Buy ativan c.o.d., Anthropology is dependent on strangers who become friends and colleagues--strangers who contribute the very essence of the work. In my case, these strangers are also hyperaware of issues of credit, reputation, acknowledgment, Comprare ativan, reuse, and modification of ideas and things. Therefore, the list is extensive and detailed.

Sean Doyle and Adrian Gropper opened the doors to this project, providing unparalleled insight, hospitality, Connecticut CT Conn. , challenge, and curiosity. Axel Roch introduced me to Volker Grassmuck, and to much else. Køb billige ativan, Volker Grassmuck introduced me to Berlin's Free Software world and invited me to participate in the Wizards of OS conferences. Udhay Shankar introduced me to almost everyone I know, sometimes after the fact, buy ativan c.o.d.. Shiv Sastry helped me find lodging in Bangalore at his Aunt Anasuya Sastry's house, which is called "Silicon Valley" and which was truly a lovely place to stay. Bharath Chari and Ram Sundaram let me haunt their office and cat-5 cables [PAGE xiv] during one of the more turbulent periods of their careers. Glenn Otis Brown visited, drank, pharmacy ativan, talked, invited, challenged, entertained, αγοράσετε ativan, chided, encouraged, drove, was driven, and gave and received advice. Ross Reedstrom welcomed me to the Rice Linux Users' Group and to Connexions, ativan online kaufen. Buy ativan c.o.d., Brent Hendricks did yeoman's work, suffering my questions and intrusions. Geneva Henry, Jenn Drummond, Chuck Bearden, Kathy Fletcher, Order ativan, Manpreet Kaur, Mark Husband, Max Starkenberg, Elvena Mayo, Joey King, and Joel Thierstein have been welcoming and enthusiastic at every meeting, Florida FL Fla. . Sid Burris has challenged and respected my work, which has been an honor. Rich Baraniuk listens to everything I say, for better or for worse; he is a magnificent collaborator and friend.

James Boyle has been constantly supportive, Jotta ativan verkossa, for what feels like very little return on investment. Very few people get to read and critique and help reshape the argument and structure of a book, and to appear in it as well. Mario Biagioli helped me see the intricate strategy described in chapter 6, buy ativan c.o.d.. Stefan Helmreich read early drafts and transformed my thinking about networks. Manuel DeLanda explained the term assemblage to me. James Faubion corrected my thinking in chapter 2, Alabama AL Ala. , helped me immeasurably with the Protestants, and has been an exquisitely supportive colleague and department chair. Mazyar Lotfalian and Melissa Cefkin provided their apartment and library, in which I wrote large parts of chapter 1. Buy ativan c.o.d., Matt Price and Michelle Murphy have listened patiently to me construct and reconstruct versions of this book for at least six years. Buy ativan overnight delivery, Tom and Elizabeth Landecker provided hospitality and stunningly beautiful surroundings in which to rewrite parts of the book. Lisa Gitelman read carefully and helped explain issues about documentation and versioning that I discuss in chapter 4. Matt Ratto read and commented on chapters 4 and 7, convinced me to drop a useless distinction, and to clarify the conclusion to chapter 7. Shay David provided strategic insights about openness from his own work and pushed me to explain the point of recursive publics more clearly, αγοράσετε ativan έκπτωση. Biella Coleman has been a constant interlocutor on the issues in this book--her contributions are too deep, too various, and too thorough to detail, buy ativan c.o.d.. Her own work on Free Software and hackers has been a constant sounding board and guide, and it has been a pleasure to work together on our respective texts. Kim Fortun helped me figure it all out.

[PAGE xv]

George Marcus hired me into a fantastic anthropology department and has had immense faith in this project throughout its lifetime. Paul Rabinow, Billige ativan apotek, Stephen Collier, and Andrew Lakoff have provided an extremely valuable setting "the Anthropology of the Contemporary Research Collaboratory" within which the arguments of this book developed in ways they could not have as a solitary project. Joe Dumit has encouraged and prodded and questioned and brainstormed and guided and inspired. Michael Fischer is the best mentor and advisor ever Buy ativan c.o.d., . He has read everything, has written much that precedes and shapes this work, and has been an unwavering supporter and friend throughout.

Tish Stringer, ostaa halvalla ativan, Michael Powell, Valerie Olson, Ala Alazzeh, Lina Dib, Acquistare a buon mercato ativan, Angela Rivas, Anthony Potoczniak, Ayla Samli, Ebru Kayaalp, Michael Kriz, Erkan Saka, köpa rabatterade ativan, Elise McCarthy, Elitza Ranova, Amanda Randall, Kris Peterson, Billig ativan apotek, Laura Jones, Nahal Naficy, Andrea Frolic, and Casey O'Donnell make my job rock. Scott McGill, Sarah Ellenzweig, order ativan online cheap, Stephen Collier, Carl Pearson, Dan Wallach, Tracy Volz, Wyoming WY Wyo. , Rich Doyle, Ussama Makdisi, Elora Shehabbudin, Michael Morrow, Taryn Kinney, Gregory Kaplan, ativan pills, Jane Greenberg, Hajime Nakatani, Kirsten Ostherr, Henning Schmidgen, Cheap ativan without prescription, Jason Danziger, Kayte Young, Nicholas King, Jennifer Fishman, Paul Drueke, Roberta Bivins, cheapest ativan online, Sherri Roush, Stefan Timmermans, Laura Lark, and Susann Wilkinson either made Houston a wonderful place to be or provided an opportunity to escape it. Nebraska NE Nebr. , I am especially happy that Thom Chivens has done both and more.

The Center for the Study of Cultures provided me with a Faculty Fellowship in the fall of 2003, which allowed me to accomplish much of the work in conceptualizing the book. The Harvard History of Science Department and the MIT Program in History, Anthropology, and Social Studies of Science and Technology hosted me in the spring of 2005, allowing me to write most of chapters 7, ativan without a prescription, 8, and 9. Rice University has been extremely generous in all respects, and a wonderful place to work, buy ativan c.o.d.. I'm most grateful for a junior sabbatical that gave me the chance to complete much of this book. John Hoffman graciously and generously allowed the use of the domain name twobits.net, Cheap ativan from canada, in support of Free Software. Ken Wissoker, Courtney Berger, and the anonymous reviewers for Duke University Press have made this a much, much better book than when I started.

[PAGE xvi]

My parents, Ted and Anne, and my brother, Kevin, have always been supportive and loving; though they claim to have no idea what I do, I nonetheless owe my small success to their constant support. Hannah Landecker has read and reread and rewritten every part of this work; she has made it and me better, and I love her dearly for it. Last, but not least, my new project, Ida Jane Kelty Landecker, is much cuter and smarter and funnier than Two Bits, and I love her for distracting me from it.

Similar posts: Buy ativan cod. Buy klonopin cod. Buy ativan without prescription. Buy ativan no prescription. Order ativan without prescription. Buy cheap ativan online.
Trackbacks from: Buy ativan c.o.d.. Buy ativan c.o.d.. Buy ativan c.o.d.. Buy ativan c.o.d.. Buy ativan c.o.d.. Buy ativan c.o.d..

Two Bits

A series edited by Michael M. J, Minnesota MN Minn. . Acheter ativan discount, Fischer and Joseph Dumit
[PAGE ii]


2008

DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS ??. DURHAM AND LONDON

[PAGE iii]

THE CULTURAL

SIGNIFICANCE OF

FREE SOFTWARE

Two Bits

CHRISTOPHER M, cheap ativan online without prescription. Ativan over the counter, KELTY

© 2008 Duke University Press

Designed by C. H, buy ativan online cheap. Westmoreland

Typeset in Charis (an Open Source font) by Achorn International

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data and republication acknowledgments appear on the last printed pages of this book.

Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike License, Osta ativan online, Ordering ativan online legally, available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or by mail from Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, cheapest ativan prices, Osta alennus ativan, Stanford, Calif, cheap ativan no rx. Wisconsin WI Wis. , 94305, U.S.A, Kansas KS Kans. . Ordering ativan online without prescription, “NonCommercial” as defined in this license specifically excludes any sale of this work or any portion thereof for money, even if sale does not result in a profit by the seller or if the sale is by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit or NGO.

Duke University Press gratefully acknowledges the support of HASTAC (Humanities, online ativan, Pennsylvania PA Penn. , Arts, Science, Tennessee TN Tenn. , Ativan online stores, and Technology Advanced Collaboratory), which provided funds to help support the electronic interface of this book.

Two Bits is accessible on the Web at twobits.net.

To my parents, New Hampshire NH N.H. , Indiana IN Ind. , Anne and Ted

Contents

Similar posts: Order cheap ativan online. Order ativan online cheap. Buy klonopin c.o.d.. Order ativan no prescription. Ativan over the counter. Buy klonopin.
Trackbacks from: Buy ativan online cheap. Buy ativan online cheap. Buy ativan online cheap. Buy ativan online cheap. Buy ativan online cheap. Buy ativan online cheap.

[PAGE 349]

Bibliography

Buy klonopin, Abbate, Janet. Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1999.

Abbate, Janet, and Brian Kahin, eds. Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995.

Abelson, Harold, and Gerald J. Sussman, buy klonopin. The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985.

Akera, Atsushi. “Volunteerism and the Fruits of Collaboration: The IBM User Group SHARE.” Technology and Culture 42.4 (October 2001): 710–736.

Akera, Atsushi, and Frederik Nebeker, eds. From 0 to 1: An Authoritative History of Modern Computing. Buy klonopin, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.

Anderson, Jane, and Kathy Bowery. “The Imaginary Politics of Access to Knowledge.” Paper presented at the Contexts of Invention Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, 20–23 April 2006.

Aneesh, A. Virtual Migration: The Programming of Globalization. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2006.

[PAGE 350]

Arendt, Hannah, buy klonopin. The Human Condition. 2d ed. University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Balkin, Jack. Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology. Buy klonopin, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998.

Baraniuk, Richard, and W. Joseph King. Acquistare a buon mercato klonopin, “Connexions: Sharing Knowledge and Building Communities.” Sloan-C Review: Perspectives in Quality Online Education 4.9 (September 2005): 8. http://www.aln.org/publications/view/v4n9/coverv4n9.htm.

Barbrook, Richard, and Andy Cameron. “The California Ideology.” Science as Culture 26 (1996): 44–72.

Bardini, Thierry. Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Co-evolution and the Origins of Personal Computing, buy klonopin. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2001.

Barlow, John Perry. “The Economy of Ideas.” Wired 2.3 (March 1994).

Barry, Andrew. Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society. London: Athlone Press, 2001.

Battaglia, Deborah. “‘For Those Who Are Not Afraid of the Future’: Raëlian Clonehood in the Public Sphere.” In E.T Buy klonopin, . Culture: Anthropology in Outerspaces, ed. Deborah Battaglia, 149–79. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2005.

Benkler, Yochai. “Coase’s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm.” Yale Law Journal 112.3 (2002): 369–446.

———. “Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production.” Yale Law Journal 114.2 (2004): 273–358, buy klonopin.

———. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006.

Bergin, Thomas J., Jr., and Richard G. Gibson Jr., eds. History of Programming Languages 2. Buy klonopin, New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press, 1996.

Berners-Lee, Tim, with Mark Fischetti. Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999.

Biagioli, Mario. Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, cheap klonopin no rx, 1993.

Boczkowski, Pablo. Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers, buy klonopin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004.

Bollier, David. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Bornstein, George, and Ralph G. Williams, eds. Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in the Humanities Buy klonopin, . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993.

[PAGE 351]

Borsook, Paulina. Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech. New York: Public Affairs, 2000.

Bowker, Geoffrey. Memory Practices in the Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.

Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star, buy klonopin. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999.

Boyle, James. “Conservatives and Intellectual Property.” Engage 1 (April 2000): 83. http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/Federalist.htm.

———. Buy klonopin, “Mertonianism Unbound. Imagining Free, Decentralized Access to Most Cultural and Scientific Material.” In Understanding Knowledge as a Common: From Theory to Practice, ed. Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, 123–44. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006. http://www.james-boyle.com/mertonianism.pdf.

———. “A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?” Duke Law Journal 47.1 (October 1997): 87–116.

———, ed, buy klonopin. “The Public Domain.” Special issue, Law and Contemporary Problems 66.1–2 (winter–spring 2003).

———. “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain.” In James Boyle, ed., Wyoming WY Wyo. , “The Public Domain,” special issue, Law and Contemporary Problems 66.1–2 (winter–spring 2003): 33–74.

Brock, Gerald. The Second Information Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Brooks, Frederick. The Mythical Man-month: Essays on Software Engineering Buy klonopin, . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975.

Brown, Michael. “Heritage as Property.” In Property in Question: Value Transformation in the Global Economy, ed. Katherine Verdery and Caroline Humphrey, 49–68. Oxford: Berg, 2004.

———. Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Calhoun, Craig, ed, buy klonopin. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992.

Callon, Michel. The Laws of the Markets. London: Blackwell, 1998.

———. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, ed. Buy klonopin, John Law, 196–233. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.

Callon, Michel, Cécile Méadel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. “The Economy of Qualities.” Economy and Society 31.2 (May 2002): 194–217.

Campbell-Kelly, Martin. From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog: A History of the Software Industry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.

[PAGE 352]

Campbell-Kelly, Martin, and William Aspray. Computer: A History of the Information Machine, buy klonopin. New York: Basic Books, buy klonopin online, 1996.

Carrington, Paul D., and Erika King. “Law and the Wisconsin Idea.” Journal of Legal Education 47 (1997): 297.

Castells, Manuel. The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

———. The Rise of the Network Society Buy klonopin, . Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1996.

Castoriadis, Cornelius. The Imaginary Institution of Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987.

Cerf, Vinton G., and Robert Kahn. “A Protocol for Packet Network Interconnection.” IEEE Transactions on Communications 22.5 (May 1974): 637–48.

Chadwick, Owen. The Early Reformation on the Continent, buy klonopin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Chan, Anita. “Coding Free Software, Coding Free States: Free Software Legislation and the Politics of Code in Peru.” Anthropological Quarterly 77.3 (summer 2004): 531–45.

Chartier, Roger. The Cultural Uses of Print in Early Modern France. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

———. Buy klonopin, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Trans. Lydia G. Cochrane. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1994.

Chatterjee, Partha. “A Response to Taylor’s ‘Modes of Civil Society.’” Public Culture 3.1 (1990): 120–21.

Christen, Kim, buy klonopin. “Gone Digital: Aboriginal Remix and the Cultural Commons.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (August 2005): 315–45.

———. “Tracking Properness: Repackaging Culture in a Remote Australian Town.” Cultural Anthropology 21.3 (August 2006): 416–46.

Christensen, Clayton. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Klonopin farmacia a buon mercato, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Control and Freedom: Power and Paranoia in the Age of Fiber Optics Buy klonopin, . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.

Clark, David. “The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols.” 1988. In Computer Communications: Architectures, Protocols, and Standards, 3d ed., ed. William Stallings, 54–62. Los Alamitos, Calif.: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1992.

Cohen, Julie, Lydia Pallas Loren, Ruth Gana Okediji, and Maureen O’Rourke, eds, buy klonopin. Copyright in a Global Information Economy. Aspen, Colo.: Aspen Law and Business Publishers, 2001.

[PAGE 353]

Coleman, E. Gabriella. “The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast.” Anthropological Quarterly 77.3 (summer 2004): 507–19.

———. Buy klonopin, “The Social Construction of Freedom: Hackers, Ethics and the Liberal Tradition.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2005.

Comaroff, Jean, and John Comaroff. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1992.

Comer, Douglas E. Internetworking with TCP/IP. 4th ed, buy klonopin. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2000.

———. Operating System Design. 1st ed. 2 vols. Buy klonopin, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1984.

Coombe, Rosemary, and Andrew Herman. “Rhetorical Virtues: Property, Speech, and the Commons on the World-Wide Web.” Anthropological Quarterly 77.3 (summer 2004): 559–574.

———. “Your Second Life, comprar klonopin de descuento. Goodwill and the Performativity of Intellectual Property in Online Digital Gaming.” Cultural Studies 20.2–3 (March–May 2006): 184–210.

Crain, Patricia. The Story of A: The Alphabetization of America from The New England Primer to The Scarlet Letter. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2000.

Critchley, Terry A., and K, buy klonopin. C. Batty. Open Systems: The Reality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993.

Cussins, Charis. “Ontological Choreography: Agency through Objectification in Infertility Clinics.” Social Studies of Science 26.3 (1996): 575–610.

Buy klonopin, Daston, Lorraine, ed. Biographies of Scientific Objects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Davis, Martin. Engines of Logic: Mathematicians and the Origin of the Computer. W. W, buy klonopin. Norton, 2001.

Dean, Jodi. “Why the Net Is Not a Public Sphere.” Constellations 10.1 (March 2003): 95.

DeLanda, Manuel. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London: Continuum Press, 2002.

———. Buy klonopin, “Open Source: A Movement in Search of a Philosophy.” Paper presented to the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., 2001. http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/delanda/pages/opensource.htm.

———. A Thousand Years of Non-linear History. New York: Zone Books, 1997.

Dewey, John. Freedom and Culture. 1939; repr., Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1989.

———, buy klonopin. Liberalism and Social Action. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1935.

———. The Public and Its Problems Buy klonopin, . Chicago: Swallow Press, 1927; repr., Sage Books / Swallow Press, 1954.

[PAGE 354]

Dibbell, Julian. Play Money: Or, Klonopin prices, How I Quit My Day Job and Made Millions Trading Virtual Loot. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

———. “A Rape in Cyberspace.” Village Voice 38.51 (December 1993): 21.

Dibona, Chris, et al. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly Press, 1999.

DiMaggio, Paul, Esther Hargittai, C, buy klonopin. Celeste, and S. Shafer. “From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research on Digital Inequality.” In Social Inequality, ed. Kathryn Neckerman, 355–400. Buy klonopin, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004.

Downey, Gary L. The Machine in Me: An Anthropologist Sits among Computer Engineers. London: Routledge, 1998.

Doyle, Richard. Wetwares: Experiments in Postvital Living. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.

Drake, William. “The Internet Religious War.” Telecommunications Policy 17 (December 1993): 643–49.

Dreyfus, Hubert, buy klonopin. On the Internet. London: Routledge, 2001.

Dumit, Joseph. Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.

Eagleton, Terry. Ideology: An Introduction Buy klonopin, . London: Verso Books, 1991.

———. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1990.

Edwards, Paul N. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in the Cold War. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996.

———. “Infrastructure and Modernity: Force, Time, and Social Organization in the History of Sociotechnical Systems.” In Modernity and Technology, ed, buy klonopin. Thomas Misa, Philip Brey, and Andrew Feenberg, 185–225, klonopin online kaufen. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe. 2 vols. Buy klonopin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Faulkner, W. “Dualisms, Hierarchies and Gender in Engineering.” Social Studies of Science 30.5 (2000): 759–92.

Febvre, Lucien, and Henri-Jean Martin. The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing 1450–1800. Trans. David Gerard. 1958; repr., London: Verso, 1976.

Feller, Joseph, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A, buy klonopin. Hissam, and Karim R. Lakhani, eds. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.

Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method Buy klonopin, . 3rd ed. 1975. London: Verso Books, 1993.

Fielding, Roy T. “Shared Leadership in the Apache Project.” Communications of the ACM 42.4 (April 1999): 42–43.

[PAGE 355]

Fischer, Franklin M. Folded, Spindled, and Mutilated, buy klonopin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1983.

Fischer, Michael M. J. “Culture and Cultural Analysis as Experimental Systems.” Cultural Anthropology 22.1 (Feburary 2007): 1–65.

———. Emergent Forms of Life and the Anthropological Voice. Buy klonopin, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2003.

———. “Worlding Cyberspace.” In Critical Anthropology Now, ed. George Marcus, 245–304. Santa Fe, N.M.: School for Advanced Research Press, Utah UT , 1999.

Flichy, Patrice. The Internet Imaginaire. Trans. Liz Carey-Libbrecht. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007.

Fortun, Kim, buy klonopin. Advocating Bhopal: Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

———. “Figuring Out Ethnography.” In Fieldwork Isn’t What It Used to Be, ed. George Marcus and James Faubion. Buy klonopin, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming.

Fortun, Kim, and Mike Fortun. “Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contemporary U.S. Toxicology.” American Anthropologist 107.1 (2005): 43–54.

