Free and Open Source Software: Difference between revisions

From The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(added supplemental readings (non required))
(re-formatting)
Line 3: Line 3:
Back to [[syllabus]].
Back to [[syllabus]].


=Precis=
===Fundemental Questions===


Free and Open Source Software (F/OSS) [http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/simple.pdf appears to not obey the usual rules of market based economies]. Many of those who contribute to the codebase of large F/OSS projects, for example, are [http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/whowhy.xml unpaid amateurs] working in their free time. Startlingly, others are [http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6523449045.html paid to do it]. We propose that F/OSS is best understood, in part, using the mechanics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy 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. Yet capitalism surrounds F/OSS. Linux distributors such as [http://www.redhat.com/ RedHat] operate in the market economy even though their products are free, depending on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_open-source services based business model].
Why is free software created? Why does it succeed? How can we secure and promote free software?


Yet in addition to the usefulness of gift and market economies as tools for understanding F/OSS, it may be useful to consider the movement as a planning or staged happening. [http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/ Prof. Eben Moglen] of the [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ Software Freedom Law Center] asserts that F/OSS as a movement is part of a larger [http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/911/ planned development] of the way we will interact in a digital future. Certainly this is represented in the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html philosophy] of the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]. Yet [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux GNU/Linux], arguably the most successful F/OSS project, was founded by a man [http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html not particularly fond of ideology], whose [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/msg/b813d52cbc5a044b initial motivations] seemed to relate more to hobby than philosophy.
===Precis===


In our class we will try to track the economies and motivations that motivate the F/OSS movement, from an insider and an outsider perspective. We will focus of three questions regarding the economies of F/OSS:
====Gift Economics====


# Motivations: Why contribute to F/OSS as a hobbyist, without payment? Alternately, why contribute to F/OSS as a corporation, without claiming IP?
Free and Open Source Software (F/OSS) [http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/simple.pdf appears to not obey the usual rules of market based economies]. Many of those who contribute to the codebase of large F/OSS projects, for example, are [http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/whowhy.xml unpaid amateurs] working in their free time. We propose that F/OSS is best understood, in part, using the mechanics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy 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.
# Capitalism: Where and how does F/OSS meet the bottom-line?
# The Law: Given what we know about F/OSS incentives both in the market and gift economies, how does the American IP regime encourage and discourage F/OSS, and what tweaks would help promote F/OSS?


====Market Economics====


Although the creative potential of the intellectual commons isn't limited to software, the Internet and computer technology generally enable commons-based creativity in ways never before possible. With F/OSS as an arguable successful specimen of commons-based development ("with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow"), how might the model fail or succeed for artistic creation generally?
On the other hand, capitalism surrounds F/OSS. Linux distributors such as [http://www.redhat.com/ RedHat] operate in the market economy even though their products are free, depending on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_open-source services based business model]. Furthermore, not all developers are unpaid amateurs, but some are actually [http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6523449045.html 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.


=Fundemental Question=
====Planned Evolution====


How is F/OSS created, and how should law be reformed to promote and secure F/OSS?
In addition to the usefulness of gift and market economies as tools for understanding F/OSS, it may be useful to consider the movement as a planning or staged happening. [http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/ Prof. Eben Moglen] of the [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ Software Freedom Law Center] asserts that F/OSS as a movement is part of a larger [http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/911/ planned development] of the way we will interact in a digital future. Certainly this is represented in the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html philosophy] of the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]. Yet [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux GNU/Linux], arguably the most successful F/OSS project, was founded by a man [http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html not particularly fond of ideology], whose [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/msg/b813d52cbc5a044b initial motivations] seemed to relate more to hobby than philosophy.


=Guest Wish-list=
====Breaking Down the Investigation====
 
# Motivations: Why contribute to free software as an unpaid hobbyist or as a corporation? Gift economics? Market economics? Planned evolution?
# Success: Free software is successful - why?
# 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===


* [http://www.mako.cc/ Mako] - as an insider from the F/OSS movement. (awaiting response)
* [http://www.mako.cc/ Mako] - as an insider from the F/OSS movement. (awaiting response)


=Readings=
===Readings===


* [http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property/dp/0394715195 The Gift], by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Hyde Lewis Hyde]. Chapter Five "The Gift Community" (p. 96-120).
* [http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property/dp/0394715195 The Gift], by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Hyde Lewis Hyde]. Chapter Five "The Gift Community" (p. 96-120).
Line 33: Line 39:
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Public License] version 3.
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Public License] version 3.


