Lembrando que hoje, 15/6, devemos finalizar a edicao do documento a ser entregue para o Ministerio. Por Oriana Persico e Salvatore Iaconesi FreeSoftware (and everything free in philosophy, meaning free from patents, licenses, copyrights..) can be considered as an enabling tool that can be used to obtain know-how on accessible technologies. In this role it is mainly used to produce multimedia content and to produce/provide immaterial production and services.The production of media, together with the possibility for a potentially free mass distribution, can bear various meanings: as an example, it could prove a fundamental tool used to document the heritages of marginal communities (economically, culturally, anthropologically, or even at the risk of extinction) by leveraging the advantages coming from the availability of a public space that is truly accessible1.On the other hand, the production of services and skills allows for the creation and collection of sources of economic sustainment.But the FreeSoftware-based approach remains a partial one and it does not represent a complete solution to the real problems created by the existence of cultural diversities: the definitions of integrability and of the processes for integration.It's not possible to talk in terms that are exclusively technological.The process of integrating heterogeneous communities allows for a loss, expressed in terms of ecology, of anthropological contamination and, in extreme cases, of a real invasion of the traditions and heritages, determined in most cases by the application of the necessary2 elements of standardization (a simple example is the use of the English language; another one is the use of systems and interfaces that are standardized, be them in New York or in the middle of the Amazon forest).As an integration tool technology is used to define standard spaces for all of the typologies of actors wanting to join in.Multimedia production systems effectively allow for the publication of contents to a space that is really public. Contents that can document and explain the identity of the communities. These opportunities have produced effects that are evident, but limited in scope: the contents remained in their niche and they only seldom created the conditions for a change in the living conditions of their subjects and producers, due to the lack of notoriety and power; even more, the awesome power created by the diffusion of multimedia contents (just think of Rodney King's case), sadly, is not the norm, but the exception.In the same way, immaterial production remains the niche: the majority of musical bands, for example, can freely produce their music, but they aren't able to access a market share that allows for a real dispute against the majors in the promotion of their models and methodologies (when they exist) .Autonomous production remains in its state of niche phenomenon, while the mass audience remains connected to mainstream culture and content.Even the Web2.0 exists in this terms. User generated content is truly more significant for the Enterprises providing the services than it is for the single people participating to it3.Service production behaves in the same way: autonomous production of services is really useful for the support of small commercial activities, but it