Foucault, Michel. La naissance de la biopolitique: Cours au Collège de France (1978–1979). Paris: Gallimard / Le Seuil, 2004.

———. “What Is an Author?” In The Foucault Reader, ed. P, buy klonopin. Rabinow, 101–20. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984.

———. 1997. “What Is Enlightenment?” In Ethics, ed. Buy klonopin, Paul Rabinow, 303–17. Vol. 2 of The Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984. New York: New Press, 1997.

Freeman, Carla. High Tech and High Heels in the Global Economy. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2000.

Freeman, Jo, and Victoria Johnson, eds. Waves of Protest: Social Movements since the Sixties, buy klonopin. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.

Galison, Peter. How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, klonopin cheap, 1987.

———. Image and Logic: The Material Culture of Microphysics. Buy klonopin, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Galloway, Alexander. Protocol, or How Control Exists after Decentralization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004.

Gancarz, Mike. Linux and the UNIX Philosophy. Boston: Digital Press, 2003.

———. The Unix Philosophy, buy klonopin. Boston: Digital Press, 1994.

Gaonkar, Dilip. “Toward New Imaginaries: An Introduction.” Public Culture 14.1 (2002): 1–19.

[PAGE 356]

Geertz, Clifford. “Ideology as a Cultural System.” In The Interpretation of Cultures, 193–233. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Gerlach, Luther P., and Virginia H. Hine. Buy klonopin, People, Power, Change: Movements of Social Transformation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970.

Ghosh, Rishab Ayer. “Cooking Pot Markets: An Economic Model for the Trade in Free Goods.” First Monday 3.3 (1998). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/ghosh/.

Gillespie, Tarleton. “Engineering a Principle: ‘End to End’ in the Design of the Internet.” Social Studies of Science 36.3 (2006): 427–57.

Golub, Alex. “Copyright and Taboo.” Anthropological Quarterly 77.3 (2004): 521–30.

Gray, Pamela, buy klonopin. Open Systems: A Business Strategy for the 1990s. London: McGraw-Hill, 1991.

Green, Ellen, and Allison Adam. Virtual Gender: Technology, Consumption and Identity. London: Routledge, 2001.

Green, Ian. The Christian’s ABCs: Catechisms and Catechizing in England c1530–1740 Buy klonopin, . Oxford: Oxford University Press, Köpa klonopin, 1996.

———. Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Green, Sarah, Penny Harvey, and Hannah Knox. “Scales of Place and Networks: An Ethnography of the Imperative to Connect through Information and Communication Technologies.” Current Anthropology 46.5 (December 2005): 805–26.

Grier, David Alan. When Computers Were Human, buy klonopin. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Grier, David Alan, and Mary Campbell. “A Social History of Bitnet and Listserv 1985–1991.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (April–June 2000): 32–41.

Grint, Keith, and Rosalind Gill. The Gender-Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research. London: Taylor and Francis, 1995.

Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society Buy klonopin, . Trans. Thomas Burger, with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991.

Hafner, Katie. Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998.

Hamerly, Jim, and Tom Paquin, with Susan Walton, buy klonopin. “Freeing the Source.” In Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, by Chris Dibona et al., 197–206. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly Press, 1999.

Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (1968): 1,243–48.

[PAGE 357]

Hashagen, Ulf, Reinhard Keil-Slawik, and Arthur Norberg, eds. History of Computing—Software Issues. Buy klonopin, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2002.

Hauben, Michael, and Rhonda Hauben. Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, Maryland MD Md. . Los Alamitos, Calif.: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997.

Hauser, Marc. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: Ecco Press, 2006.

Hayden, Cori. When Nature Goes Public: The Making and Unmaking of Bioprospecting in Mexico, buy klonopin. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Hayek, Friedrich A. Law, Legislation and Liberty. Vol. 1, Rules and Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Helmreich, Stefan. Silicon Second Nature: Culturing Artificial Life in a Digital World Buy klonopin, . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

Herring, Susan C. “Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication.” In Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, ed. Rob Kling and Charles Dunlop, 476–89. 2d ed. Orlando: Academic Press, 1995.

Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom, eds, buy klonopin. Understanding Knowledge as a Common: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.

Himanen, Pekka. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. Buy klonopin, New York: Random House, 2001.

Hine, Christine. Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage, 2000.

Holmes, Douglas, and George Marcus. “Cultures of Expertise and the Manage¬ment of Globalization: Toward the Re-Functioning of Ethnography.” In Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, Buy klonopin online without prescription, ed. Aiwa Ong and Stephen J. Collier, 235–52, buy klonopin. Boston: Blackwell, 2005.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell. “The Path of Law.” Harvard Law Review 10 (1897): 457.

Hopkins, Patrick D., ed. Sex/Machine: Readings in Culture, Gender and Technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.

Huberman, Bernardo A., ed. The Ecology of Computation Buy klonopin, . Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1988.

Huxley, Julian. New Bottles for New Wine: Essays. New York: Harper, 1957.

Jaszi, Peter, and Martha Woodmansee, eds. The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1994.

Johns, Adrian, buy klonopin. The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

[PAGE 358]

Jorgensen, Neils. “Incremental and Decentralized Integration in FreeBSD.” In Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, ed. Feller et al., 227–44. Buy klonopin, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004.

———. “Putting It All in the Trunk: Incremental Software Development in the FreeBSD Open Source Project.” Information Systems Journal 11.4 (2001): 321–36.

Kahn, Robert, et al. “The Evolution of the Internet as a Global Information System.” International Information and Libraries Review 29 (1997): 129–51.

Kahn, Robert, and Vint Cerf. “A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication.” IEEE Transactions on Communications Com-22.5 (May 1974): 637–44.

Keating, Peter, and Alberto Cambrosio. Biomedical Platforms: Realigning the Normal and the Pathological in Late-twentieth-century Medicine. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.

Kelty, Christopher, ed, buy klonopin. “Culture’s Open Sources.” Anthropological Quarterly 77.3 (summer 2004): 499–506, klonopin kopen. http://aq.gwu.edu/archive/table_summer04.htm.

———. “Punt to Culture.” Anthropological Quarterly 77.3 (summer 2004): 547–58.

Kendall, Lori. “‘Oh No. I’m a NERD!’ Hegemonic Masculinity on an Online Forum.” Gender and Society 14.2 (2000): 256–74.

Buy klonopin, Keves, Brian William. “Open Systems Formal Evaluation Process.” Paper presented at the USENIX Association Proceedings of the Seventh Systems Administration Conference (LISA VII), Monterey, California, 1–5 November 1993.

Kidder, Tracy. The Soul of a New Machine. Boston: Little, Brown, 1981.

Kirkup, Gill, Linda Janes, Kath Woodward, and Fiona Hovenden. The Gendered Cyborg: A Reader. London: Routledge, 2000.

Kittler, Friedrich, buy klonopin. Discourse Networks 1800/1900. Trans. Michael Metteer, with Chris Cullens. 1985; repr., Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1990.

———. Buy klonopin, Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Trans. Geoffry Winthrop-Young and Michael Wutz. 1986; repr., Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999.

Kling, Rob. Computeriza¬tion and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. San Diego: Academic Press, 1996.

Knuth, Donald, buy klonopin. The Art of Computer Programming. 3d ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1997.

Kohler, Robert. Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. Buy klonopin, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

[PAGE 359]

Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Klonopin generic, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso, 1985.

Landecker, Hannah. Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Latour, Bruno. “Drawing Things Together.” In Representation in Scientific Practice, ed, buy klonopin. Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar, 19–68. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.

———. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.

———. Re-assembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory Buy klonopin, . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

———. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987.

———. “What Rules of Method for the New Socio-scientific Experiments.” In Experimental Cultures: Configurations between Science, Art and Technology 1830–1950, Conference Proceedings, 123. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, 2001.

Latour, Bruno, and Peter Weibel, eds. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, buy klonopin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.

Law, John. Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2002.

———. “Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. Buy klonopin, W. E, buy klonopin from canada. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. J, buy klonopin. Pinch, 111–134. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987.

Law, John, and John Hassard. Actor Network Theory and After. Sociological Review Monograph. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell 1999.

Leach, James, Dawn Nafus, and Berbard Krieger. Gender: Integrated Report of Findings Buy klonopin, . Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Policy Support (FLOSSPOLS) D 16, 2006. http://www.jamesleach.net/downloads/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_Findings.pdf.

Lee, J. A. N., R. M, buy klonopin. Fano, A. L. Scherr, F. J. Buy klonopin, Corbato, and V. A. Vyssotsky. “Project MAC.” Annals of the History of Computing 14.2 (1992): 9–42.

Lerner, Josh, and Jean Tirole. “Some Simple Economics of Open Source.” Industrial Economics 50.2 (June 2002): 197–234.

Lessig, Lawrence. Code: Version 2.0, buy klonopin. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

———. Code and Other Laws of Cyber Space. Arizona AZ Ariz. , New York: Basic Books, 1999.

———. Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Buy klonopin, New York: Penguin, 2003.

———. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. New York: Random House, 2001.

[PAGE 360]

———. “The New Chicago School.” Legal Studies 27.2 (1998): 661–91.

Levy, Steven. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Libes, Don, and Sandy Ressler, buy klonopin. Life with UNIX: A Guide for Everyone. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1989.

Light, Jennifer. “When Computers Were Women.” Technology and Culture 40.3 (July 1999): 455–483.

Lions, John. Lions’ Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition with Source Code. Buy klonopin, 1977; repr., San Jose: Peer to Peer Communications, 1996.

Lippmann, Walter. The Phantom Public. New York: Macmillan, 1927.

Litman, Jessica. Digital Copyright. New York: Prometheus Books, 2001.

Liu, Alan. The Laws of Cool: Knowledge Work and the Culture of Information, buy klonopin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

MacKenzie, Adrian. Cutting Code: Software and Sociality. Digital Formations Series. New York: Peter Lang, 2005.

MacKenzie, Donald A. Buy klonopin, Mechanizing Proof: Computing, Risk, and Trust. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.

Mahoney, Michael. “Finding a History for Software Engineering.” Annals of the History of Computing 26.1 (2004): 8–19.

———. “The Histories of Computing(s).” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 30.2 (2005): 119–35.

———. “In Our Own Image: Creating the Computer.” In The Changing Image of the Sciences, ed, buy klonopin. Ida Stamhuis, Teun Koetsier, and Kees de Pater, köpa billiga klonopin, 9–28. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

———. “The Roots of Software Engineering.” CWI Quarterly 3.4 (1990): 325–34.

———. “The Structures of Computation.” In The First Computers: History and Architectures, ed. Buy klonopin, Raul Rojas and Ulf Hashagen, 17–32. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000.

Malamud, Carl. Exploring the Internet: A Technical Travelogue. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1992.

Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia: Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Harcourt and Brace, 1946.

Marcus, George, buy klonopin. Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Marcus, George, and James Clifford. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.

Marcus, George, and Michael M. Buy klonopin, J. Fischer. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.

[PAGE 361]

Margolis, Jane, and Allen Fisher. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002.

Martin, James, buy klonopin. Viewdata and the Information Society. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1982.

Matheson, Peter. The Imaginative World of the Reformation. Edinburgh, Scotland: T and T Clark, Buy cheap klonopin, 2000.

McKenna, Regis. Buy klonopin, Who’s Afraid of Big Blue. How Companies Are Challenging IBM—and Winning. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1989.

McKusick, M. Kirk. “Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-owned to Freely Redistributable.” In Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, Chris Dibona et al., 31–46. ACM Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly Press, 1999.

McLuhan, Marshall, buy klonopin. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966.

———. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. 1964; repr., Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994.

Merges, Robert, Peter Menell, and Mark Lemley, eds. Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age Buy klonopin, . 3d ed. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2003.

Merton, Robert. “The Normative Structure of Science.” In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, 267–80. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

Miller, Daniel, and Don Slater. The Internet: An Ethnography, buy klonopin. Oxford: Berg, 2000.

Misa, Thomas, Philip Brey, and Andrew Feenberg, eds. Modernity and Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.

Mockus, For klonopin online, Audris, Roy T. Fielding, and James Herbsleb. “Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache and Mozilla.” ACM Transactions in Software Engineering and Methodology 11.3 (2002): 309–46.

Buy klonopin, Mol, Annemarie. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2002.

Moody, Glyn. Rebel Code: Inside Linux and the Open Source Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 2001.

Mooers, Calvin. “Computer Software and Copyright.” Computer Surveys 7.1 (March 1975): 45–72.

Mueller, Milton, buy klonopin. Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004.

Naughton, John. A Brief History of the Future: From Radio Days to Internet Years in a Lifetime. Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Press, 2000.

Noble, David. “Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education.” First Monday Buy klonopin, 3.1 (5 January 1998). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_1/.

[PAGE 362]

Norberg, Arthur L., and Judy O’Neill. A History of the Information Techniques Processing Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Minneapolis: Charles Babbage Institute, 1992.

———. Transforming Computer Technology: Information Processing for the Pentagon, 1962–1986. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Ong, Walter. Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason, buy klonopin. 1983; repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Perens, Klonopin online kopen, Bruce. “The Open Source Definition.” In Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, Dibona et al., 171–188. Buy klonopin, Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly Press, 1999. http://perens.com/OSD.html and http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html.

Pfaffenberger, Bryan. “‘A Standing Wave in the Web of our Communications’: USENet and the Socio-technical Construction of Cyberspace Values.” In From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces, ed. Christopher Lueg and Danyel Fisher, 20–43. London: Springer, 2003.

Rabinow, Paul. Anthropos Today: Reflections on Modern Equipment, buy klonopin. Prince¬ton: Princeton University Press, 2003.

———. Essays on the Anthropology of Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Ratto, Matt. “Embedded Technical Expression: Code and the Leveraging of Functionality.” Information Society 21.3 (July 2005): 205–13.

———. Buy klonopin, “The Pressure of Openness: The Hybrid work of Linux Free/Open Source Kernel Developers.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, San Diego, 2003.

Raymond, Eric S. The Art of UNIX Programming. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2004.

———. The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly Press, 2001. See esp, buy klonopin. “Homesteading the Noosphere,” 79–135.

———, ed. The New Hackers’ Dictionary. 3d ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996.

Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. Towards a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube Buy klonopin, . Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997.

Rheingold, lowest price klonopin, Howard. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Rev. ed. 1993; repr., Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000.

Ricoeur, Paul, buy klonopin. Lectures on Ideology and Utopia. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.

[PAGE 363]

Riles, Annelise. “Real Time: Unwinding Technocratic and Anthropological Knowledge.” American Ethnologist 31.3 (August 2004): 392–405.

Ritchie, Dennis. “The UNIX Time-Sharing System: A Retrospective.” Bell System Technical Journal 57.6, pt. Buy klonopin, 2 (July–August 1978). http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/retroindex.html.

Rose, Mark. Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Salus, Peter. Casting the Net: From ARPANET to Internet and Beyond. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1995.

———, buy klonopin. A Quarter Century of UNIX. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1994.

Schmidt, Susanne K., and Raymund Werle. Coordinating Technology: Studies in the International Standardization of Telecommunications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1998.

Segaller, Stephen. Nerds 2.0.1: A Brief History of the Internet Buy klonopin, . New York: TV Books, 1998.

Shaikh, Maha, and Tony Cornford. “Version Management Tools: CVS to BK in the Linux Kernel.” Paper presented at the Twenty-fifth International Conference on Software Engineering—Taking Stock of the Bazaar: The Third Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering, Portland, Oregon, 3–10 May 2003.

Shapin, Steven. The Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England. South Carolina SC S.C. , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life, buy klonopin. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.

Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 1759; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Stallings, William. Data and Computer Communications. Buy klonopin, London: Macmillan, 1985.

Stallman, Richard. “The GNU Manifesto.” Dr. Dobb’s 10.3 (March 1985): 30–35.

St. Amour, Paul K. The Copywrights: Intellectual Property and the Literary Imagination, buy klonopin. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2003.

Star, Susan Leigh, ed. The Cultures of Computing. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1995.

Star, Susan Leigh, and Karen Ruhleder. “Steps towards an Ecology of Infrastructure: Complex Problems in Design and Access for Large-scale Collaborative Systems.” Information Systems Research 7 (1996): 111–33.

Stephenson, Neal. In the Beginning Was the Command Line Buy klonopin, . New York: Avon / Perennial, 1999.

[PAGE 364]

Sunshine, Carl. Computer Network Architectures and Protocols. 2d ed. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.

Takahashi, Shigeru. “The Rise and Fall of the Plug Compatible Manufacturers.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (January–March 2005): 4–16.

Tanenbaum, Andrew, buy klonopin. Computer Networks. 1st ed. Upper Saddle River, Hawaii HI , N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1981.

———. Operating Systems: Design and Implementation Buy klonopin, . 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1987.

———. “The UNIX Marketplace in 1987: Life, the UNIverse and Everything.” In Proceedings of the Summer 1987 USENIX Conference, 419–24. Phoenix, Ariz.: USENIX, 1987.

Taylor, Charles, buy klonopin. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2004.

———. “Modes of Civil Society.” Public Culture 3.1 (1990): 95–132.

———. Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Buy klonopin, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992.

———. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Thompson, Charis. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.

Thompson, Ken, and Dennis Ritchie. “The UNIX Time-Sharing System.” Communications of the ACM 17.7 (July 1974): 365–75.

Tichy, Walter F, buy klonopin. “RCS: A System for Version Control.” Software: Practice and Experience 15.7 (July 1985): 637–54.

Torvalds, Linus, with David Diamond. Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary. New York: HarperCollins, 2002.

Tuomi, Ilkka. Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet. Buy klonopin, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Turing, Alan. “On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Ent¬scheidungsproblem.” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 2.1 (1937): 230.

Turkle, Sherry. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster, Acheter klonopin discount, 1995.

———. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.

Turner, Fred, buy klonopin. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.

———. “Where the Counterculture Met the New Economy.” Technology and Culture 46.3 (July 2005): 485–512.

[PAGE 365]

Ullman, Ellen. The Bug: A Novel. Buy klonopin, New York: Nan A. Talese, 2003.

———. Close to the Machine: Technophilia and Its Discontents. San Francisco: City Lights, 1997.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Copyrights and Copywrongs; The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity. New York: New York University Press, 2001.

Vetter, Greg R. “The Collaborative Integrity of Open-Source Software.” Utah Law Review 2004.2 (2004): 563–700.

———, buy klonopin. “‘Infectious Open Source Software: Spreading Incentives or Promoting Resistance?” Rutgers Law Journal 36.1 (fall 2004): 53–162.

Vinge, Vernor. “The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era” (1993). http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html (accessed 18 August 2006).

Von Hippel, Eric. Democratizing Innovation. Buy klonopin, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.

Wajcman, Judy. Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge: Polity, 1991.

———. “Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In What State Is the Art?” Social Studies of Science 30.3 (2000): 447–64.

Waldrop, Mitchell. The Dream Machine: J. C, buy klonopin. R. Licklider and the Revolution that Made Computing Personal. New York: Viking, 2002.

Walsh, John, and Todd Bayma. “Computer Networks and Scientific Work.” Social Studies of Science 26.3 (August 1996): 661–703.

Warner, Michael. The Letters of the Republic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-century America. Buy klonopin, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.

———. “Publics and Counterpublics.” Public Culture 14.1 (2002): 49–90.

———. Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books, 2003.

Wayner, Peter. Free for All: How LINUX and the Free Software Movement Undercut the High-Tech Titans. New York: Harper Business, 2000.

Weber, Max, buy klonopin. “Objectivity in the Social Sciences and Social Policy.” In The Methodology of the Social Sciences, trans. and ed. Edward Shils and Henry A. Finch, 50–112. Buy klonopin, New York: Free Press, 1949.

Weber, Steven. The Success of Open Source. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Wexelblat, Richard L., ed. History of Programming Languages. New York: Academic Press, 1981.

Williams, Sam. Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman’s Crusade for Free Software, buy klonopin. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly Press, 2002.

[PAGE 366]

Wilson, Fiona. “Can’t Compute, Won’t Compute: Women’s Participation in the Culture of Computing.” New Technology, Work and Employment 18.2 (2003): 127–42.

Wilson, Samuel M., and Leighton C. Peterson. “The Anthropology of Online Communities.” Annual Reviews of Anthropology 31 (2002): 449–67.

Xiang, Biao. “Global Bodyshopping”: An Indian Labor System in the Information Technology Industry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Žižek, Slavoj, ed. Mapping Ideology. London: Verso, 1994.

