Talk:Free and Open Source Software

From The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki)
Revision as of 14:51, 5 February 2009 by Ayelet (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please post comments, suggestions, etc. for our F/OSS page!!

Crowdsourcing and Gift Economies?

If we managed to bore ourselves with this topic, maybe we can move it along into a discussion of what crowdsourcing can learn from free software. They seems to meet at a philosophical level around the notion of a gift economy, don't they? Dulles 07:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think we bored ourselves - reading what you wrote, I think we could think (and I'm following Yochai Benkler's class today) of proprietary software - based on an intellectual property regime - as a "clash of civilizations" with f/oss, which is based on a commons-based system. that is, because these both are based on two different sets of assumption: market economy v. gift/reputation economy, hegemony v. grassroots movement.

the interesting question we could consider is, I think, about F/OSS as growing "in the shadow of the IP law" (it is a reference to a classic article about settlement arrangements as being "in the shadow of the law").

Benkler, for one, would think (I think) that IP law and IP-based systems create an infrastructure that stops F/OSS from developing. Lessig, on the other hand, if I understand correctly, as in the Creative Commons idea, thinks that the two can develop at the same time.

I think a very cool idea will be to ask them both (maybe Lessig via video-conference) to debate about the question of the enfluence of current copyright and patent law as to software as a "shadow" for the development of F/OSS. (Ayelet)

You may want to meet up with me & Miriam at some point to discuss some commonalities between our two weeks. One of the central questions that we are considering is whether our ideal of creativity is best effected within or outside of IP mechanisms, specifically copyright. --JFishman 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Usufruct?

Can we use the concept of usufruct? Dulles 07:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Feedback, Feb 2

  • How to best deploy Mako? There are other options other than "focus group of 1."
  • You seem to focus on the economics. How about the culture? (Analogies to movements, religious movements)
  • Another dimensional aspect: public generation of a public good - the public domain debate and what goes on with copyright.

Twittering

A thought: you might want to send a "how to twitter" introduction email/link to the class mailing list, and offer to help get people set up. Also, I hear that educators are ridiculously good at using twitter as a means of communication, so that's a demographic you might ask (perhaps through User:Drood for best practices and tips.) Mchua 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

old formulation of class

Fundemental Questions

Why is free software created? Why does it succeed? How can we secure and promote free software?

Precis

Free and is Speech. Free as in Beer.

Before any discussion of free software, it's important to make sure everybody understands the term. There are two meanings of "free" at work. Free software has zero monetary cost. Nothing. Zip. Nada. It is software gratis. Free software is, in some sense, freeware.

But free software is also software libre. This means that it is not tied down by the usual intellectual property rules. Freedom breaks down into four elements.

  1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  2. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
  4. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Gift Economics

Free software appears to not obey the usual rules of market based economies. Many of those who contribute to the codebase of large free software projects, for example, are unpaid amateurs working in their free time. We propose that free software is properly understood, in part, using the mechanics of gift economies rather than market economies. These are economies which value reputation over profit, where value is had in the giving, not in the taking, and where the wealthiest are those who have given away the most. Certainly some developers, such as Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, and Richard Stallman, have earned their share of fame and reputation.

On the other hand, perhaps it's not proper to think of free software as a classical gift economy like those outlined by Lewis Hyde in The Gift (assigned). In a digital world, a developer who gives away his code still has access to his code. Software replicates. Does this have any bearing on the analysis of free software as a gift economy?

Market Economics

Capitalism surrounds free software. Linux distributors such as RedHat operate in the market economy even though their products are free, depending on a services based business model. Furthermore, not all developers are unpaid amateurs. Some are actually paid to do it. It's not uncommon for a commercial software developer to dedicate part of his work-time to developing free software, especially when their companies depend on that software and have an interest in it's development.

As a capitalist enterprise, why would a company spend its developers' time on contributing to free software? It's true that many commercial enterprises rely on free software, so there's a clear collective interest in its development. But in dollars and cents, is it really worth it for a software company to let its developers spend part of their time writing for the Linux kernel?

Planned Evolution

In addition to the usefulness of gift and market economies as tools for understanding free software, it may be useful to consider the movement as a planning or staged happening. Prof. Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center asserts that free software as a movement is part of a larger planned development of the way we will interact in a digital future. Certainly this is represented in the philosophy of the Free Software Foundation. Yet GNU/Linux, arguably the most successful free software project, was founded by a man not particularly fond of ideology, whose initial motivations seemed to relate more to hobby than philosophy.

Breaking Down the Investigation

  1. Motivations: Why contribute to free software as an unpaid hobbyist or as a corporation? Gift economics? Market economics? Planned evolution?
  2. Success: Free software is successful - why?
  3. The Law: Given what we can discern about free software's success, how can the American IP regime alter to protect and encourage free software? How do these tweaks highlight the three motivations outlined?

Guest Wish-list

  • Mako - as an insider from the free software movement.

Readings

Supplemental (non required) Readings

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Talk:Free_and_Open_Source_Software&oldid=1571"