Codes are for Jauk not physics, they happen in the mind and allow you to do what you want...the create possiblities of being. Codes, behaviour are means beside mechanistic points of view, it is to focus on human conscience. An approach could be : how can we make work with pd more intuitive?

Pd is completely free to the user. the adjectiv "open" includes: 1) the possibility of imagining things doing, 2) it is a chance for an universal language: it is possible to speak a language, which other can understand. The more intuitive the language ist, the more intuitive have to be the symbols. But we have to pay caution to a cheap use of intuition. Behavioural language (the feeling of the finger "tips" i.e. in german *Fingerspitzengefühl*) open lines of communication. It is up to you to encourage things, to open them.

Concerning the titel (open source-open to all) it is a covered one from reni. Jauk is not interested in art as a thing isolated from life, for him (and for the most of us) art is part of life. His psychological point of view leads to the hypothesis, that behavourial icons encourage openess, to those who have access :the community that should be extended. Remembering Susanne K. Langers presentative symbols and somehow her theory of the structural correspondence of our feeling to music, Jauk sees the mucical performance,( as just playing music) based on a expressive behaviour with communicative function (thinking of Theodor W. Adorno. Data is a mediatization of immedieate bodily (inter)action and is closely related to doing music (the formalization of interaction, i.e. of music performance)

Open source, the second line of pd, interpretated as public domain, as a basic idea of collected arts, needs a common structuring: i.e. structured communities and structured "products": together it will work: the structure of work and the product. Open source is a question of attitude; should it be more than this? Should it get poltical reality ? open source is a legal reality and includes the attempts, that more people act and participate on pd. There should happen a feedback process beween developers and users through sensitive icons. And the question always arises :why do I want to be some kind of part in a collective process? To share codes is something up to you :you share, because you want to. Susanne Schmidt distinguishes between the license and the process development, interrupted by Hofbauer, who states, that science is closed, dispite of our idea of truth.

Projects, that are in the beginning as open defined are then often killed in the political reality. The community of science could have been a model to open source, but it developed in a bad manner, and this is to think over, the reason why...

How far is pd involved in institutes, how far occupied in commercial systems, is it still free? A problem of science, to give away your patches to society, will it be rewarded? It is a paradoxon, that science is forced by hieratic rules: the rules and therefore the roles of the product and that of the structure, -how could they be linked ?

The idea of community can delegate problems and result finally in a worldwide community, what would be a political decision, due to different openesses and interests. Pd as interface allows us to join the political process, it is a common data, but why are some many musicians are handling with it ? (more than 80 % says jauk, but the answer might be given...) Pd allows an integration of all those experiences through the centuries, and maybe it is indeed an utopia to call out for a trangress of sensory, but it might be worth attempting.