Similar posts: Buy ativan. Order ativan. Order cheap klonopin online. Order klonopin without prescription. Buy ativan cod. Buy ativan c.o.d..
Trackbacks from: Buy klonopin. Buy klonopin. Buy klonopin. Buy klonopin. Buy klonopin. Buy klonopin.

Introduction

Order klonopin without prescription, Throughout this volume, some messages referenced are cited by their “Message-ID,” which should allow anyone interested to access the original messages through Google Groups (http://groups.google.com).

1 A Note on Terminology: There is still debate about how to refer to Free Software, which is also known as Open Source Software. The scholarly community has adopted either FOSS or FLOSS (or F/LOSS): the former stands for the Anglo-American Free and Open Source Software; the latter stands for the continental Free, Libre and Open Source Software. Two Bits sticks to the simple term Free Software to refer to all of these things, except where it is specifically necessary to differentiate two or more names, or to specify people or events so named. The reason is primarily aesthetic and political, but Free Software is also the older term, as well as the one that includes issues of moral and social order. I explain in chapter 3 why there are two terms.

[PAGE 312]

2 Michael M. J, order klonopin without prescription. Fischer, “Culture and Cultural Analysis as Experimental Systems.”

3 So, for instance, when a professional society founded on charters and ideals for membership and qualification speaks as a public, it represents its members, as when the American Medical Association argues for or against changes to Medicare. However, if a new group—say, of nurses—seeks not only to participate in this discussion—which may be possible, even welcomed—but to change the structure of representation in order to give themselves status equal to doctors, this change is impossible, for it goes against the very aims and principles of the society. Indeed, the nurses will be urged to form their own society, not to join that of the doctors, a proposition which gives the lie to the existing structures of power. By contrast, a public is an entity that is less controlled and hence more agonistic, such that nurses might join, speak, and insist on changing the terms of debate, just as patients, scientists, or homeless people might. Order klonopin without prescription, Their success, however, depends entirely on the force with which their actions transform the focus and terms of the public. Concepts of the public sphere have been roundly critiqued in the last twenty years for presuming that such “equality of access” is sufficient to achieve representation, when in fact other contextual factors (race, class, sex) inherently weight the representative power of different participants. But these are two different and overlapping problems: one cannot solve the problem of pernicious, invisible forms of inequality unless one first solves the problem of ensuring a certain kind of structural publicity. It is precisely the focus on maintaining publicity for a recursive public, over against massive and powerful corporate and governmental attempts to restrict it, that I locate as the central struggle of Free Software. Gender certainly influences who gets heard within Free Software, for example, but it is a mistake to focus on this inequality at the expense of the larger, more threatening form of political failure that Free Software addresses. And I think there are plenty of geeks—man, woman and animal—who share this sentiment.

4 Wikipedia is perhaps the most widely known and generally familiar example of what this book is about, order klonopin without prescription. Even though it is not identified as such, it is in fact a Free Software project and a “modulation” of Free Software as I describe it here. The non–technically inclined reader might keep Wikipedia in mind as an example with which to follow the argument of this book. I will return to it explicitly in part 3. However, for better or for worse, there will be no discussion of pornography.

5 Although the term public clearly suggests private as its opposite, West Virginia WV W.Va. , Free Software is not anticommercial. Order klonopin without prescription, A very large amount of money, both real and notional, is involved in the creation of Free Software. The term re[PAGE 313]cursive market could also be used, in order to emphasize the importance (especially during the 1990s) of the economic features of the practice. The point is not to test whether Free Software is a “public” or a “market,” but to construct a concept adequate to the practices that constitute it.

6 See, for example, Warner, Publics and Counterpublics, 67–74.

7 Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, esp. 27–43.

8 Critiques of the demand for availability and the putatively inherent superiority of transparency include Coombe and Herman, “Rhetorical Virtues” and “Your Second Life?”; Christen, “Gone Digital”; and Anderson and Bowery, “The Imaginary Politics of Access to Knowledge.”

9 This description of Free Software could also be called an “assemblage.” The most recent source for this is Rabinow, Anthropos Today. The language of thresholds and intensities is most clearly developed by Manuel DeLanda in A Thousand Years of Non-linear History and in Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. The term problematization, from Rabinow (which he channels from Foucault), is a synonym for the phrase “reorientation of knowledge and power” as I use it here.

10 See Kelty, “Culture’s Open Sources.”

11 The genealogy of the term commons has a number of sources. An obvious source is Garrett Hardin’s famous 1968 article “The Tragedy of the Commons.” James Boyle has done more than anyone to specify the term, especially during a 2001 conference on the public domain, which included the inspired guest-list juxtaposition of the appropriation-happy musical collective Negativland and the dame of “commons” studies, Elinor Ostrom, whose book Governing the Commons has served as a certain inspiration for thinking about commons versus public domains, order klonopin without prescription. Boyle, for his part, has ceaselessly pushed the “environmental” metaphor of speaking for the public domain as environmentalists of the 1960s and 1970s spoke for the environment (see Boyle, “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain” and “A Politics of Intellectual Property”). The term commons is useful in this context precisely because it distinguishes the “public domain” as an imagined object of pure public transaction and coordination, as opposed to a “commons,” which can consist of privately owned things/spaces that are managed in such a fashion that they effectively function like a “public domain” is imagined to (see Boyle, “The Public Domain”; Hess and Ostrom, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons).

12 Marcus and Fischer, Anthropology as Cultural Critique; Marcus and Clifford, Writing Culture; Fischer, Emergent Forms of Life and the Anthropological Voice; Marcus, Ethnography through Thick and Thin; Rabinow, Essays on the Anthropology of Reason and Anthropos Today.

[PAGE 314]

13 The language of “figuring out” has its immediate source in the work of Kim Fortun, “Figuring Out Ethnography.” Fortun’s work refines two other sources, the work of Bruno Latour in Science in Action and that of Hans-Jorg Rheinberger in Towards History of Epistemic Things. Latour describes the difference between “science made” and “science in the making” and how the careful analysis of new objects can reveal how they come to be. Rheinberger extends this approach through analysis of the detailed practices involved in figuring out a new object or a new process—practices which participants cannot quite name or explain in precise terms until after the fact.

14 Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

15 The literature on “virtual communities,” “online communities,” the culture of hackers and geeks, or the social study of information technology offers important background information, although it is not the subject of this book. Order klonopin without prescription, A comprehensive review of work in anthropology and related disciplines is Wilson and Peterson, “The Anthropology of Online Communities.” Other touchstones are Miller and Slater, The Internet; Carla Freeman, High Tech and High Heels in the Global Economy; Hine, Virtual Ethnography; Kling, Computerization and Controversy; Star, The Cultures of Computing; Castells, The Rise of the Network Society; Boczkowski, Digitizing the News. Most social-science work in information technology has dealt with questions of inequality and the so-called digital divide, an excellent overview being DiMaggio et al., “From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use.” Beyond works in anthropology and science studies, a number of works from various other disciplines have recently taken up similar themes, especially Adrian MacKenzie, Cutting Code; Galloway, Protocol; Hui Kyong Chun, Control and Freedom; and Liu, Laws of Cool. By contrast, if social-science studies of information technology are set against a background of historical and ethnographic studies of “figuring out” problems of specific information technologies, software, Delaware DE Del. , or networks, then the literature is sparse. Examples of anthropology and science studies of figuring out include Barry, Political Machines; Hayden, When Nature Goes Public; and Fortun, Advocating Bhopal. Matt Ratto has also portrayed this activity in Free Software in his dissertation, “The Pressure of Openness.”

16 In addition to Abbate and Salus, see Norberg and O’Neill, Transforming Computer Technology; Naughton, A Brief History of the Future; Hafner, Where Wizards Stay Up Late; Waldrop, The Dream Machine; Segaller, Nerds 2.0.1. For a classic autodocumentation of one aspect of the Internet, see Hauben and Hauben, Netizens.

17 Kelty, “Culture’s Open Sources”; Coleman, “The Social Construction of Freedom”; Ratto, “The Pressure of Openness”; Joseph Feller et al., Per[PAGE 315]spectives on Free and Open Source Software; see also http://freesoftware.mit.edu/, organized by Karim Lakhani, which is a large collection of work on Free Software projects, order klonopin without prescription. Early work in this area derived both from the writings of practitioners such as Raymond and from business and management scholars who noticed in Free Software a remarkable, surprising set of seeming contradictions. The best of these works to date is Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source. Weber’s conclusions are similar to those presented here, and he has a kind of cryptoethnographic familiarity (that he does not explicitly avow) with the actors and practices. Yochai Benkler’s Wealth of Networks extends and generalizes some of Weber’s argument.

18 Max Weber, “Objectivity in the Social Sciences and Social Policy,” 68.

19 Despite what might sound like a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach, the design of this project was in fact conducted according to specific methodologies. The most salient is actor-network theory: Latour, Science in Action; Law, “Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering”; Callon, “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation”; Latour, Pandora’s Hope; Latour, Re-assembling the Social; Callon, Laws of the Markets; Law and Hassard, Actor Network Theory and After. Order klonopin without prescription, Ironically, there have been no actor-network studies of networks, which is to say, of particular information and communication technologies such as the Internet. The confusion of the word network (as an analytical and methodological term) with that of network (as a particular configuration of wires, waves, software, and chips, or of people, roads, and buses, or of databases, names, and diseases) means that it is necessary to always distinguish this-network-here from any-network-whatsoever. My approach shares much with the ontological questions raised in works such as Law, Aircraft Stories; Mol, The Body Multiple; Cussins, “Ontological Choreography”; Charis Thompson, Making Parents; and Dumit, Picturing Personhood.

20 I understand a concern with scientific infrastructure to begin with Steve Shapin and Simon Schaffer in Leviathan and the Air Pump, but the genealogy is no doubt more complex. It includes Shapin, The Social History of Truth; Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier; Galison, Nevada NV Nev. , How Experiments End and Image and Logic; Daston, Biographies of Scientific Objects; Johns, The Nature of the Book. A whole range of works explore the issue of scientific tools and infrastructure: Kohler, Lords of the Fly; Rheinberger, Towards a History of Epistemic Things; Landecker, Culturing Life; Keating and Cambrosio, Biomedical Platforms. Bruno Latour’s “What Rules of Method for the New Socio-scientific Experiments” provides one example of where science studies might go with these questions, order klonopin without prescription. Important texts on the subject of technical infrastructures include Walsh and Bayma, “Computer Networks and Scientific Work”; Bowker and Star, Sorting Things Out; Edwards, The [PAGE 316] Closed World; Misa, Brey, and Feenberg, Modernity and Technology; Star and Ruhleder, “Steps Towards an Ecology of Infrastructure.”

21 Dreyfus, On the Internet; Dean, “Why the Net Is Not a Public Sphere.”

22 In addition, see Lippmann, The Phantom Public; Calhoun, Habermas and the Public Sphere; Latour and Weibel, Making Things Public. The debate about social imaginaries begins alternately with Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities or with Cornelius Castoriadis’s The Imaginary Institution of Society; see also Chatterjee, “A Response to Taylor’s ‘Modes of Civil Society’”; Gaonkar, “Toward New Imaginaries”; Charles Taylor, “Modes of Civil Society” and Sources of the Self.

1. Geeks and Recursive Publics

1 For the canonical story, see Levy, Hackers. Hack referred to (and still does) a clever use of technology, usually unintended by the maker, to achieve some task in an elegant manner. Order klonopin without prescription, The term has been successfully redefined by the mass media to refer to computer users who break into and commit criminal acts on corporate or government or personal computers connected to a network. Many self-identified hackers insist that the criminal element be referred to as crackers (see, in particular, the entries on “Hackers,” “Geeks” and “Crackers” in The Jargon File, http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/, also published as Raymond, The New Hackers’ Dictionary). On the subject of definitions and the cultural and ethical characteristics of hackers, see Coleman, “The Social Construction of Freedom,” chap. 2.

2 One example of the usage of geek is in Star, The Cultures of Computing. Various denunciations (e.g., Barbrook and Cameron, “The California Ideology”; Borsook, Technolibertarianism) tend to focus on journalistic accounts of an ideology that has little to do with what hackers, geeks, and entrepreneurs actually make. A more relevant categorical distinction than that between hackers and geeks is that between geeks and technocrats; in the case of technocrats, the “anthropology of technocracy” is proposed as the study of the limits of technical rationality, in particular the forms through which “planning” creates “gaps in the form that serve as ‘targets of intervention’” (Riles, “Real Time,” 393), order klonopin without prescription. Riles’s “technocrats” are certainly not the “geeks” I portray here (or at least, if they are, it is only in their frustrating day jobs). Geeks do have libertarian, Arkansas AR Ark. , specifically Hayekian or Feyerabendian leanings, but are more likely to see technical failures not as failures of planning, but as bugs, inefficiencies, or occasionally as the products of human hubris or stupidity that is born of a faith in planning.

[PAGE 317]

3 See The Geek Code, http://www.geekcode.com/.

4 Geeks are also identified often by the playfulness and agility with which they manipulate these labels and characterizations. See Michael M. J. Order klonopin without prescription, Fischer, “Worlding Cyberspace” for an example.

5 Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, 86.

6 On the subject of imagined communities and the role of information technologies in imagined networks, see Green, Harvey, and Knox, “Scales of Place and Networks”; and Flichy, The Internet Imaginaire.

7 Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, 32.

8 Ibid., 33–48. Taylor’s history of the transition from feudal nobility to civil society to the rise of republican democracies (however incomplete) is comparable to Foucault’s history of the birth of biopolitics, in La naissance de la biopolitique, as an attempt to historicize governance with respect to its theories and systems, as well as within the material forms it takes.

9 Ricoeur, Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, 2.

10 Geertz, “Ideology as a Cultural System”; Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia. Both, of course, also signal the origin of the scientific use of the term proximately with Karl Marx’s “German Ideology” and more distantly in the Enlightenment writings of Destutt de Tracy.

11 Geertz, “Ideology as a Cultural System,” 195.

12 Ibid., 208–13.

13 The depth and the extent of this issue is obviously huge. Ricoeur’s Lectures on Ideology and Utopia is an excellent analysis to the problem of ideology prior to 1975. Terry Eagleton’s books The Ideology of the Aesthetic and Ideology: An Introduction are Marxist explorations that include discussions of hegemony and resistance in the context of artistic and literary theory in the 1980s. Slavoj Žižek creates a Lacanian-inspired algebraic system of analysis that combines Marxism and psychoanalysis in novel ways (see Žižek, Mapping Ideology), order klonopin without prescription. There is even an attempt to replace the concept of ideology with a metaphor of “software” and “memes” (see Balkin, Cultural Software). The core of the issue of ideology as a practice (and the vicissitudes of materialism that trouble it) are also at the heart of works by Pierre Bourdieu and his followers (on the relationship of ideology and hegemony, see Laclau and Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy). In anthropology, see Comaroff and Comaroff, Ethnography and the Historical Imagination.

14 Ricoeur, Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, 10.

15 Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, 23.

16 Ibid., 25.

17 Ibid., 26–27.

[PAGE 318]

18 Ibid., 28.

19 The question of gender plagues the topic of computer culture. The gendering of hackers and geeks and the more general exclusion of women in computing have been widely observed by academics. Order klonopin without prescription, I can do no more here than direct readers to the increasingly large and sophisticated literature on the topic. See especially Light, “When Computers Were Women”; Turkle, The Second Self and Life on the Screen. With respect to Free Software, see Nafus, Krieger, Leach, “Patches Don’t Have Gender.” More generally, see Kirkup et al., The Gendered Cyborg; Downey, The Machine in Me; Faulkner, “Dualisms, Hierarchies and Gender in Engineering”; Grint and Gill, New Hampshire NH N.H. , The Gender-Technology Relation; Helmreich, Silicon Second Nature; Herring, “Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication”; Kendall, “‘Oh No. I’m a NERD!’”; Margolis and Fisher, Unlocking the Clubhouse; Green and Adam, Virtual Gender; P. Hopkins, Sex/Machine; Wajcman, Feminism Confronts Technology and “Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies”; and Fiona Wilson, “Can’t Compute, Won’t Compute.” Also see the novels and stories of Ellen Ullman, including Close to the Machine and The Bug: A Novel.

20 Originally coined by Steward Brand, the phrase was widely cited after it appeared in Barlow’s 1994 article “The Economy of Ideas.”

21 On the genesis of “virtual communities” and the role of Steward Brand, see Turner, “Where the Counterculture Met the New Economy.”

22 Warner, “Publics and Counterpublics,” 51.

23 Ibid., 51–52. See also Warner, Publics and Counterpublics, 69.

24 The rest of this message can be found in the Silk-list archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/2869 (accessed 18 August 2006), order klonopin without prescription. The reference to “Fling” is to a project now available at http://fling.sourceforge.net/ (accessed 18 August 2006). The full archives of Silk-list can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/ and the full archives of the FoRK list can be found at http://www.xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork/.

25 Vinge, “The Coming Technological Singularity.”

26 Moore’s Law—named for Gordon Moore, former head of Intel—states that the speed and capacity of computer central processing units (CPUs) doubles every eighteen months, which it has done since roughly 1970. Metcalfe’s Law—named for Robert Metcalfe, inventor of Ethernet—states that the utility of a network equals the square of the number of users, suggesting that the number of things one can do with a network increases exponentially as members are added linearly.

27 This quotation from the 1990s is attributed to Electronic Frontier Foundation’s founder and “cyber-libertarian” John Gilmore. Whether there [PAGE 319] is any truth to this widespread belief expressed in the statement is not clear. Order klonopin without prescription, On the one hand, the protocol to which this folklore refers—the general system of “message switching” and, later, “packet switching” invented by Paul Baran at RAND Corporation—does seem to lend itself to robustness (on this history, see Abbate, Inventing the Internet). However, it is not clear that nuclear threats were the only reason such robustness was a design goal; simply to ensure communication in a distributed network was necessary in itself. Nonetheless, the story has great currency as a myth of the nature and structure of the Internet. Paul Edwards suggests that both stories are true (“Infrastructure and Modernity,” 216–20, 225n13).

28 Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. See also Gillespie, “Engineering a Principle” on the related history of the “end to end” design principle.

29 This is constantly repeated on the Internet and attributed to David Clark, but no one really knows where or when he stated it. It appears in a 1997 interview of David Clark by Jonathan Zittrain, the transcript of which is available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/jzfallsem//trans/clark/ (accessed 18 August 2006).

30 Ashish “Hash” Gulhati, e-mail to Silk-list mailing list, 9 September 2000, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/3125.

31 Eugen Leitl, e-mail to Silk-list mailing list, 9 September 2000, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/3127, order klonopin without prescription. Python is a programming language. Mojonation was a very promising peer-to-peer application in 2000 that has since ceased to exist.

32 In particular, this project focuses on the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), and the Domain Name System (DNS). The first two have remained largely stable over the last thirty years, but the DNS system has been highly politicized (see Mueller, Ruling the Root).

33 On Internet standards, see Schmidt and Werle, Coordinating Technology; Abbate and Kahin, Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure.

2. Reformers, Polymaths, Transhumanists

1 Foucault, “What Is Enlightenment,” 319.

2 Stephenson, Om klonopin online, In the Beginning Was the Command Line.

3 Message-ID: tht55.221960$701.2930569@news4.giganews.com.

4 The Apple-Microsoft conflict was given memorable expression by Umberto Eco in a widely read piece that compared the Apple user interface [PAGE 320] to Catholicism and the PC user interface to Protestantism (“La bustina di Minerva,” Espresso, 30 September 1994, back page).

5 One entry on Wikipedia differentiates religious wars from run-of-the-mill “flame wars” as follows: “Whereas a flame war is usually a particular spate of flaming against a non-flamy background, a holy war is a drawn-out disagreement that may last years or even span careers” (“Flaming [Internet],” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war [accessed 16 January 2006]).

6 Message-ID: 369tva$8l0@csnews.cs.colorado.edu.

7 Message-ID: c1dz4.145472$mb.2669517@news6.giganews.com. Order klonopin without prescription, It should be noted, in case the reader is unsure how serious this is, that EGCS stood for Extended GNU Compiler System, not Ecumenical GNU Compiler Society.

8 “Martin Luther, Meet Linus Torvalds,” Salon, 12 November 1998, http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/11/12feature.html (accessed 5 February 2005).

