pre-configured systems.
On the other hand of open source is closed source. You can probably guess what this means; the code is hidden from the public eye. It's copyrighted and protected from viewing and manipulating. Microsoft Windows and Office, Adobe CS4 Suite, and many other programs are examples of closed source.
There are even software packages that are a combination of closed and open. Mac OS (Apple's Operating System) is this type. It has many open-source base components with some design concepts and code proprietary
We talked today in class about open government, and I thought of this correlation between open, closed, and a combination. In my mind, a combination is the way to go! (I can't believe I'm giving props to Apple...) Having some portions of the government hidden and secret is essential to the security, privacy, and well being of its citizens. But, as citizens, we should be entitled to know some of the inner workings of the government, and not just be consider ignorant.
safety v. freedom has often been a source of conflict in many civilizations. When we are able to talk about freedom, we know we are safe, but we can compromise our safety with too much freedom. It has to be a compromise.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to imagine what it must have been like to live in Martin Luther's time. The Lollards had a point, I think; I don't know if I would be up there with them, working almost certainly towards martyrdom, but their work of spreading literacy and knowledge definitely went a long way.
I agree that there must be a balance. However, I think that circumstances/events may tip the balance towards one side or the other. After 9/11, when people were concerned a lot about safety, as Dr. Burton said in class, we saw the giving up of civil liberties. And for a historical example, we can of course quote the Protestant Reformation, when people were dissatisfied with the prevalent institution and were concerned more about freedom. And honestly, I think there not only SHOULD be, but MUST be a compromise; I don't think the Leviathan in some shape or form will ever go away.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that their should be a balance and I think that is why our government was designed in the way it was. There is a strong central authority but it is also designed to be accountable to the people. I think that in some ways though that we might need to do a better job at holding it accountable
ReplyDelete