=Supplemental (non required) Readings=
===Supplemental (non required) Readings===


* [http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/free-software-philosophy.html Philosophies of Free Software and Intellectual Property], by The Famous Brett Watson.
* [http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/free-software-philosophy.html Philosophies of Free Software and Intellectual Property], by The Famous Brett Watson.
Line 39: Line 45:
* [http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ The Cathedral and the Bazaar], by Eric S. Raymond.
* [http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ The Cathedral and the Bazaar], by Eric S. Raymond.


= Class Twitter Conversation =
=== Class Twitter Conversation ===


In addition to the listserv, which will doubtlessly allow us to communicate our thoughts between classes and develop our discussion, we propose to use [http://twitter.com Twitter] to create a simultaneous mode of discussion designed to be informal and strongly conversational. Because Twitter limits entries to 140 characters, the service should naturally lend itself to such discussion.
In addition to the listserv, which will doubtlessly allow us to communicate our thoughts between classes and develop our discussion, we propose to use [http://twitter.com Twitter] to create a simultaneous mode of discussion designed to be informal and strongly conversational. Because Twitter limits entries to 140 characters, the service should naturally lend itself to such discussion.


In order to tie our tweets together, we can use the [http://twitter.com/hashtags @hashtags] system. Documentation [http://twitter.pbwiki.com/Hashtags 1] [http://thepaisano.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/twitter-hashtags-and-groups/ 2]. We propose to use the #iif tag. Students may read the hashtag using the [http://hashtags.org/tag/iif hashtags.org] system or at the [http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iif Twitter search page]. However we recommend that students follow the #iif hashtag using the RSS feed available at [http://hashtags.org/tag/iif hashtags.org]. The RSS feed from [http://search.twitter.com search.twitter.com] unfortunately drops the username originating the tweet. Students are encouraged to investigate other Twitter client applications and RSS readers in order to make it exceptionally easy to read the #iif tweets and to post updates, making the whole endeavor something akin to a chatroom without requiring that we all log in to IRC.
In order to tie our tweets together, we can use the [http://twitter.com/hashtags @hashtags] system. Documentation [http://twitter.pbwiki.com/Hashtags 1] [http://thepaisano.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/twitter-hashtags-and-groups/ 2]. We propose to use the #iif tag. Students may read the hashtag using the [http://hashtags.org/tag/iif hashtags.org] system or at the [http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iif Twitter search page]. However we recommend that students follow the #iif hashtag using the RSS feed available at [http://hashtags.org/tag/iif hashtags.org]. The RSS feed from [http://search.twitter.com search.twitter.com] unfortunately drops the username originating the tweet. Students are encouraged to investigate other Twitter client applications and RSS readers in order to make it exceptionally easy to read the #iif tweets and to post updates, making the whole endeavor something akin to a chatroom without requiring that we all log in to IRC.

Revision as of 10:08, 26 January 2009

Topic Owners: dulles,Ayelet

Back to syllabus.

Fundemental Questions

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

Precis

Gift Economics

Free and Open Source Software (F/OSS) appears to not obey the usual rules of market based economies. Many of those who contribute to the codebase of large F/OSS projects, for example, are unpaid amateurs working in their free time. We propose that F/OSS is best 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.

Market Economics

On the other hand, capitalism surrounds F/OSS. 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, but 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.

Planned Evolution

In addition to the usefulness of gift and market economies as tools for understanding F/OSS, 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 F/OSS 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 F/OSS 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 F/OSS movement. (awaiting response)

Readings

Supplemental (non required) Readings

Class Twitter Conversation

In addition to the listserv, which will doubtlessly allow us to communicate our thoughts between classes and develop our discussion, we propose to use Twitter to create a simultaneous mode of discussion designed to be informal and strongly conversational. Because Twitter limits entries to 140 characters, the service should naturally lend itself to such discussion.

In order to tie our tweets together, we can use the @hashtags system. Documentation 1 2. We propose to use the #iif tag. Students may read the hashtag using the hashtags.org system or at the Twitter search page. However we recommend that students follow the #iif hashtag using the RSS feed available at hashtags.org. The RSS feed from search.twitter.com unfortunately drops the username originating the tweet. Students are encouraged to investigate other Twitter client applications and RSS readers in order to make it exceptionally easy to read the #iif tweets and to post updates, making the whole endeavor something akin to a chatroom without requiring that we all log in to IRC.

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Free_and_Open_Source_Software&oldid=1412"