9 See http://www.stallman.org/saint.html (accessed 5 February 2005) and http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/religion/ (accessed 5 February 2005). On EMACS, see chapter 6.

10 Message-ID: 6ms27l$6e1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net. In one very humorous case the comparison is literalized “Microsoft acquires Catholic Church” (Message-ID: gaijin-870804300-dragonwing@sec.lia.net).

11 Paul Fusco, “The Gospel According to Joy,” New York Times, 27 March 1988, Sunday Magazine, 28.

12 See, for example, Matheson, The Imaginative World of the Reformation. There is rigorous debate about the relation of print, religion, and capitalism: one locus classicus is Eisenstein’s The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, which was inspired by McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy. See also Ian Green, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England and The Christian’s ABCs; Chadwick, The Early Reformation on the Continent, chaps. 1–3.

13 Crain, The Story of A, 16–17.

14 Ibid., 20–21.

15 At a populist level, this was captured by John Perry Barlow’s “Declaration of Independence of the Internet,” http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html.

16 Foucault, “What Is Enlightenment,” 309–10.

17 Ibid., 310.

18 Ibid., 310.

19 Adrian Gropper, interview by author, 28 November 1998.

20 Adrian Gropper, interview by author, 28 November 1998.

21 Sean Doyle, interview by author, 30 March 1999.

[PAGE 321]

22 Feyerabend, Against Method, 215–25.

23 One of the ways Adrian discusses innovation is via the argument of the Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen’s The Innovator’s Dilemma, order klonopin without prescription. It describes “sustaining vs. disruptive” technologies as less an issue of how technologies work or what they are made of, and more an issue of how their success and performance are measured. See Adrian Gropper, “The Internet as a Disruptive Technology,” Imaging Economics, December 2001, http://www.imagingeconomics.com/library/200112-10.asp (accessed 19 September 2006).

24 On kinds of civic duty, see Fortun and Fortun, “Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contemporary U.S. Toxicology.”

25 There is, in fact, a very specific group of people called transhumanists, about whom I will say very little. Order klonopin without prescription, I invoke the label here because I think certain aspects of transhumanism are present across the spectrum of engineers, scientists, and geeks.

26 See the World Transhumanist Association, http://transhumanism.org/ (accessed 1 December 2003) or the Extropy Institute, http://www.extropy.org/ (accessed 1 December 2003). See also Doyle, Wetwares, and Battaglia, “For Those Who Are Not Afraid of the Future,” for a sidelong glance.

27 Huxley, New Bottles for New Wine, 13–18.

28 The computer scientist Bill Joy wrote a long piece in Wired warning of the outcomes of research conducted without ethical safeguards and the dangers of eugenics in the past, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Wired 8.4 [April 2000], http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html (accessed 27 June 2005).

29 Vinge, “The Coming Technological Singularity.”

30 Eugen Leitl, e-mail to Silk-list mailing list, 16 May 2000, Cheap klonopin online, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/2410.

31 Eugen Leitl, e-mail to Silk-list mailing list, 7 August 2000, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/2932.

32 Friedrich A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, 1:20.

3. The Movement

1 For instance, Richard Stallman writes, “The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community. Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism: organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and then treated each other as enemies. Or at least, such is the [PAGE 322] image people have of them, whether or not it was true, order klonopin without prescription. The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific projects. We don’t think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. Order klonopin without prescription, The enemy is proprietary software” (“Why ‘Free Software’ Is Better than ‘Open Source,’” GNU’s Not Unix. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html [accessed 9 July 2006]). By contrast, the Open Source Initiative characterizes the relationship as follows: “How is ‘open source’ related to ‘free software’. The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software. It’s a pitch for ‘free software’ because it works, not because it’s the only right thing to do. We’re selling freedom on its merits” (http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php [accessed 9 July 2006]), order klonopin without prescription. There are a large number of definitions of Free Software: canonical definitions include Richard Stallman’s writings on the Free Software Foundation’s Web site, www.fsf.org, including the “Free Software Definition” and “Confusing Words and Phrases that Are Worth Avoiding.” From the Open Source side there is the “Open Source Definition” (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/). Unaffiliated definitions can be found at www.freedomdefined.org.

2 Moody, Rebel Code, 193.

3 Frank Hecker, quoted in Hamerly and Paquin, “Freeing the Source,” 198.

4 See Moody, Rebel Code, chap. 11, for a more detailed version of the story.

5 Bruce Perens, “The Open Source Definition,” 184.

6 Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source.

7 “Netscape Announces Plans to Make Next-Generation Communicator Source Code Available Free on the Net,” Netscape press release, 22 January 1998, http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html (accessed 25 Sept 2007).

8 On the history of software development methodologies, see Mahoney, “The Histories of Computing(s)” and “The Roots of Software Engineering.”

9 Especially good descriptions of what this cycle is like can be found in Ullman, Close to the Machine and The Bug.

10 Jamie Zawinski, “resignation and postmortem,” 31 March 1999, http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

[PAGE 323]

15 “Open Source Pioneers Meet in Historic Summit,” press release, 14 April 1998, O’Reilly Press, http://press.oreilly.com/pub/pr/796.

16 See Hamerly and Paquin, “Freeing the Source.” The story is elegantly related in Moody, Rebel Code, order klonopin, 182–204. Raymond gives Christine Petersen of the Foresight Institute credit for the term open source.

17 From Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar. The changelog is available online only: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/.

18 Order klonopin without prescription, Josh McHugh, “For the Love of Hacking,” Forbes, 10 August 1998, 94–100.

19 On social movements—the closest analog, developed long ago—see Gerlach and Hine, People, Power, Change, and Freeman and Johnson, Waves of Protest. However, the Free Software and Open Source Movements do not have “causes” of the kind that conventional movements do, other than the perpetuation of Free and Open Source Software (see Coleman, “Political Agnosticism”; Chan, “Coding Free Software”). Similarly, there is no single development methodology that would cover only Open Source. Advocates of Open Source are all too willing to exclude those individuals or organizations who follow the same “development methodology” but do not use a Free Software license—such as Microsoft’s oft-mocked “shared-source” program. The list of licenses approved by both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative is substantially the same. Further, the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the “Open Source Definition” are almost identical (compare http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html with http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ [both accessed 30 June 2006]).

20 It is, in the terms of Actor Network Theory, a process of “enrollment” in which participants find ways to rhetorically align—and to disalign—their interests, order klonopin without prescription. It does not constitute the substance of their interest, however. See Latour, Science in Action; Callon, “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation.”

21 Coleman, “Political Agnosticism.”

22 See, respectively, Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and Williams, Free as in Freedom.

23 For example, Castells, The Internet Galaxy, and Weber, The Success of Open Source both tell versions of the same story of origins and development.

4. Sharing Source Code

1 “Sharing” source code is not the only kind of sharing among geeks (e.g., informal sharing to communicate ideas), and UNIX is not the only [PAGE 324] shared software. Other examples that exhibit this kind of proliferation (e.g., the LISP programming language, the TeX text-formatting system) are as ubiquitous as UNIX today. Order klonopin without prescription, The inverse of my argument here is that selling produces a different kind of order: many products that existed in much larger numbers than UNIX have since disappeared because they were never ported or forked; they are now part of dead-computer museums and collections, if they have survived at all.

2 The story of UNIX has not been told, and yet it has been told hundreds of thousands of times. Every hacker, programmer, computer scientist, and geek tells a version of UNIX history—a usable past. Thus, the sources for this chapter include these stories, heard and recorded throughout my fieldwork, but also easily accessible in academic work on Free Software, which enthusiastically participates in this potted-history retailing. See, for example, Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source; Castells, The Internet Galaxy; Himanen, The Hacker Ethic; Benkler, The Wealth of Networks. To date there is but one detailed history of UNIX—A Quarter Century of UNIX, by Peter Salus—which I rely on extensively. Matt Ratto’s dissertation, “The Pressure of Openness,” also contains an excellent analytic history of the events told in this chapter.

3 The intersection of UNIX and TCP/IP occurred around 1980 and led to the famous switch from the Network Control Protocol (NCP) to the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol that occurred on 1 January 1983 (see Salus, Casting the Net).

4 Light, “When Computers Were Women”; Grier, When Computers Were Human.

5 There is a large and growing scholarly history of software: Wexelblat, History of Programming Languages and Bergin and Gibson, History of Programming Languages 2 are collected papers by historians and participants, order klonopin without prescription. Key works in history include Campbell-Kelly, From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog; Akera and Nebeker, Halvalla klonopin apteekki, From 0 to 1; Hashagen, Keil-Slawik, and Norberg, History of Computing—Software Issues; Donald A. MacKenzie, Mechanizing Proof. Michael Mahoney has written by far the most about the early history of software; his relevant works include “The Roots of Software Engineering,” “The Structures of Computation,” “In Our Own Image,” and “Finding a History for Software Engineering.” On UNIX in particular, there is shockingly little historical work. Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray devote a mere two pages in their general history Computer. Order klonopin without prescription, As early as 1978, Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were reflecting on the “history” of UNIX in “The UNIX Time-Sharing System: A Retrospective.” Ritchie maintains a Web site that contains a valuable collection of early documents and his own reminiscences (http://www[PAGE 325].cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/). Mahoney has also conducted interviews with the main participants in the development of UNIX at Bell Labs. These interviews have not been published anywhere, but are drawn on as background in this chapter (interviews are in Mahoney’s personal files).

6 Turing, “On Computable Numbers.” See also Davis, Engines of Logic, for a basic explanation.

7 Sharing programs makes sense in this period only in terms of user groups such as SHARE (IBM) and USE (DEC). These groups were indeed sharing source code and sharing programs they had written (see Akera, “Volunteerism and the Fruits of Collaboration”), but they were constituted around specific machines and manufacturers; brand loyalty and customization were familiar pursuits, but sharing source code across dissimilar computers was not.

8 See Waldrop, The Dream Machine, 142–47.

9 A large number of editors were created in the 1970s; Richard Stallman’s EMACS and Bill Joy’s vi remain the most well known. Douglas Engelbart is somewhat too handsomely credited with the creation of the interactive computer, but the work of Butler Lampson and Peter Deutsch in Berkeley, as well as that of the Multics team, Ken Thompson, and others on early on-screen editors is surely more substantial in terms of the fundamental ideas and problems of manipulating text files on a screen. This story is largely undocumented, save for in the computer-science literature itself, order klonopin without prescription. On Engelbart, see Bardini, Bootstrapping.

10 See Campbell-Kelly, From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog.

11 Ibid., 107.

12 Campbell-Kelly and Aspray, Computer, 203–5.

13 Ultimately, the Department of Justice case against IBM used bundling as evidence of monopolistic behavior, in addition to claims about the creation of so-called Plug Compatible Machines, devices that were reverse-engineered by meticulously constructing both the mechanical interface and the software that would communicate with IBM mainframes. See Franklin M. Fischer, Folded, Spindled, and Mutilated; Brock, The Second Information Revolution.

14 The story of this project and the lessons Brooks learned are the subject of one of the most famous software-development handbooks, The Mythical Man-Month, by Frederick Brooks.

15 The computer industry has always relied heavily on trade secret, much less so on patent and copyright. Trade secret also produces its own form of order, access, and circulation, which was carried over into the early software industry as well. Order klonopin without prescription, See Kidder, The Soul of a New Machine for a classic account of secrecy and competition in the computer industry.

[PAGE 326]

16 On time sharing, see Lee et al., “Project MAC.” Multics makes an appearance in nearly all histories of computing, the best resource by far being Tom van Vleck’s Web site http://www.multicians.org/.

17 Some widely admired technical innovations (many of which were borrowed from Multics) include: the hierarchical file system, the command shell for interacting with the system; the decision to treat everything, including external devices, as the same kind of entity (a file), the “pipe” operator which allowed the output of one tool to be “piped” as input to another tool, facilitating the easy creation of complex tasks from simple tools.

18 Salus, A Quarter Century of UNIX, 33–37.

19 Campbell-Kelly, From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog, 143.

20 Ritchie’s Web site contains a copy of a 1974 license (http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/licenses.html) and a series of ads that exemplify the uneasy positioning of UNIX as a commercial product (http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unixad.html). According to Don Libes and Sandy Ressler, “The original licenses were source licenses. , buy klonopin without prescription. . . [C]ommercial institutions paid fees on the order of $20,000, order klonopin without prescription. If you owned more than one machine, you had to buy binary licenses for every additional machine [i.e., you were not allowed to copy the source and install it] you wanted to install UNIX on. They were fairly pricey at $8000, considering you couldn’t resell them. On the other hand, educational institutions could buy source licenses for several hundred dollars—just enough to cover Bell Labs’ administrative overhead and the cost of the tapes” (Life with UNIX, 20–21).

21 According to Salus, this licensing practice was also a direct result of Judge Thomas Meaney’s 1956 antitrust consent decree which required AT&T to reveal and to license its patents for nominal fees (A Quarter Century of UNIX, 56); see also Brock, The Second Information Revolution, 116–20.

22 Even in computer science, source code was rarely formally shared, and more likely presented in the form of theorems and proofs, or in various idealized higher-level languages such as Donald Knuth’s MIX language for presenting algorithms (Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming). Snippets of actual source code are much more likely to be found in printed form in handbooks, manuals, how-to guides, and other professional publications aimed at training programmers.

23 The simultaneous development of the operating system and the norms for creating, sharing, documenting, and extending it are often referred to as the “UNIX philosophy.” It includes the central idea that one should build on the ideas (software) of others (see Gancarz, The Unix Philosophy and Linux and the UNIX Philosophy). Order klonopin without prescription, See also Raymond, The Art of UNIX Programming.

[PAGE 327]

24 Bell Labs threatened the nascent UNIX NEWS newsletter with trademark infringement, so “USENIX” was a concession that harkened back to the original USE users’ group for DEC machines, but avoided explicitly using the name UNIX. Libes and Ressler, Life with UNIX, 9.

25 Salus, A Quarter Century of Unix, 138.

26 Ibid., emphasis added.

27 Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, “The Unix Operating System,” Bell Systems Technical Journal (1974).

28 Greg Rose, quoted in Lions, Commentary, n.p.

29 Lions, Commentary, n.p.

30 Ibid.

31 Tanenbaum’s two most famous textbooks are Operating Systems and Computer Networks, which have seen three and four editions respectively.

32 Tanenbaum was not the only person to follow this route. The other acknowledged giant in the computer-science textbook world, Douglas Comer, created Xinu and Xinu-PC (UNIX spelled backwards) in Operating Systems Design in 1984.

33 McKusick, “Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix,” 32.

34 Libes and Ressler, Life with UNIX, 16–17.

35 A recent court case between the Utah-based SCO—the current owner of the legal rights to the original UNIX source code—and IBM raised yet again the question of how much of the original UNIX source code exists in the BSD distribution. SCO alleges that IBM (and Linus Torvalds) inserted SCO-owned UNIX source code into the Linux kernel. However, the incredibly circuitous route of the “original” source code makes these claims hard to ferret out: it was developed at Bell Labs, licensed to multiple universities, used as a basis for BSD, sold to an earlier version of the company SCO (then known as the Santa Cruz Operation), New York NY N.Y. , which created a version called Xenix in cooperation with Microsoft. See the diagram by Eric Lévénez at http://www.levenez.com/unix/, order klonopin without prescription. For more detail on this case, see www.groklaw.com.

36 See Vinton G. Cerf and Robert Kahn, “A Protocol for Packet Network Interconnection.” For the history, see Abbate, Inventing the Internet; Norberg and O’Neill, A History of the Information Techniques Processing Office. Also see chapters 1 and 5 herein for more detail on the role of these protocols and the RFC process.

37 Waldrop, The Dream Machine, chaps. 5 and 6.

38 The exception being a not unimportant tool called Unix to Unix Copy Protocol, or uucp, which was widely used to transmit data by phone and formed the bases for the creation of the Usenet. Order klonopin without prescription, See Hauben and Hauben, Netizens.

[PAGE 328]

39 Salus, A Quarter Century of UNIX, 161.

40 TCP/IP Digest 1.6 (11 November 1981) contains Joy’s explanation of Berkeley’s intentions (Message-ID: anews.aucbvax.5236).

41 See Andrew Leonard, “BSD Unix: Power to the People, from the Code,” Salon, 16 May 2000, http://archive.salon.com/tech/fsp/2000/05/16/chapter_2_part_one/.

42 Norberg and O’Neill, A History of the Information Techniques Processing Office, 184–85. They cite Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP, 6 for the figure.

5. Conceiving Open Systems

1 Quoted in Libes and Ressler, Life with UNIX, 67, and also in Critchley and Batty, Open Systems, 17. I first heard it in an interview with Sean Doyle in 1998.

2 Moral in this usage signals the “moral and social order” I explored through the concept of social imaginaries in chapter 1. Or, in the Scottish Enlightenment sense of Adam Smith, it points to the right organization and relations of exchange among humans.

3 There is, of course, a relatively robust discourse of open systems in biology, sociology, systems theory, and cybernetics; however, that meaning of open systems is more or less completely distinct from what openness and open systems came to mean in the computer industry in the period book-ended by the arrivals of the personal computer and the explosion of the Internet (ca. 1980–93), order klonopin without prescription. One relevant overlap between these two meanings can be found in the work of Carl Hewitt at the MIT Media Lab and in the interest in “agorics” taken by K. Eric Drexler, Bernardo Huberman, and Mark S. Miller. See Huberman, The Ecology of Computation.

4 Keves, “Open Systems Formal Evaluation Process,” 87.

5 General Motors stirred strong interest in open systems by creating, in 1985, its Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP), which was built on UNIX. Order klonopin without prescription, At the time, General Motors was the second-largest purchaser of computer equipment after the government. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force also adopted and required POSIX-compliant UNIX systems early on.

6 Paul Fusco, “The Gospel According to Joy,” New York Times, 27 March 1988, Sunday Magazine, 28.

7 “Dinosaur” entry, The Jargon File, http://catb.org/jargon/html/D/dinosaur.html.

8 Crichtley and Batty, Open Systems, order klonopin no prescription, 10.

[PAGE 329]

9 An excellent counterpoint here is Paul Edwards’s The Closed World, which clearly demonstrates the appeal of a thoroughly and hierarchically controlled system such as the Semi-Automated Ground Environment (SAGE) of the Department of Defense against the emergence of more “green world” models of openness.

10 Crichtley and Batty, Open Systems, 13.

11 McKenna, Who’s Afraid of Big Blue? 178, emphasis added. McKenna goes on to suggest that computer companies can differentiate themselves by adding services, better interfaces, or higher reliability—ironically similar to arguments that the Open Source Initiative would make ten years later.

12 Richard Stallman, echoing the image of medieval manacled wretches, characterized the blind spot thus: “Unix does not give the user any more legal freedom than Windows does. What they mean by ‘open systems’ is that you can mix and match components, so you can decide to have, say, a Sun chain on your right leg and some other company’s chain on your left leg, and maybe some third company’s chain on your right arm, and this is supposed to be better than having to choose to have Sun chains on all your limbs, or Microsoft chains on all your limbs. You know, I don’t care whose chains are on each limb, order klonopin without prescription. What I want is not to be chained by anyone” (“Richard Stallman: High School Misfit, Symbol of Free Software, MacArthur-certified Genius,” interview by Michael Gross, Cambridge, Mass., 1999, 5, http://www.mgross.com/MoreThgsChng/interviews/stallman1.html).

13 A similar story can be told about the emergence, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, of manufacturers of “plug-compatible” devices, peripherals that plugged into IBM machines (see Takahashi, “The Rise and Fall of the Plug Compatible Manufacturers”). Similarly, in the 1990s the story of browser compatibility and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards is another recapitulation.

14 McKenna, Who’s Afraid of Big Blue? 178.

15 Pamela Gray, Open Systems.

16 Eric Raymond, “Origins and History of Unix, 1969–1995,” The Art of UNIX Programming, http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch02s01.html#id2880014.

17 Libes and Ressler, Life with UNIX, 22. Also noted in Tanenbaum, “The UNIX Marketplace in 1987,” 419.

18 Libes and Ressler, Life with UNIX, 67.

19 A case might be made that a third definition, the ANSI standard for the C programming language, also covered similar ground, which of course it would have had to in order to allow applications written on one [PAGE 330] operating system to be compiled and run on another (see Gray, Open Systems, 55–58; Libes and Ressler, Life with UNIX, 70–75).

20 “AT&T Deal with Sun Seen, Buy cheap klonopin online, ” New York Times, 19 October 1987, D8.

21 Thomas C. Hayesdallas, “AT&T’s Unix Is a Hit at Last, and Other Companies Are Wary,” New York Times, 24 February 1988, D8.

22 “Unisys Obtains Pacts for Unix Capabilities,” New York Times, 10 March 1988, D4.

23 Andrew Pollack, “Computer Gangs Stake Out Turf,” New York Times, 13 December 1988, D1. Order klonopin without prescription, See also Evelyn Richards, “Computer Firms Get a Taste of ‘Gang Warfare,’” Washington Post, 11 December 1988, K1; Brit Hume, “IBM, Once the Bully on the Block, Faces a Tough New PC Gang,” Washington Post, 3 October 1988, E24.

24 “What Is Unix?” The Unix System, http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html.

25 “About the Open Group,” The Open Group, http://www.opengroup.org/overview/vision-mission.htm.

26 “What Is Unix?” The Unix System, http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html.

27 Larry McVoy was an early voice, within Sun, arguing for solving the open-systems problem by turning to Free Software. Larry McVoy, “The Sourceware Operating System Proposal,” 9 November 1993, http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html.

28 The distinction between a protocol, an implementation and a standard is important: Protocols are descriptions of the precise terms by which two computers can communicate (i.e., a dictionary and a handbook for communicating). An implementation is the creation of software that uses a protocol (i.e., actually does the communicating; thus two implementations using the same protocol should be able to share data. A standard defines which protocol should be used by which computers, for what purposes. It may or may not define the protocol, but will set limits on changes to that protocol.

29 The advantages of such an unplanned and unpredictable network have come to be identified in hindsight as a design principle. See Gillespie, “Engineering a Principle” for an excellent analysis of the history of “end to end” or “stupid” networks.

30 William Broad, “Global Network Split as Safeguard,” New York Times, 5 October 1983, A13.

31 See the incomparable BBS: The Documentary, DVD, directed by Jason Scott (Boston: Bovine Ignition Systems, 2005), http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/.

32 Grier and Campbell, “A Social History of Bitnet and Listserv 1985–1991.”

[PAGE 331]

33 On Usenet, see Hauben and Hauben, Netizens. See also Pfaffenberger, “‘A Standing Wave in the Web of Our Communications.’”

34 Schmidt and Werle, Coordinating Technology, chap, order klonopin without prescription. 7.

35 See, for example, Martin, Viewdata and the Information Society.

36 There is little information on the development of open systems; there is, however, a brief note from William Stallings, author of perhaps the most widely used textbook on networking, at “The Origins of OSI,” http://williamstallings.com/Extras/OSI.html.

37 Brock, The Second Information Revolution is a good introductory source for this conflict, at least in its policy outlines. The Federal Communications Commission issued two decisions (known as “Computer 1” and “Computer 2”) that attempted to deal with this conflict by trying to define what counted as voice communication and what as data.

38 Brock, The Second Information Revolution, chap. 10.

39 Drake, “The Internet Religious War.”

40 Malamud, Exploring the Internet; see also Michael M. J. Order klonopin without prescription, Fischer, “Worlding Cyberspace.”

41 The usable past of Giordano Bruno is invoked by Malamud to signal the heretical nature of his own commitment to openly publishing standards that ISO was opposed to releasing. Bruno’s fate at the hands of the Roman Inquisition hinged in some part on his acceptance of the Copernican cosmology, so he has been, like Galileo, a natural figure for revolutionary claims during the 1990s.

42 Abbate, Inventing the Internet; Salus, Casting the Net; Galloway, Protocol; and Brock, The Second Information Revolution. For practitioner histories, see Kahn et al., District of Columbia DC D.C. , “The Evolution of the Internet as a Global Information System”; Clark, “The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols.”

43 Kahn et al., “The Evolution of the Internet as a Global Information System,” 134–140; Abbate, Inventing the Internet, 114–36.

44 Kahn and Cerf, “A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication,” 637.

45 Clark, “The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols,” 54–55.

46 RFCs are archived in many places, but the official site is RFC Editor, http://www.rfc-editor.org/.

47 RFC Editor, RFC 2555, 6.

48 Ibid., 11.

49 This can be clearly seen, for instance, by comparing the various editions of the main computer-networking textbooks: cf. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 1st ed. (1981), 2d ed. (1988), 3d ed. (1996), and 4th ed, order klonopin without prescription. (2003); Stallings, Data and Computer Communications, 1st ed. (1985), 2d ed. (1991), [PAGE 332] 3d ed. (1994), 4th ed. Order klonopin without prescription, (1997), and 5th ed. (2004); and Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP (four editions between 1991 and 1999).

50 Sunshine, Computer Network Architectures and Protocols, 5.

51 The structure of the IETF, the Internet Architecture Board, and the ISOC is detailed in Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP, 8–13; also in Schmidt and Werle, Coordinating Technology, 53–58.

52 Message-ID: 673c43e160cia758@sluvca.slu.edu. See also Berners-Lee, Weaving the Web.

6. Writing Copyright Licenses

1 The legal literature on Free Software expands constantly and quickly, and it addresses a variety of different legal issues. Two excellent starting points are Vetter, “The Collaborative Integrity of Open-Source Software” and “‘Infectious’ Open Source Software.”

2 Coleman, “The Social Construction of Freedom.”

3 “The GNU General Public Licence, Version 2.0,” http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html.

4 All existing accounts of the hacker ethic come from two sources: from Stallman himself and from the colorful and compelling chapter about Stallman in Steven Levy’s Hackers. Both acknowledge a prehistory to the ethic, order klonopin without prescription. Levy draws it back in time to the MIT Tech Model Railroad Club of the 1950s, Cheap generic klonopin, while Stallman is more likely to describe it as reaching back to the scientific revolution or earlier. The stories of early hackerdom at MIT are avowedly Edenic, and in them hackers live in a world of uncontested freedom and collegial competition—something like a writer’s commune without the alcohol or the brawling. There are stories about a printer whose software needed fixing but was only available under a nondisclosure agreement; about a requirement to use passwords (Stallman refused, chose <return> as his password, and hacked the system to encourage others to do the same); about a programming war between different LISP machines; and about the replacement of the Incompatible Time-Sharing System with DEC’s TOPS-20 (“Twenex”) operating system. These stories are oft-told usable pasts, but they are not representative. Order klonopin without prescription, Commercial constraints have always been part of academic life in computer science and engineering: hardware and software were of necessity purchased from commercial manufacturers and often controlled by them, even if they offered “academic” or “educational” licenses.

5 Delanda, “Open Source.”

6 Dewey, Liberalism and Social Action.

[PAGE 333]

7 Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94–553, 90 Stat. 2541, enacted 19 October 1976; and Copyright Amendments, Pub. L, order klonopin without prescription. No. 96–517, 94 Stat. 3015, 3028 (amending §101 and §117, title 17, United States Code, regarding computer programs), enacted 12 December 1980. All amendments since 1976 are listed at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html.

8 The history of the copyright and software is discussed in Litman, Digital Copyright; Cohen et al., Copyright in a Global Information Economy; and Merges, Menell, and Lemley, Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age.

9 See Wayner, Free for All; Moody, Rebel Code; and Williams, Free as in Freedom. Order klonopin without prescription, Although this story could be told simply by interviewing Stallman and James Gosling, both of whom are still alive and active in the software world, I have chosen to tell it through a detailed analysis of the Usenet and Arpanet archives of the controversy. The trade-off is between a kind of incomplete, fly-on-the-wall access to a moment in history and the likely revisionist retellings of those who lived through it. All of the messages referenced here are cited by their “Message-ID,” which should allow anyone interested to access the original messages through Google Groups (http://groups.google.com).

10 Eugene Ciccarelli, “An Introduction to the EMACS Editor,” MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI Lab Memo no. 447, 1978, 2.

11 Richard Stallman, “EMACS: The Extensible, Customizable Self-documenting Display Editor,” MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI Lab Memo no. 519a, 26 March 1981, 19. Also published as Richard M, order klonopin without prescription. Stallman, “EMACS: The Extensible, Customizable Self-documenting Display Editor,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN SIGOA Symposium on Text Manipulation, 8–10 June (ACM, order klonopin online, 1981), 147–56.

12 Richard Stallman, “EMACS: The Extensible, Customizable Self-documenting Display Editor,” MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI Lab Memo no. 519a, 26 March 1981, 24.

13 Richard M. Stallman, “EMACS Manual for ITS Users,” MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI Lab Memo no. 554, 22 October 1981, 163.

14 Back in January of 1983, Steve Zimmerman had announced that the company he worked for, CCA, had created a commercial version of EMACS called CCA EMACS (Message-ID: 385@yetti.uucp). Order klonopin without prescription, Zimmerman had not written this version entirely, but had taken a version written by Warren Montgomery at Bell Labs (written for UNIX on PDP-11s) and created the version that was being used by programmers at CCA. Zimmerman had apparently distributed it by ftp at first, but when CCA determined that it might be worth something, they decided to exploit it commercially, rather than letting Zimmerman distribute it “freely.” By Zimmerman’s own [PAGE 334] account, this whole procedure required ensuring that there was nothing left of the original code by Warren Montgomery that Bell Labs owned (Message-ID: 730@masscomp.uucp).

15 Message-ID for Gosling: bnews.sri-arpa.865.

16 The thread starting at Message-ID: 969@sdcsvax.uucp contains one example of a discussion over the difference between public-domain and commercial software.

17 In particular, a thread discussing this in detail starts at Message-ID: 172@encore.uucp and includes Message-ID: 137@osu-eddie.UUCP, Message-ID: 1127@godot.uucp, Message-ID: 148@osu-eddie.uucp.

18 Message-ID: bnews.sri-arpa.988.

19 Message-ID: 771@mit-eddie.uucp, announced on net.unix-wizards and net.usoft.

20 Message-ID: 771@mit-eddie.uucp.

21 Various other people seem to have conceived of a similar scheme around the same time (if the Usenet archives are any guide), including Guido Van Rossum (who would later become famous for the creation of the Python scripting language). The following is from Message-ID: 5568@mcvax.uucp:

/* This software is copyright (c) Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam,

* 1983.

* Permission is granted to use and copy this software, but not for * profit,

* and provided that these same conditions are imposed on any person

* receiving or using the software.

*/

22 For example, Message-ID: 6818@brl-tgr.arpa.

23 Stallman, “The GNU Manifesto.” Available at GNU’s Not Unix!, http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html.

24 The main file of the controversy was called display.c. A version that was modified by Chris Torek appears in net.sources, Message-ID: 424@umcp-cs.uucp. A separate example of a piece of code written by Gosling bears a note that claims he had declared it public domain, but did not “include the infamous Stallman anti-copyright clause” (Message-ID: 78@tove.uucp).

25 Message-ID: 7773@ucbvax.arpa.

26 Message-ID: 11400007@inmet.uucp.

27 Message-ID: 717@masscomp.uucp.

28 Message-ID: 4421@mit-eddie.uucp.

29 Message-ID: 4486@mit-eddie.uucp. Stallman also recounts this version of events in “RMS Lecture at KTH (Sweden),” 30 October 1986, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html.

[PAGE 335]

30 Message-ID: 2334@sun.uucp.

31 Message-ID: 732@masscomp.uucp.

32 Message-ID: 103@unipress.uucp.

33 With the benefit of hindsight, the position that software could be in the public domain also seems legally uncertain, given that the 1976 changes to USC§17 abolished the requirement to register and, by the same token, to render uncertain the status of code contributed to Gosling and incorporated into GOSMACS.

34 Message-ID: 18@megatest, order klonopin without prescription. Note here the use of “once proud hacker ethic,” which seems to confirm the perpetual feeling that the ethic has been compromised.

35 Message-ID: 287@mit-athena.uucp.

36 Message-ID: 4559@mit-eddie.uucp.

37 Message-ID: 4605@mit-eddie.uucp.

38 Message-ID: 104@unipress.uucp.

39 Joaquim Martillo, Message-ID: 287@mit-athena.uucpp: “Trying to forbid RMS from using discarded code so that he must spend time to reinvent the wheel supports his contention that ‘software hoarders’ are slowing down progress in computer science.”

40 Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), the Supreme Court decision, forced the patent office to grant patents on software. Interestingly, software patents had been granted much earlier, but went either uncontested or unenforced. Order klonopin without prescription, An excellent example is patent 3,568,156, held by Ken Thompson, on regular expression pattern matching, granted in 1971.

41 Calvin Mooers, in his 1975 article “Computer Software and Copyright,” suggests that the IBM unbundling decision opened the doors to thinking about copyright protection.

42 Message-ID: 933@sdcrdcf.uucp.

43 Gosling’s EMACS 264 (Stallman copied EMACS 84) is registered with the Library of Congress, as is GNU EMACS 15.34. Gosling’s EMACS Library of Congress registration number is TX-3–407–458, Comprare klonopin, registered in 1992. Stallman’s registration number is TX-1–575–302, registered in May 1985. The listed dates are uncertain, however, since there are periodic re-registrations and updates.

44 This is particularly confusing in the case of “dbx.” Message-ID: 4437@mit-eddie.uucp, Message-ID: 6238@shasta.arpa, and Message-ID: 730@masscomp.uucp.

45 Message-ID: 4489@mit-eddie.uucp.

46 A standard practice well into the 1980s, and even later, was the creation of so-called clean-room versions of software, in which new programmers and designers who had not seen the offending code were hired to [PAGE 336] re-implement it in order to avoid the appearance of trade-secret violation. Copyright law is a strict liability law, meaning that ignorance does not absolve the infringer, so the practice of “clean-room engineering” seems not to have been as successful in the case of copyright, as the meaning of infringement remains murky.

47 Message-ID: 730@masscomp.uucp. AT&T was less concerned about copyright infringement than they were about the status of their trade secrets, order klonopin without prescription. Zimmerman quotes a statement (from Message-ID: 108@emacs.uucp) that he claims indicates this: “Beginning with CCA EMACS version 162.36z, CCA EMACS no longer contained any of the code from Mr. Montgomery’s EMACS, or any methods or concepts which would be known only by programmers familiar with BTL [Bell Labs] EMACS of any version.” The statement did not mention copyright, but implied that CCA EMACS did not contain any AT&T trade secrets, thus preserving their software’s trade-secret status. The fact that EMACS was a conceptual design—a particular kind of interface, a LISP interpreter, and extensibility—that was very widely imitated had no apparent bearing on the legal status of these secrets.

48 CONTU Final Report, http://digital-law-online.info/CONTU/contu1.html (accessed 8 December 2006).

49 The cases that determine the meaning of the 1976 and 1980 amendments begin around 1986: Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Order klonopin without prescription, Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., et al., U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, 4 August 1986, 797 F.2d 1222, 230 USPQ 481, affirming that “structure (or sequence or organization)” of software is copyrightable, not only the literal software code; Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 22 June 1992, 982 F.2d 693, 23 USPQ 2d 1241, arguing that the structure test in Whelan was not sufficient to determine infringement and thus proposing a three-part “abstraction-filiation-comparison” test; Apple Computer, Inc. v, order klonopin without prescription. Microsoft Corp, U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1994, 35 F.3d 1435, finding that the “desktop metaphor” used in Macintosh and Windows was not identical and thus did not constitute infringement; Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc. (94–2003), 1996, 513 U.S. 233, Connecticut CT Conn. , finding that the “look and feel” of a menu interface was not copyrightable.

50 The relationship between the definition of source and target befuddles software law to this day, one of the most colorful examples being the DeCSS case. Order klonopin without prescription, See Coleman, “The Social Construction of Freedom,” chap. 1: Gallery of CSS Descramblers, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/gallery/.

51 An interesting addendum here is that the manual for EMACS was also released at around the same time as EMACS 16 and was available [PAGE 337] as a TeX file. Stallman also attempted to deal with the paper document in the same fashion (see Message-ID: 4734@mit-eddie.uucp, 19 July 1985), and this would much later become a different and trickier issue that would result in the GNU Free Documentation License.

52 Message-ID: 659@umcp-cs.uucp.

53 Message-ID: 8605202356.aa12789@ucbvax.berkeley.edu.

54 See Coleman, “The Social Construction of Freedom,” chap. 6, on the Debian New Maintainer Process, for an example of how induction into a Free Software project stresses the legal as much as the technical, if not more.

55 For example, Message-ID: 5745@ucbvax.arpa.

56 See Message-ID: 8803031948.aa01085@venus.berkeley.edu.

7. Coordinating Collaborations

1 Research on coordination in Free Software forms the central core of recent academic work. Two of the most widely read pieces, Yochai Benkler’s “Coase’s Penguin” and Steven Weber’s The Success of Open Source, are directed at classic research questions about collective action, order klonopin without prescription. Rishab Ghosh’s “Cooking Pot Markets” and Eric Raymond’s The Cathedral and the Bazaar set many of the terms of debate. Josh Lerner’s and Jean Tirole’s “Some Simple Economics of Open Source” was an early contribution. Other important works on the subject are Feller et al., Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software; Tuomi, Networks of Innovation; Von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation.

2 On the distinction between adaptability and adaptation, see Federico Iannacci, “The Linux Managing Model,” http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/iannacci2.pdf. Matt Ratto characterizes the activity of Linux-kernel developers as a “culture of re-working” and a “design for re-design,” and captures the exquisite details of such a practice both in coding and in the discussion between developers, an activity he dubs the “pressure of openness” that “results as a contradiction between the need to maintain productive collaborative activity and the simultaneous need to remain open to new development directions” (“The Pressure of Openness,” 112–38).

3 Linux is often called an operating system, which Stallman objects to on the theory that a kernel is only one part of an operating system. Order klonopin without prescription, Stallman suggests that it be called GNU/Linux to reflect the use of GNU operating-system tools in combination with the Linux kernel. This not-so-subtle ploy to take credit for Linux reveals the complexity of the distinctions. The kernel is at the heart of hundreds of different “distributions”—such as Debian, Red Hat, SuSe, and Ubuntu Linux—all of which also use GNU tools, but [PAGE 338] which are often collections of software larger than just an operating system. Everyone involved seems to have an intuitive sense of what an operating system is (thanks to the pedagogical success of UNIX), but few can draw any firm lines around the object itself.

4 Eric Raymond directed attention primarily to Linux in The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Many other projects preceded Torvalds’s kernel, however, including the tools that form the core of both UNIX and the Internet: Paul Vixie’s implementation of the Domain Name System (DNS) known as BIND; Eric Allman’s sendmail for routing e-mail; the scripting languages perl (created by Larry Wall), python (Guido von Rossum), and tcl/tk (John Ousterhout); the X Windows research project at MIT; and the derivatives of the original BSD UNIX, FreeBSD and OpenBSD. On the development model of FreeBSD, see Jorgensen, “Putting It All in the Trunk” and “Incremental and Decentralized Integration in FreeBSD.” The story of the genesis of Linux is very nicely told in Moody, Rebel Code, and Williams, Free as in Freedom; there are also a number of papers—available through Free/Opensource Research Community, http://freesoftware.mit.edu/—that analyze the development dynamics of the Linux kernel, order klonopin without prescription. See especially Ratto, “Embedded Technical Expression” and “The Pressure of Openness.” I have conducted much of my analysis of Linux by reading the Linux Kernel Mailing List archives, http://lkml.org. There are also annotated summaries of the Linux Kernel Mailing List discussions at http://kerneltraffic.org.

5 Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community. On the prehistory of this period and the cultural location of some key aspects, see Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture.

6 Julian Dibbell’s “A Rape in Cyberspace” and Sherry Turkle’s Life on the Screen are two classic examples of the detailed forms of life and collaborative ethical creation that preoccupied denizens of these worlds.

7 The yearly influx of students to the Usenet and Arpanet in September earned that month the title “the longest month,” due to the need to train new users in use and etiquette on the newsgroups. Later in the 1990s, Order klonopin c.o.d., when AOL allowed subscribers access to the Usenet hierarchy, it became known as “eternal September.” See “September that Never Ended,” Jargon File, http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/September-that-never-ended.html.

8 Message-ID: 1991aug25.205708.9541@klaava.helsinki.fi.

9 Message-ID: 12595@star.cs.vu.nl.

10 Indeed, initially, Torvalds’s terms of distribution for Linux were more restrictive than the GPL, including limitations on distributing it for a fee or for handling costs. Order klonopin without prescription, Torvalds eventually loosened the restrictions and switched to the GPL in February 1992. Torvalds’s release notes for Linux 0.12 say, “The Linux copyright will change: I’ve had a couple of requests [PAGE 339] to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the ‘you may not distribute it for money’ condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it conforms to GNU—pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances (‘I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same’) mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February, order klonopin without prescription. If you do not know the gist of the GNU copyright—read it” (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12).

11 Message-ID: 12667@star.cs.vu.nl.

12 Message-ID: 12595@star.cs.vu.nl. Key parts of the controversy were reprinted in Dibona et al. Open Sources.

13 Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source, 164.

14 Quoted in Zack Brown, “Kernel Traffic #146 for 17Dec2001,” Kernel Traffic, http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20011217_146.html; also quoted in Federico Iannacci, “The Linux Managing Model,” http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/iannacci2.pdf.

15 Message-ID: 673c43e160C1a758@sluvca.slu.edu. See also, Berners-Lee, Weaving the Web.

16 The original Apache Group included Brian Behlendorf, Roy T. Order klonopin without prescription, Fielding, Rob Harthill, David Robinson, Cliff Skolnick, Randy Terbush, Robert S. Thau, Andrew Wilson, Eric Hagberg, Frank Peters, and Nicolas Pioch. The mailing list new-httpd eventually became the Apache developers list. The archives are available at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/ and cited hereafter as “Apache developer mailing list,” followed by sender, subject, date, and time.

17 For another version of the story, see Moody, Rebel Code, 127–28. The official story honors the Apache Indian tribes for “superior skills in warfare strategy and inexhaustible endurance.” Evidence of the concern of the original members over the use of the name is clearly visible in the archives of the Apache project. See esp, order klonopin without prescription. Apache developer mailing list, Robert S. Thau, Subject: The political correctness question . . . , Order klonopin without prescription, 22 April 1995, 21:06 EDT.

18 Mockus, Fielding, and Herbsleb, “Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development,” 3.

19 Apache developer mailing list, Andrew Wilson, Subject: Re: httpd patch B5 updated, 14 March 1995, 21:49 GMT.

20 Apache developer mailing list, Rob Harthill, Subject: Re: httpd patch B5 updated, 14 March 1995, 15:10 MST.

21 Apache developer mailing list, Cliff Skolnick, Subject: Process (please read), 15 March 1995, 3:11 PST; and Subject: Patch file format, 15 March 1995, 3:40 PST.

[PAGE 340]

22 Apache developer mailing list, Rob Harthill, Subject: patch list vote, 15 March 1995, 13:21:24 MST.

23 Apache developer mailing list, Rob Harthill, Subject: apache-0.2 on hyperreal, 18 March 1995, 18:46 MST.

24 Apache developer mailing list, Cliff Skolnick, Subject: Re: patch list vote, 21 March 1995, 2:47 PST.

25 Apache developer mailing list, Paul Richards, Subject: Re: vote counting, 21 March 1995, 22:24 GMT.

26 Roy T. Fielding, “Shared Leadership in the Apache Project.”

27 Apache developer mailing list, Robert S. Thau, Subject: Re: 0.7.2b, 7 June 1995, 17:27 EDT.

28 Apache developer mailing list, billige klonopin apotek, Robert S. Thau, Subject: My Garage Project, 12 June 1995, 21:14 GMT.

29 Apache developer mailing list, Rob Harthill, Subject: Re: Shambhala, 30 June 1995, 9:44 MDT.

30 Apache developer mailing list, Rob Harthill, Subject: Re: Shambhala, 30 June 1995, 14:50 MDT.

31 Apache developer mailing list, Rob Harthill, Subject: Re: Shambhala, 30 June 1995, 16:48 GMT.

32 Gabriella Coleman captures this nicely in her discussion of the tension between the individual virtuosity of the hacker and the corporate populism of groups like Apache or, in her example, the Debian distribution of Linux. See Coleman, The Social Construction of Freedom.

33 Apache developer mailing list, Robert S. Thau, Subject: Re: Shambhala, 1 July 1995, 14:42 EDT.

34 A slightly different explanation of the role of modularity is discussed in Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source, 173–75.

35 Tichy, “RCS.”

36 See Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source, 117–19; Moody, Rebel Code, 172–78, order klonopin without prescription. See also Shaikh and Cornford, “Version Management Tools.”

37 Linus Torvalds, “Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper Documentation from Linux Tree,” 20 April 2002, http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0204.2/1018.html. Quoted in Shaikh and Cornford, “Version Management Tools.”

38 Andrew Orlowski, “‘Cool it, Linus’—Bruce Perens,” Register, 15 April 2005, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/15/perens_on_torvalds/page2.html.

39 Similar debates have regularly appeared around the use of non-free compilers, non-free debuggers, non-free development environments, and so forth. There are, however, a large number of people who write and promote Free Software that runs on proprietary operating systems like Macintosh and Windows, as well as a distinction between tools and formats. So, [PAGE 341] for instance, using Adobe Photoshop to create icons is fine so long as they are in standard open formats like PNG or JPG, and not proprietary forms such as GIF or photoshop.

40 Quoted in Jeremy Andrews, “Interview: Larry McVoy,” Kernel Trap, 28 May 2002, http://Kerneltrap.org/node/222.

41 Steven Weber, The Success of Open Source, 132.

42 Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

43 Gabriella Coleman, in “The Social Construction of Freedom, Florida FL Fla. , ” provides an excellent example of a programmer’s frustration with font-lock in EMACS, something that falls in between a bug and a feature. Order klonopin without prescription, The programmer’s frustration is directed at the stupidity of the design (and implied designers), but his solution is not a fix, but a work-around—and it illustrates how debugging does not always imply collaboration.

44 Dan Wallach, interview, 3 October 2003.

45 Mitchell Waldrop’s The Dream Machine details the family history well.

8. “If We Succeed, We Will Disappear”

1 In January 2005, when I first wrote this analysis, this was true. By April 2006, the Hewlett Foundation had convened the Open Educational Resources “movement” as something that would transform the production and circulation of textbooks like those created by Connexions. Indeed, in Rich Baraniuk’s report for Hewlett, the first paragraph reads: “A grassroots movement is on the verge of sweeping through the academic world. The open education movement is based on a set of intuitions that are shared by a remarkably wide range of academics: that knowledge should be free and open to use and re-use; that collaboration should be easier, not harder; that people should receive credit and kudos for contributing to education and research; and that concepts and ideas are linked in unusual and surprising ways and not the simple linear forms that textbooks present. Open education promises to fundamentally change the way authors, instructors, and students interact worldwide” (Baraniuk and King, “Connexions”), order klonopin without prescription. (In a nice confirmation of just how embedded participation can become in anthropology, Baraniuk cribbed the second sentence from something I had written two years earlier as part of a description of what I thought Connexions hoped to achieve.) The “movement” as such still does not quite exist, but the momentum for it is clearly part of the actions that Hewlett hopes to achieve.

2 See Chris Beam, “Fathom.com Shuts Down as Columbia Withdraws,” Columbia Spectator, 27 January 2003, http://www.columbiaspectator.com/. Also see David Noble’s widely read critique, “Digital Diploma Mills.”

[PAGE 342]

3 “Provost Announces Formation of Council on Educational Technology,” MIT Tech Talk, 29 September 1999, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1999/council-0929.html.

4 The software consists of a collection of different Open Source Software cobbled together to provide the basic platform (the Zope and Plone content-management frameworks, the PostGresQL database, the python programming language, and the cvs version-control software).

5 The most significant exception has been the issue of tools for authoring content in XML. For most of the life of the Connexions project, the XML mark-up language has been well-defined and clear, but there has been no way to write a module in XML, short of directly writing the text and the tags in a text editor. For all but a very small number of possible users, this feels too much like programming, and they experience it as too frustrating to be worth it. Order klonopin without prescription, The solution (albeit temporary) was to encourage users to make use of a proprietary XML editor (like a word processor, but capable of creating XML content). Indeed, the Connexions project’s devotion to openness was tested by one of the most important decisions its participants made: to pursue the creation of an Open Source XML text editor in order to provide access to completely open tools for creating completely open content.

6 Boyle, “Mertonianism Unbound,” 14.

7 The movement is the component that remains unmodulated: there is no “free textbook” movement associated with Connexions, even though many of the same arguments that lead to a split between Free Software and Open Source occur here: the question of whether the term free is confusing, for example, or the role of for-profit publishers or textbook companies. In the end, most (though not all) of the Connexions staff and many of its users are content to treat it as a useful tool for composing novel kinds of digital educational material—not as a movement for the liberation of educational content.

8 Boyle, “Conservatives and Intellectual Property.”

9 Lessig’s output has been prodigious. His books include Code and Other Laws of Cyber Space, The Future of Ideas, Free Culture, and Code: Version 2.0. He has also written a large number of articles and is an active blogger (http://www.lessig.org/blog/).

10 There were few such projects under way, though there were many in the planning stages. Within a year, the Public Library of Science had launched itself, spearheaded by Harold Varmus, the former director of the National Institutes of Health, order klonopin without prescription. At the time, however, the only other large scholarly project was the MIT Open Course Ware project, which, generic klonopin, although it had already agreed to use Creative Commons licenses, had demanded a peculiar one-off license.

[PAGE 343]

11 The fact that I organized a workshop to which I invited “informants” and to which I subsequently refer as research might strike some, both in anthropology and outside it, as wrong. But it is precisely the kind of occasion I would argue has become central to the problematics of method in cultural anthropology today. On this subject, see Holmes and Marcus, “Cultures of Expertise and the Management of Globalization.” Such strategic and seemingly ad hoc participation does not exclude one from attempting to later disentangle oneself from such participation, in order to comment on the value and significance, and especially to offer critique. Such is the attempt to achieve objectivity in social science, an objectivity that goes beyond the basic notions of bias and observer-effect so common in the social sciences. Order klonopin without prescription, “Objectivity” in a broader social sense includes the observation of the conceptual linkages that both precede such a workshop (constituted the need for it to happen) and follow on it, independent of any particular meeting. The complexity of mobilizing objectivity in discussions of the value and significance of social or economic phenomena was well articulated a century ago by Max Weber, and problems of method in the sense raised by him seem to me to be no less fraught today. See Max Weber, “Objectivity in the Social Sciences.”

12 Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin Co., U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001, 252 F. 3d 1165.

13 Neil Strauss, “An Uninvited Bassist Takes to the Internet,” New York Times, 25 August 2002, sec, order klonopin without prescription. 2, 23.

14 Indeed, in a more self-reflective moment, Glenn once excitedly wrote to me to explain that what he was doing was “code-switching” and that he thought that geeks who constantly involved themselves in technology, law, music, gaming, and so on would be prime case studies for a code-switching study by anthropologists.

15 See Kelty, “Punt to Culture.”

16 Lessig, “The New Chicago School.”

17 Hence, Boyle’s “Second Enclosure Movement” and “copyright conservancy” concepts (see Boyle, “The Second Enclosure Movement”; Bollier, Silent Theft). Perhaps the most sophisticated and compelling expression of the institutional-economics approach to understanding Free Software is the work of Yochai Benkler, especially “Sharing Nicely” and “Coase’s Penguin.” See also Benkler, Wealth of Networks.

18 Steven Weber’s The Success of Open Source is exemplary.

19 Carrington and King, “Law and the Wisconsin Idea.”

20 In particular, Glenn Brown suggested Oliver Wendell Holmes as a kind of origin point both for critical legal realism and for law and economics, a kind of filter through which lawyers get both their Nietzsche [PAGE 344] and their liberalism (see Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The Path of the Law”). Glenn’s opinion was that what he called “punting to culture” (by which he meant writing minimalist laws which allow social custom to fill in the details) descended more or less directly from the kind of legal reasoning embodied in Holmes: “Note that [Holmes] is probably best known in legal circles for arguing that questions of morality be removed from legal analysis and left to the field of ethics. this is what makes him the godfather of both the posners of the world, and the crits, and the strange hybrids like lessig” (Glenn Brown, personal communication, 11 August 2003).

9. Order klonopin without prescription, Reuse, Modification, Norms

1 Actor-network theory comes closest to dealing with such “ontological” issues as, for example, airplanes in John Law’s Aircraft Stories, the disease atheroscleroris in Annemarie Mol’s The Body Multiple, or in vitro fertilization in Charis Thompson’s Making Parents. The focus here on finality is closely related, but aims at revealing the temporal characteristics of highly modifiable kinds of knowledge-objects, like textbooks or databases, as in Geoffrey Bowker’s Memory Practices in the Sciences.

2 Merton, “The Normative Structure of Science.”

3 See Johns, The Nature of the Book; Eisenstein, Kaufen klonopin, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change; McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy and Understanding Media; Febvre and Martin, The Coming of the Book; Ong, Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue; Chartier, The Cultural Uses of Print in Early Modern France and The Order of Books; Kittler, Discourse Networks 1800/1900 and Gramophone, Film, Typewriter.

4 There is less communication between the theorists and historians of copyright and authorship and those of the book; the former are also rich in analyses, such as Jaszi and Woodmansee, The Construction of Authorship; Mark Rose, Authors and Owners; St. Amour, The Copywrights; Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs.

5 Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Eisenstein’s work makes direct reference to McLuhan’s thesis in The Gutenberg Galaxy, and Latour relies on these works and others in “Drawing Things Together.”

6 Johns, The Nature of the Book, 19–20.

7 On this subject, cf. Pablo Boczkowski’s study of the digitization of newspapers, Digitizing the News.

8 Conventional here is actually quite historically proximate: the system creates a pdf document by translating the XML document into a LaTeX document, then into a pdf document. LaTeX has been, for some twenty years, a standard text-formatting and typesetting language used by some [PAGE 345] sectors of the publishing industry (notably mathematics, engineering, and computer science). Were it not for the existence of this standard from which to bootstrap, the Connexions project would have faced a considerably more difficult challenge, but much of the infrastructure of publishing has already been partially transformed into a computer-mediated and -controlled system whose final output is a printed book, order klonopin without prescription. Later in Connexions’s lifetime, the group coordinated with an Internet-publishing startup called Qoop.com to take the final step and make Connexions courses available as print-on-demand, cloth-bound textbooks, complete with ISBNs and back-cover blurbs.

9 See Johns, The Nature of the Book; Warner, The Letters of the Republic.

10 On fixity, see Eisenstein’s The Printing Press as an Agent of Change which cites McLuhan’s The Gutenberg Galaxy. The stability of texts is also questioned routinely by textual scholars, especially those who work with manuscripts and complicated varoria (for an excellent introduction, see Bornstein and Williams, Palimpsest). Michel Foucault’s “What Is an Author?” addresses a related but orthogonal problematic and is unconcerned with the relatively sober facts of a changing medium.

11 A salient and recent point of comparison can be found in the form of Lawrence Lessig’s “second edition” of his book Code, which is titled Code: Version 2.0 (version is used in the title, but edition is used in the text). The first book was published in 1999 (“ancient history in Internet time”), and Lessig convinced the publisher to make it available as a wiki, a collaborative Web site which can be directly edited by anyone with access. Order klonopin without prescription, The wiki was edited and updated by hordes of geeks, then “closed” and reedited into a second edition with a new preface. It is a particularly tightly controlled example of collaboration; although the wiki and the book were freely available, the modification and transformation of them did not amount to a simple free-for-all. Instead, Lessig leveraged his own authority, his authorial voice, and the power of Basic Books to create something that looks very much like a traditional second edition, although it was created by processes unimaginable ten years ago.

12 The most familiar comparison is Wikipedia, which was started after Connexions, but grew far more quickly and dynamically, billig kaufen klonopin, largely due to the ease of use of the system (a bone of some contention among the Connexions team). Wikipedia has come under assault primarily for being unreliable. The suspicion and fear that surround Wikipedia are similar to those that face Connexions, but in the case of Wikipedia entries, the commitment to openness is stubbornly meritocratic: any article can be edited by anyone at anytime, and it matters not how firmly one is identified as an expert by rank, title, degree, or experience—a twelve year old’s knowledge of the Peloponnesian War is given the same access and status as an eighty-year-old classicist’s. Articles are not owned by individuals, and [PAGE 346] all work is pseudonymous and difficult to track, order klonopin without prescription. The range of quality is therefore great, and the mainstream press has focused largely on whether Wikipedia is more or less reliable than conventional encyclopedias, not on the process of knowledge production. See, for instance, George Johnson, “The Nitpicking of the Masses vs. the Authority of the Experts,” New York Times, 3 January 2006, Late Edition—Final, F2; Robert McHenry, “The Faith-based Encyclopedia,” TCS Daily, 15 November 2004, http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html.

13 Again, a comparison with Wikipedia is apposite. Wikipedia is, morally speaking, and especially in the persona of its chief editor, Jimbo Wales, totally devoted to merit-based equality, with users getting no special designation beyond the amount and perceived quality of the material they contribute. Order klonopin without prescription, Degrees or special positions of employment are anathema. It is a quintessentially American, anti-intellectual-fueled, Horatio Alger–style approach in which the slate is wiped clean and contributors are given a chance to prove themselves independent of background. Connexions, by contrast, draws specifically from the ranks of intellectuals or academics and seeks to replace the infrastructure of publishing. Wikipedia is interested only in creating a better encyclopedia. In this respect, it is transhumanist in character, attributing its distinctiveness and success to the advances in technology (the Internet, wiki, broadband connections, Google). Connexions on the other hand is more polymathic, devoted to intervening into the already complexly constituted organizational practice of scholarship and academia.

14 An even more technical feature concerned the issue of the order of authorship, order klonopin without prescription. The designers at first decided to allow Connexions to simply display the authors in alphabetical order, a practice adopted by some disciplines, like computer science. However, in the case of the Housman example this resulted in what looked like a module authored principally by me, and only secondarily by A. E. Housman. Order klonopin without prescription, And without the ability to explicitly designate order of authorship, many disciplines had no way to express their conventions along these lines. Cheap klonopin, As a result, the system was redesigned to allow users to designate the order of authorship as well.

15 I refer here to Eric Raymond’s “discovery” that hackers possess unstated norms that govern what they do, in addition to the legal licenses and technical practices they engage in (see Raymond, “Homesteading the Noosphere”). For a critique and background on hacker ethics and norms, see Coleman, “The Social Construction of Freedom.”

16 Bruno Latour’s Science in Action makes a strong case for the centrality of “black boxes” in science and engineering for precisely this reason.

17 I should note, in my defense, that my efforts to get my informants to read Max Weber, Ferdinand Tönnies, Henry Maine, or Emile Durkheim [PAGE 347] proved far less successful than my creation of nice Adobe Illustrator diagrams that made explicit the reemergence of issues addressed a century ago. It was not for lack of trying, however.

18 Callon, The Laws of the Markets; Hauser, Moral Minds.

19 Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The Path of Law.”

20 In December 2006 Creative Commons announced a set of licenses that facilitate the “follow up” licensing of a work, especially one initially issued under a noncommercial license.

21 Message from the cc-sampling mailing list, Glenn Brown, Subject: BACKGROUND: “AS APPROPRIATE TO THE MEDIUM, GENRE, AND MARKET NICHE,” 23 May 2003, http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-sampling/2003-May/000004.html.

22 Sampling offers a particularly clear example of how Creative Commons differs from the existing practice and infrastructure of music creation and intellectual-property law. The music industry has actually long recognized the fact of sampling as something musicians do and has attempted to deal with it by making it an explicit economic practice; the music industry thus encourages sampling by facilitating the sale between labels and artists of rights to make a sample. Record companies will negotiate prices, lengths, quality, and quantity of sampling and settle on a price.

This practice is set opposite the assumption, also codified in law, that the public has a right to a fair use of copyrighted material without payment or permission, order klonopin without prescription. Sampling a piece of music might seem to fall into this category of use, except that one of the tests of fair use is that the use not impact any existing market for such uses, and the fact that the music industry has effectively created a market for the buying and selling of samples means that sampling now routinely falls outside the fair uses codified in the statute, thus removing sampling from the domain of fair use. Creative Commons licenses, on the other hand, say that owners should be able to designate their material as “sample-able,” to give permission ahead of time, and by this practice to encourage others to do the same. They give an “honorable” meaning to the practice of sampling for free, rather than the dishonorable one created by the industry. It thus becomes a war over the meaning of norms, in the law-and-economics language of Creative Commons and its founders.

Conclusion

1 See http://cnx.org, http://www.creativecommons.org, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm, http://www.biobricks.org, http://www.freebeer.org, http://freeculture.org, http://www.cptech.org/[PAGE 348]a2k, http://www.colawp.com/colas/400/cola467_recipe.html, http://www.elephantsdream.org, http://www.sciencecommons.org, http://www.plos.org, http://www.openbusiness.cc, http://www.yogaunity.org, http://osdproject.com, http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/Education/oer/, and http://olpc.com.

2 See Clive Thompson, “Open Source Spying,” New York Times Magazine, 3 December 2006, 54.

3 See especially Christen, “Tracking Properness” and “Gone Digital”; Brown, Who Owns Native Culture? and “Heritage as Property.” Crowdsourcing fits into other novel forms of labor arrangements, ranging from conventional outsourcing and off-shoring to newer forms of bodyshopping and “virtual migration” (see Aneesh, Virtual Migration; Xiang, “Global Bodyshopping” ).

4 Golub, “Copyright and Taboo”; Dibbell, Play Money.

Similar posts: Buy klonopin cod. Buy ativan without prescription. Buy ativan no prescription. Order ativan without prescription. Buy cheap ativan online. Order cheap ativan online.
Trackbacks from: Order klonopin without prescription. Order klonopin without prescription. Order klonopin without prescription. Order klonopin without prescription. Order klonopin without prescription. Order klonopin without prescription.

The Cultural Consequences of Free Software

Buy klonopin c.o.d., Free Software is changing. In all aspects it looks very different from when I started, and in many ways the Free Software described herein is not the Free Software readers will encounter if they turn to the Internet to find it. But how could it be otherwise. If the argument I make in Two Bits is at all correct, then modulation must constantly be occurring, for experimentation never seeks its own conclusion. A question remains, though: in changing, does Free Software and its kin preserve the imagination of moral and technical order that created it. Is the recursive public something that survives, orders, or makes sense of these changes, buy klonopin c.o.d.. Does Free Software exist for more than its own sake?

In Two Bits I have explored not only the history of Free Software but also the question of where such future changes will have come [PAGE 302] from. I argue for seeing continuity in certain practices of everyday life precisely because the Internet and Free Software pervade everyday life to a remarkable, Idaho ID , and growing, degree. Every day, from here to there, new projects and ideas and tools and goals emerge everywhere out of the practices that I trace through Free Software: Connexions and Creative Commons, open access, Open Source synthetic biology, free culture, access to knowledge (a2k), open cola, Klonopin online cheap, open movies, science commons, open business, Open Source yoga, Open Source democracy, open educational resources, the One Laptop Per Child project, to say nothing of the proliferation of wiki-everything or the “peer production” of scientific data or consumer services—all new responses to a widely felt reorientation of knowledge and power.¹ How is one to know the difference between all these things. How is one to understand the cultural significance and consequence of them. Buy klonopin c.o.d., Can one distinguish between projects that promote a form of public sphere that can direct the actions of our society versus those that favor corporate, individual, or hierarchical control over decision making?

Often the first response to such emerging projects is to focus on the promises and ideology of the people involved. On the one hand, claiming to be open or free or public or democratic is something nearly everyone does (including unlikely candidates such as the defense intelligence agencies of the United States), and one should therefore be suspicious and critical of all such claims.² While such arguments and ideological claims are important, Alabama AL Ala. , it would be a grave mistake to focus only on these statements. The “movement”—the ideological, critical, or promissory aspect—is just one component of Free Software and, indeed, the one that has come last, after the other practices were figured out and made legible, replicable, and modifiable. On the other hand, Cheap klonopin tablets, it is easy for geeks and Free Software advocates to denounce emerging projects, to say, “But that isn’t really Open Source or Free Software.” And while it may be tempting to fix the definition of Free Software once and for all in order to ensure a clear dividing line between the true sons and the carpetbaggers, to do so would reduce Free Software to mere repetition without difference, would sacrifice its most powerful and distinctive attribute: its responsive, emergent, public character.

But what questions should one ask. Where should scholars or curious onlookers focus their attention in order to see whether or not a recursive public is at work. Many of these questions are simple, [PAGE 303] practical ones: are software and networks involved at any level, buy klonopin c.o.d.. Do the participants claim to understand Free Software or Open Source, either in their details or as an inspiration. Is intellectual-property law a key problem. Are participants trying to coordinate each other through the Internet, Tennessee TN Tenn. , and are they trying to take advantage of voluntary, self-directed contributions of some kind. More specifically, are participants modulating one of these practices. Buy klonopin c.o.d., Are they thinking about something in terms of source code, or source and binary. Are they changing or creating new forms of licenses, contracts, or privately ordered legal arrangements. Are they experimenting with forms of coordinating the voluntary actions of large numbers of unevenly distributed people. Are the people who are contributing aware of or actively pursuing questions of ideology, distinction, Kentucky KY Ky. , movement, or opposition. Are these practices recognized as something that creates the possibility for affinity, rather than simply arcane “technical” practices that are too complex to understand or appreciate?

In the last few years, talk of “social software” or “Web 2.0” has dominated the circuit of geek and entrepreneur conferences and discussions: Wikipedia, MySpace, Flickr, and YouTube, for example. For instance, there are scores and scores of “social” music sites, with collaborative rating, music sharing, music discovery, and so forth, buy klonopin c.o.d.. Many of these directly use or take inspiration from Free Software. For all of them, intellectual property is a central and dominating concern, Alaska AK . Key to their novelty is the leveraging and coordinating of massive numbers of people along restricted lines (i.e., music preferences that guide music discovery). Some even advocate or lobby for free(er) access to digital music. Buy klonopin c.o.d., But they are not (yet) what I would identify as recursive publics: most of them are commercial entities whose structure and technical specifications are closely guarded and not open to modification. While some such entities may deal in freely licensed content (for instance, Creative Commons–licensed music), few are interested in allowing strangers to participate in, modulate, or modify the system as such; they are interested in allowing users to become consumers in more and more sophisticated ways, and not necessarily in facilitating a public culture of music. They want information and knowledge to be free, Ordering klonopin overnight delivery, to be sure, but not necessarily the infrastructure that makes that information available and knowledge possible. Such entities lack the “recursive” commitment.

[PAGE 304]

By contrast, some corners of the open-access movement are more likely to meet this criteria. As the appellation suggests, participants see it as a movement, not a corporate or state entity, a movement founded on practices of copyleft and the modulation of Free Software licensing ideas. The use of scientific data and the tools for making sense of open access are very often at the heart of controversy in science (a point often reiterated by science and technology studies), and so there is often an argument about not only the availability of data but its reuse, modification, and modulation as well, buy klonopin c.o.d.. Projects like the BioBricks Foundation (biobricks.org) and new organizations like the Public Library of Science (plos.org) are committed to both availability and certain forms of collective modification. The commitment to becoming a recursive public, however, raises unprecedented issues about the nature of quality, acheter klonopin, reliability, and finality of scientific data and results—questions that will reverberate throughout the sciences as a result.

Farther afield, questions of “traditional heritage” claims, the compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals, or new forms of “crowdsourcing” in labor markets are also open to analysis in the terms I offer in Two Bits.³ Virtual worlds like Second Life, “a 3D digital world imagined, created, and owned by its residents,” are increasingly laboratories for precisely the kinds of questions raised here: such worlds are far less virtual than most people realize, and the experiments conducted there far more likely to migrate into the so-called real world before we know it—including both economic and democratic experiments.⁴ How far will Second Life go in facilitating a recursive public sphere. Nebraska NE Nebr. , Can it survive both as a corporation and as a “world”. And of course, there is the question of the “blogosphere” as a public sphere, as a space of opinion and discussion that is radically open to the voices of massive numbers of people. Buy klonopin c.o.d., Blogging gives the lie to conventional journalism’s self-image as the public sphere, but it is by no means immune to the same kinds of problematic dynamics and polarizations, no more “rational-critical” than FOX News, and yet . . .

Such examples should indicate the degree to which Two Bits is focused on a much longer time span than simply the last couple of years and on much broader issues of political legitimacy and cultural change. Rather than offer immediate policy prescriptions or seek to change the way people think about an issue, I have ap[PAGE 305]proached Two Bits as a work of history and anthropology, making it less immediately applicable in the hopes that it is more lastingly usable. The stories I have told reach back at least forty years, if not longer. While it is clear that the Internet as most people know it is only ten to fifteen years old, it has been “in preparation” since at least the late 1950s, buy klonopin c.o.d.. Students in my classes—especially hip geeks deep in Free Software apprenticeship—are bewildered to learn that the arguments and usable pasts they are rehearsing are refinements and riffs on stories that are as old or older than their parents, klonopin prescription. This deeper stability is where the cultural significance of Free Software lies: what difference does Free Software today introduce with respect to knowledge and power yesterday?

Free Software is a response to a problem, in much the same way that the Royal Society in the sixteenth century, the emergence of a publishing industry in the eighteenth century, and the institutions of the public sphere in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were responses. They responded to the collective challenge of creating regimes of governance that required—and encouraged—reliable empirical knowledge as a basis for their political legitimacy. Such political legitimacy is not an eternal or theoretical problem; it is a problem of constant real-world practice in creating the infrastructures by which individuals come to inhabit and understand their own governance, whether by states, corporations, or machines. Buy klonopin c.o.d., If power seeks consent of the governed—and especially the consent of the democratic, self-governing kind that has become the global dominant ideal since the seventeenth century—it must also seek to ensure the stability and reliability of the knowledge on which that consent is propped.

Debates about the nature and history of publics and public spheres have served as one of the main arenas for this kind of questioning, but, as I hope I have shown here, it is a question not only of public spheres but of practices, technologies, laws, and movements, of going concerns which undergo modulation and experimentation in accord with a social imagination of order both moral and technical. “Recursive public” as a concept is not meant to replace that of public sphere. North Dakota ND , I intend neither for actors nor really for many scholars to find it generally applicable. I would not want to see it suddenly discovered everywhere, but principally in tracking the transformation, proliferation, and differentiation of Free Software and its derivatives.

[PAGE 306]

Several threads from the three parts of Two Bits can now be tied together. The detailed descriptions of Free Software and its modulations should make clear that (1) the reason the Internet looks the way it does is due to the work of figuring out Free Software, both before and after it was recognized as such; (2) neither the Internet nor the computer is the cause of a reorientation of knowledge and power, but both are tools that render possible modulations of settled practices, modulations that reveal a much older problem regarding the legitimacy of the means of circulation and production of knowledge; (3) Free Software is not an ethical stance, but a practical response to the revelation of these older problems; and (4) the best way to understand this response is to see it as a kind of public sphere, a recursive public that is specific to the technical and moral imaginations of order in the contemporary world of geeks.

It is possible now to return to the practical and political meaning of the “singularity” of the Internet, that is, Acheter en ligne klonopin, to the fact that there is only one Internet. This does not mean that there are no other networks, but only that the Internet is a singular entity and not an instance of a general type, buy klonopin c.o.d.. How is it that the Internet is open in the same way to everyone, whether an individual or a corporate or a national entity. How has it become extensible (and, by extension, defensible) by and to everyone, regardless of their identity, locale, context, or degree of power?

The singularity of the Internet is both an ontological and an epistemological fact; it is a feature of the Internet’s technical configurations and modes of ordering the actions of humans and machines by protocols and software. Klonopin no prescription, But it is also a feature of the technical and moral imaginations of the people who build, manage, inhabit, and expand the Internet. Ontologically, the creation and dissemination of standardized protocols, and novel standard-setting processes are at the heart of the story. Buy klonopin c.o.d., In the case of the Internet, differences in standards-setting processes are revealed clearly in the form of the famous Request for Comments system of creating, distributing, and modifying Internet protocols. The RFC system, just as much as the Geneva-based International Organization for Standards, reveal the fault lines of international legitimacy in complex societies dependent on networks, software, and other high-tech forms of knowledge production, ordering klonopin pills, organization, and governance. The legitimacy of standards has massive significance for the abilities of individual actors to participate in their own recursive publics, whether they [PAGE 307] be publics that address software and networks or those that address education and development. But like the relationship between “law on the books” and “law in action,” standards depend on the coordinated action and order of human practices.

What’s more, the seemingly obvious line between a legitimate standard and a marketable product based on these standards causes nothing but trouble. The case of open systems in the 1980s high-end computer industry demonstrates how the logic of standardization is not at all clearly distinguished from the logic of the market. The open-systems battles resulted in novel forms of cooperation-within-competition that sought both standardization and competitive advantage at the same time, buy klonopin c.o.d.. Open systems was an attempt to achieve a kind of “singularity,” not only for a network but for a market infrastructure as well. αγοράσετε klonopin, Open systems sought ways to reform technologies and markets in tandem. What it ignored was the legal structure of intellectual property. The failure of open systems reveals the centrality of the moral and technical order of intellectual property—to both technology and markets—and shows how a reliance on this imagination of order literally renders impossible the standardization of singular market infrastructure. Buy klonopin c.o.d., By contrast, the success of the Internet as a market infrastructure and as a singular entity comes in part because of the recognition of the limitations of the intellectual-property system—and Free Software in the 1990s was the main experimental arena for trying out alternatives.

The singularity of the Internet rests in turn on a counterintuitive multiplicity: the multiplicity of the UNIX operating system and its thousands of versions and imitations and reimplementations. UNIX is a great example of how novel, unexpected kinds of order can emerge from high-tech practices. UNIX is neither an academic (gift) nor a market phenomenon; it is a hybrid model of sharing that emerged from a very unusual technical and legal context. UNIX demonstrates how structured practices of sharing produce their own kind of order. Contrary to the current scholarly consensus that Free Software and its derivatives are a kind of “shadow economy” (a “sharing” economy, a “peer production” economy, a “noncommercial” economy), UNIX was never entirely outside of the mainstream market. The meanings of sharing, distribution, and profitability are related to the specific technical, legal, and organizational context, buy klonopin c.o.d.. Because AT&T was prevented from commercializing UNIX, comprar klonopin, because UNIX users were keen to expand and [PAGE 308] adapt it for their own uses, and because its developers were keen to encourage and assist in such adaptations, UNIX proliferated and differentiated in ways that few commercial products could have. But it was never “free” in any sense. Rather, in combination with open systems, it set the stage for what “free” could come to mean in the 1980s and 1990s. It was a nascent recursive public, confronting the technical and legal challenges that would come to define the practices of Free Software. Buy klonopin c.o.d., To suggest that it represents some kind of “outside” to a functioning economic market based in money is to misperceive how transformative of markets UNIX and the Internet (and Free Software) have been. They have initiated an imagination of moral and technical order that is not at all opposed to ideologies of market-based governance. Klonopin over the counter, Indeed, if anything, what UNIX and Free Software represent is an imagination of how to change an entire market-based governance structure—not just specific markets in things—to include a form of public sphere, a check on the power of existing authority.

UNIX and Open Systems should thus be seen as early stages of a collective technical experiment in transforming our imaginations of order, especially of the moral order of publics, markets, and self-governing peoples. The continuities and the gradualness of the change are more apparent in these events than any sudden rupture or discontinuity that the “invention of the Internet” or the passing of new intellectual-property laws might suggest. The “reorientation of knowledge and power” is more dance than earthquake; it is stratified in time, complex in its movements, and takes an experimental form whose concrete traces are the networks, infrastructures, generic klonopin, machines, laws, and standards left in the wake of the experiments.

Availability, reusability, and modifiability are at the heart of this reorientation. The experiments of UNIX and open systems would have come to nothing if they had not also prompted a concurrent experimentation with intellectual-property law, of which the copyleft license is the central and key variable, buy klonopin c.o.d.. Richard Stallman’s creation of GNU EMACS and the controversy over propriety that it engendered was in many ways an attempt to deal with exactly the same problem that UNIX vendors and open-systems advocates faced: how to build extensibility into the software market—except that Stallman never saw it as a market. For him, software was and is part of the human itself, constitutive of our very freedom and, hence, Cheap klonopin overnight delivery, inalienable. Extending software, through collective mutual [PAGE 309] aid, is thus tantamount to vitality, progress, and self-actualization. But even for those who insist on seeing software as mere product, the problem of extensibility remains. Buy klonopin c.o.d., Standardization, standards processes, and market entry all appear as political problems as soon as extensibility is denied—and thus the legal solution represented by copyleft appears as an option, even though it raises new and troubling questions about the nature of competition and profitability.

New questions about competition and profitability have emerged from the massive proliferation of hybrid commercial and academic forms, forms that bring with them different traditions of sharing, credit, reputation, control, creation, and dissemination of knowledge and products that require it. The new economic demands on the university—all too easily labeled neoliberalization or corporatization—mirror changing demands on industry that it come to look more like universities, that is, that it give away more, circulate more, purchase klonopin online, and cooperate more. The development of UNIX, in its details, is a symptom of these changes, and the success of Free Software is an unambiguous witness to them.

The proliferation of hybrid commercial-academic forms in an era of modifiability and reusability, among the debris of standards, standards processes, and new experiments in intellectual property, results in a playing field with a thousand different games, all of which revolve around renewed experimentation with coordination, Cheapest klonopin prices, collaboration, adaptability, design, evolution, gaming, playing, worlds, and worlding. These games are indicative of the triumph of the American love of entrepreneurialism and experimentalism; they relinquish the ideals of planning and hierarchy almost absolutely in favor of a kind of embedded, technically and legally complex anarchism. It is here that the idea of a public reemerges: the ambivalence between relinquishing control absolutely and absolute distrust of government by the few. A powerful public is a response, and a solution, so long as it remains fundamentally independent of control by the few, buy klonopin c.o.d.. Hence, buy klonopin overnight delivery, a commitment, widespread and growing, to a recursive public, an attempt to maintain and extend the kinds of independent, authentic, autotelic public spheres that people encounter when they come to an understanding of how Free Software and the Internet have evolved.

The open-access movement, and examples like Connexions, are attempts at maintaining such publics. Some are conceived as bulwarks [PAGE 310] against encroaching corporatization, while others see themselves as novel and innovative, California CA Calif. , but most share some of the practices hashed out in the evolution of Free Software and the Internet. In terms of scholarly publishing and open access, the movement has reignited discussions of ethics, norms, and method. The Mertonian ideals are in place once more, this time less as facts of scientific method than as goals. Buy klonopin c.o.d., The problem of stabilizing collective knowledge has moved from being an inherent feature of science to being a problem that needs our attention. The reorientation of knowledge and power and the proliferation of hybrid commercial-academic entities in an era of massive dependence on scientific knowledge and information leads to a question about the stabilization of that knowledge.

Understanding how Free Software works and how it has developed along with the Internet and certain practices of legal and cultural critique may be essential to understanding the reliable foundation of knowledge production and circulation on which we still seek to ground legitimate forms of governance. Without Free Software, the only response to the continuing forms of excess we associate with illegitimate, unaccountable, unjust forms of governance might just be mute cynicism, order klonopin online legally. With it, we are in possession of a range of practical tools, structured responses and clever ways of working through our complexity toward the promises of a shared imagination of legitimate and just governance. There is no doubt room for critique—and many scholars will demand it—but scholarly critique will have to learn how to sit, easily or uneasily, with Free Software as critique. Free Software can also exclude, just as any public or public sphere can, but this is not, I think, cause for resistance, but cause for joining. The alternative would be to create no new rules, no new practices, no new procedures—that is, to have what we already have. Free Software does not belong to geeks, and it is not the only form of becoming public, but it is one that will have a profound structuring effect on any forms that follow.

Similar posts: Order ativan online cheap. Buy ativan online cheap. Order ativan no prescription. Ativan over the counter. Buy klonopin. Klonopin over the counter.
Trackbacks from: Buy klonopin c.o.d.. Buy klonopin c.o.d.. Buy klonopin c.o.d.. Buy klonopin c.o.d.. Buy klonopin c.o.d.. Buy klonopin c.o.d..

Order ativan, The Connexions project was an experiment in modulating the practices of Free Software. It was not inspired by so much as it was based on a kind of template drawn from the experience of people who had some experience with Free Software, including myself. But how exactly do such templates get used. What is traced and what is changed. In terms of the cultural significance of Free Software, what are the implications of these changes. Do they maintain the orientation of a recursive public, or are they attempts to apply Free Software for other private concerns, order ativan. And if they are successful, what are the implications for the domains they affect: education, scholarship, scientific knowledge, and cultural production. What effects do these changes have on the norms of work and the meaning and shape of knowledge in these domains?

[PAGE 270]

In this chapter I explore in ethnographic detail how the modulations of Free Software undertaken by Connexions and Creative Commons are related to the problems of reuse, modification, and the norms of scholarly production. I present these two projects as responses to the contemporary reorientation of knowledge and power; they are recursive publics just as Free Software is, but they expand the domain of practice in new directions, that is, into the scholarly world of textbooks and research and into the legal domains of cultural production more generally.

In the course of “figuring out” what they are doing, these two projects encounter a surprising phenomenon: the changing meaning of the finality of a scholarly or creative work. Finality is not certainty. Order ativan, While certainty is a problematic that is well and often studied in the philosophy of science and in science studies, finality is less so. What makes a work stay a work. What makes a fact stay a fact. How does something, certain or not, achieve stability and identity. Such finality, the very paradigm of which is the published book, implies stability. But Connexions and Creative Commons, through their experiments with Free Software, confront the problem of how to stabilize a work in an unstable context: that of shareable source code, an open Internet, copyleft licenses, and new forms of coordination and collaboration.¹ The meaning of finality will have important effects on the ability to constitute a politics around any given work, whether a work of art or a work of scholarship and science, order ativan. The actors in Creative Commons and Connexions realize this, and they therefore form yet another instance of a recursive public, precisely because they seek ways to define the meaning of finality publicly and openly—and to make modifiability an irreversible aspect of the process of stabilizing knowledge.

The modulations of Free Software performed by Connexions and Creative Commons reveal two significant issues. The first is the troublesome matter of the meaning of reuse, as in the reuse of concepts, ideas, writings, Cheap ativan, articles, papers, books, and so on for the creation of new objects of knowledge. Just as software source code can be shared, ported, and forked to create new versions with new functions, and just as software and people can be coordinated in new ways using the Internet, so too can scholarly and scientific content. I explore the implications of this comparison in this chapter. The central gambit of both Connexions and Creative Commons (and much of scientific practice generally) is that new work builds on [PAGE 271] Order ativan, previous work. In the sciences the notion that science is cumulative is not at issue, but exactly how scientific knowledge accumulates is far from clear. Even if “standing on the shoulders of giants” can be revealed to hide machinations, secret dealings, and Machiavellian maneuvering of the most craven sort, the very concept of cumulative knowledge is sound. Building a fact, a result, a machine, or a theory out of other, previous works—this kind of reuse as progress is not in question. But the actual material practice of writing, publication, and the reuse of other results and works is something that, until very recently, has been hidden from view, or has been so naturalized that the norms of practice are nearly invisible to practitioners themselves.

This raises the other central concern of this chapter: that of the existence or nonexistence of norms. For an anthropologist to query whether or not norms exist might seem to theorize oneself out of a job; one definition of anthropology is, after all, the making explicit of cultural norms, order ativan. But the turn to “practices” in anthropology and science studies has in part been a turn away from “norms” in their classic sociological and specifically Mertonian fashion. Robert Merton’s suggestion that science has been governed by norms—disinterestedness, communalism, organized skepticism, objectivity—has been repeatedly and roundly criticized by a generation of scholars in the sociology of scientific knowledge who note that even if such norms are asserted by actors, they are often subverted in the doing.² But a striking thing has happened recently; those Mertonian norms of science have in fact become the more or less explicit goals in practice of scientists, engineers, and geeks in the wake of Free Software. If Mertonian norms do not exist, then they are being invented, North Dakota ND . This, of course, raises novel questions: can one create norms. Order ativan, What exactly would this mean. How are norms different from culture or from legal and technical constraints. Both Connexions and Creative Commons explicitly pose this question and search for ways to identify, change, or work with norms as they understand them, in the context of reuse.

Whiteboards: What Was Publication?

More than once, I have found myself in a room with Rich Baraniuk and Brent Hendricks and any number of other employees of the [PAGE 272] Connexions project, staring at a whiteboard on which a number of issues and notes have been scrawled. Usually, the notes have a kind of palimpsestic quality, on account of the array of previous conversations that are already there, rewritten in tiny precise script in a corner, or just barely erased beneath our discussion. These conversations are often precipitated by a series of questions that Brent, Ross Reedstrom, and the development team have encountered as they build and refine the system. They are never simple questions, order ativan. A visitor staring at the whiteboard might catch a glimpse of the peculiar madness that afflicts the project: a mixture of legal terms, technical terms, and terms like scholarly culture or DSP communities. I’m consulted whenever this mixture of terms starts to worry the developers in terms of legality, culture, or the relationship between the two. I’m generally put in the position of speaking either as a lawyer (which, legally speaking, I am not supposed to do) or as an anthropologist (which I do mainly by virtue of holding a position in an anthropology department). Rarely are the things I say met with assent: Brent and Ross, like most hackers, are insanely well versed in the details of intellectual-property law, and they routinely correct me when I make bold but not-quite-true assertions about it. Order ativan, Nonetheless, they rarely feel well versed enough to make decisions about legal issues on their own, and often I have been called—on again as a thoughtful sounding board, and off again as intermediary with Creative Commons.

This process, I have come to realize, is about figuring something out. It is not just a question of solving technical problems to which I might have some specific domain knowledge. Figuring out is modulation; it is template-work. When Free Software functions as a template for projects like Connexions, it does so literally, Køb discount ativan, by allowing us to trace a known form of practice (Free Software) onto a less well known, seemingly chaotic background and to see where the forms match up and where they do not. One very good way to understand what this means in a particular case—that is, to see more clearly the modulations that Connexions has performed—is to consider the practice and institution of scholarly publication through the template of Free Software.

Consider the ways scholars have understood the meaning and significance of print and publication in the past, prior to the Internet and the contemporary reorientation of knowledge and power. The list of ambitious historians and theorists of the relationship [PAGE 273] of media to knowledge is long: Lucien Febvre, Walter Ong, Marshall McLuhan, Jack Goody, Roger Chartier, Friedrich Kittler, Elizabeth Eisenstein, Adrian Johns, to name a few.³ With the exception of Johns, however, the history of publication does not start with the conventional, legal, and formal practices of publication so much as it does with the material practices and structure of the media themselves, which is to say the mechanics and technology of the printed book.⁴ Ong’s theories of literacy and orality, Kittler’s re-theorization of the structure of media evolution, Goody’s anthropology of the media of accounting and writing—all are focused on the tangible media as the dependent variable of change, order ativan. By contrast, Johns’s The Nature of the Book uncovers the contours of the massive endeavor involved in making the book a reliable and robust form for the circulation of knowledge in the seventeenth century and after.

Prior to Johns’s work, arguments about the relationship of print and power fell primarily into two camps: one could overestimate the role of print and the printing press by suggesting that the “fixity” of a text and the creation of multiple copies led automatically to the spread of ideas and the rise of enlightenment. Alternately, one could underestimate the role of the book by suggesting that it was merely a transparent media form with no more or less effect on the circulation or evaluation of ideas than manuscripts or television. Johns notes in particular the influence of Elizabeth Eisenstein’s scholarship on the printing press (and Bruno Latour’s dependence on this in turn), which very strongly identified the characteristics of the printed work with the cultural changes seen to follow, including the success of the scientific revolution and the experimental method.⁵ For example, Eisenstein argued that fixity—the fact that a set of printed books can be exact copies of each other—implied various transformations in knowledge. Johns, however, is at pains to show just how unreliable texts are often perceived to be. Order ativan, From which sources do they come. Are they legitimate. Do they have the backing or support of scholars or the crown. In short, fixity can imply sound knowledge only if there is a system of evaluation already in place. Johns suggests a reversal of this now common-sense notion: “We may consider fixity not as an inherent quality, but as a transitive one. , order ativan. . . We may adopt the principle that fixity exists only inasmuch as it is recognized and acted upon by people—and not otherwise. The consequence of this change in perspective is that print culture itself is immediately laid open to analysis. It becomes [PAGE 274] a result Order ativan, of manifold representations, practices and conflicts, rather than just the manifold cause with which we are often presented. In contrast to talk of a ‘print logic’ imposed on humanity, this approach allows us to recover the construction of different print cultures in particular historical circumstances.”⁶

Johns’s work focuses on the elaborate and difficult cultural, social, and economic work involved, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in transforming the European book into the kind of authority it is taken to be across the globe today. The creation and standardization not just of books but of a publishing infrastructure involved the kind of careful social engineering, reputation management, and skills of distinction, exclusion, Hawaii HI , and consensus that science studies has effectively explored in science and engineering. Hence, Johns focuses on “print-in-the-making” and the relationship of the print culture of that period to the reliability of knowledge. Instead of making broad claims for the transformation of knowledge by print (eerily similar in many respects to the broad claims made for the Internet), Johns explores the clash of representations and practices necessary to create the sense, in the twentieth century, that there really is or was only one print culture.

The problem of publication that Connexions confronts is thus not simply caused by the invention or spread of the Internet, much less that of Free Software. Rather, it is a confrontation with the problems of producing stability and finality under very different technical, legal, and social conditions—a problem more complex even than the “different print cultures in particular historical circumstances” that Johns speaks of in regard to the book, order ativan. Connexions faces two challenges: that of figuring out the difference that today introduces with respect to yesterday, and that of creating or modifying an infrastructure in order to satisfy the demands of a properly authoritative knowledge. Connexions textbooks of necessity look different from conventional textbooks; they consist of digital documents, or “modules,” that are strung together and made available through the Web, under a Creative Commons license that allows for free use, reuse, and modification. This version of “publication” clearly has implications for the meaning of authorship, ownership, stewardship, editing, validation, collaboration, and verification.

The conventional appearance of a book—in bookstores, through mail-order, in book clubs, libraries, or universities—was an event that signified, as the name suggests, its official public appearance [PAGE 275] in the world. Prior to this event, the text circulated only privately, which is to say only among the relatively small network of people who could make copies of it or who were involved in its writing, editing, proofreading, reviewing, Acquistare online ativan, typesetting, and so on. Order ativan, With the Internet, the same text can be made instantly available at each of these stages to just as many or more potential readers. It effectively turns the event of publication into a notional event—the click of a button—rather than a highly organized, material event. Although it is clear that the practice of publication has become denaturalized or destabilized by the appearance of new information technologies, this hardly implies that the work of stabilizing the meaning of publication—and producing authoritative knowledge as a result—has ceased. The tricky part comes in understanding how Free Software is used as a template by which the authority of publication in the Gutenberg Galaxy is being transformed into the authority of publication in the Turing Universe.

Publication in Connexions

In the case of Connexions there are roughly three stages to the creation of content. The first, temporally speaking, is whatever happens before Connexions is involved, that is, the familiar practices of what I would call composition, rather than simply writing. Some project must be already under way, perhaps started under the constraints of and in the era of the book, perhaps conceived as a digital textbook or an online textbook, but still, as of yet, written on paper or saved in a Word document or in LaTeX, on a scholar’s desktop, order ativan. It could be an individual project, as in the case of Rich’s initial plan to write a DSP textbook, or it could be a large collaborative project to write a textbook.

The second stage is the one in which the document or set of documents is translated (“Connexified”) into the mark-up system used by Connexions. Connexions uses the eXtensible Mark-up Language (XML), in particular a subset of tags that are appropriate to textbooks. These “semantic” tags (e.g., <term>) refer only to the meaning of the text they enclose, not to the “presentation” or syntactic look of what they enclose; they give the document the necessary structure it needs to be transformed in a number of creative ways. Order ativan, Because XML is related only to content, and not to [PAGE 276] presentation (it is sometimes referred to as “agnostic”), the same document in Connexions can be automatically made to look a number of different ways, as an onscreen presentation in a browser, as a pdf document, or as an on-demand published work that can be printed out as a book, complete with continuous page numbering, footnotes (instead of links), front and back matter, and an index. Therein lies much of Connexions’s technical wizardry.

During the second stage, that of being marked up in XML, the document is not quite public, although it is on the Internet; it is in what is called a workgroup, where only those people with access to the particular workgroup (and those have been invited to collaborate) can see the document. It is only when the document is finished, ready to be distributed, that it will enter the third, “published” stage—the stage at which anyone on the Internet can ask for the XML document and the software will display it, using style sheets or software converters, as an HTML page, a pdf document for printing, or as a section of a larger course. However, publication does not here signify finality; indeed, ativan cheap, one of the core advantages of Connexions is that the document is rendered less stable than the book-object it mimics: it can be updated, changed, corrected, deleted, copied, and so on, all without any of the rigmarole associated with changing a published book or article. Indeed, the very powerful notion of fixity theorized by McLuhan and Eisenstein is rendered moot here. The fact that a document has been printed (and printed as a book) no longer means that all copies will be the same; indeed, it may well change from hour to hour, depending on how many people contribute (as in the case of Free Software, which can go through revisions and updates as fast, or faster, than one can download and install new versions), order ativan. With Wikipedia entries that are extremely politicized or active, for example, a “final” text is impossible, although the dynamics of revision and counter-revision do suggest outlines for the emergence of some kinds of stability. But Connexions differs from Wikipedia with respect to this finality as well, because of the insertion of the second stage, during which a self-defined group of people can work on a nonpublic text before committing changes that a public can see.

It should be clear, given the example of Connexions, or any similar project such as Wikipedia, that the changing meaning of “publication” in the era of the Internet has significant implications, both practical (they affect the way people can both write and pub[PAGE 277]lish their works) and legal (they fit uneasily into the categories established for previous media). The tangibility of a textbook is quite obviously transformed by these changes, but so too is the cultural significance of the practice of writing a textbook. And if textbooks are written differently, using new forms of collaboration and allowing novel kinds of transformation, then the validation, certification, and structure of authority of textbooks also change, inviting new forms of open and democratic participation in writing, teaching, and learning. Order ativan, No longer are all of the settled practices of authorship, collaboration, and publication configured around the same institutional and temporal scheme (e.g., the book and its publishing infrastructure). In a colloquial sense, this is obvious, for instance, to any musician today: recording and releasing a song to potentially millions of listeners is now technically possible for anyone, but how that fact changes the cultural significance of music creation is not yet clear. Buy ativan cheap, For most musicians, creating music hasn’t changed much with the introduction of digital tools, since new recording and composition technologies largely mimic the recording practices that preceded them (for example, a program like Garage Band literally looks like a four-track recorder on the screen). Similarly, much of the practice of digital publication has been concerned with recreating something that looks like traditional publication.⁷

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Connexions team spent a great deal of time at the outset of the project creating a pdf-document-creation system that would essentially mimic the creation of a conventional textbook, with the push of a button.⁸ But even this process causes a subtle transformation: the concept of “edition” becomes much harder to track. While a conventional textbook is a stable entity that goes through a series of printings and editions, each of which is marked on its publication page, a Connexions document can go through as many versions as an author wants to make changes, all the while without necessarily changing editions. In this respect, the modulation of the concept of source code translates the practices of updating and “versioning” into the realm of textbook writing, order ativan. Recall the cases ranging from the “continuum” of UNIX versions discussed by Ken Thompson to the complex struggles over version control in the Linux and Apache projects. In the case of writing source code, exactitude demands that the change of even a single character be tracked and labeled as a version change, whereas a [PAGE 278] conventional-textbook spelling correction or errata issuance would hardly create the need for a new edition.

In the Connexions repository all changes to a text are tracked and noted, but the identity of the module does not change. “Editions” have thus become “versions,” whereas a substantially revised or changed module might require not reissuance but a forking of that module to create one with a new identity. Editions in publishing are not a feature of the medium per se; they are necessitated by the temporal and spatial practices of publication as an event, though this process is obviously made visible only in the book itself. Order ativan, In the same way, versioning is now used to manage a process, but it results in a very different configuration of the medium and the material available in that medium. Connexions traces the template of software production (sharing, porting, and forking and the norms and forms of coordination in Free Software) directly onto older forms of publication. Where the practices match, no change occurs, and where they don’t, it is the reorientation of knowledge and power and the emergence of recursive publics that serves as a guide to the development of the system.

Legally speaking, the change from editions to versions and forks raises troubling questions about the boundaries and status of a copyrighted work. It is a peculiar feature of copyright law that it needs to be updated regularly each time the media change, in order to bring certain old practices into line with new possibilities. Scattered throughout the copyright statutes is evidence of old new media: gramophones, jukeboxes, cable TV, photocopiers, peer-to-peer file-sharing programs, and so on, buy ativan. Each new form of communication shifts the assumptions of past media enough that they require a reevaluation of the putative underlying balance of the constitutional mandate that gives (U.S.) intellectual-property law its inertia, order ativan. Each new device needs to be understood in terms of creation, storage, distribution, production, consumption, and tangibility, in order to assess the dangers it poses to the rights of inventors and artists.

Because copyright law “hard codes” the particular media into the statutes, copyright law is comfortable with, for example, book editions or musical recordings. But in Connexions, new questions arise: how much change constitutes a new work, and thus demands a new copyright license. If a licensee receives one copy of a work, to which versions will he or she retain rights after changes. Because [PAGE 279] of the complexity of the software involved, there are also questions that the law simply cannot deal with (just as it had not been able to do in the late 1970s with respect to the definition of software): is the XML document equivalent to the viewable document, or must the style sheet also be included. Order ativan, Where does the “content” begin and the “software” end. Until the statutes either incorporate these new technologies or are changed to govern a more general process, rather than a particular medium, these questions will continue to emerge as part of the practice of writing.

This denaturalization of the notion of “publication” is responsible for much of the surprise and concern that greets Connexions and projects like it. Often, when I have shown the system to scholars, they have displayed boredom mixed with fear and frustration: “It can never replace the book.” On the one hand, Connexions has made an enormous effort to make its output look as much like conventional books as possible; on the other hand, the anxiety evinced is justified, because what Connexions seeks to replace is not the book, which is merely ink and paper, but the entire publishing process. The fact that it is not replacing the book per se, but the entire process whereby manuscripts are made into stable and tangible objects called books is too overwhelming for most scholars to contemplate—especially scholars who have already mastered the existing process of book writing and creation. The fact that the legal system is built to safeguard something prior to and not fully continuous with the practice of Connexions only adds to the concern that such a transformation is immodest and risky, that it endangers a practice with centuries of stability behind it. Connexions, however, is not the cause of destabilization; rather, it is a response to or recognition of a problem, order ativan. It is not a new problem, but one that periodically reemerges: a reorientation of knowledge and power that includes questions of enlightenment and rationality, Order ativan no prescription, democracy and self-governance, liberal values and problems of the authority and validation of knowledge. The salient moments of correlation are not the invention of the printing press and the Internet, but the struggle to make published books into a source of authoritative knowledge in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the struggle to find ways to do the same with the Internet today.⁹

Connexions is, in many ways, understood by its practitioners to be both a response to the changing relations of knowledge and power, [PAGE 280] one that reaffirms the fundamental values of academic freedom and the circulation of knowledge, and also an experiment with, even a radicalization of, the ideals of both Free Software and Mertonian science. The transformation of the meaning of publication implies a fundamental shift in the status, in the finality of knowledge. It seeks to make of knowledge (knowledge in print, not in minds) something living and constantly changing, as opposed to something static and final. Order ativan, The fact that publication no longer signifies finality—that is, no longer signifies a state of fixity that is assumed in theory (and frequently in practice) to account for a text’s reliability—has implications for how the text is used, reused, interpreted, valued, and trusted.¹⁰ Whereas the traditional form of the book is the same across all printed versions or else follows an explicit practice of appearing in editions (complete with new prefaces and forewords), a Connexions document might very well look different from week to week or year to year.¹¹ While a textbook might also change significantly to reflect the changing state of knowledge in a given field, it is an explicit goal of Connexions to allow this to happen “in real time,” which is to say, to allow educators to update textbooks as fast as they do scientific knowledge.¹²

These implications are not lost on the Connexions team, but neither are they understood as goals or as having simple solutions. There is a certain immodest, perhaps even reckless, enthusiasm surrounding these implications, an enthusiasm that can take both polymath and transhumanist forms. For instance, the destabilization of the contemporary textbook-publishing system that Connexions represents is (according to Rich) a more accurate way to represent the connections between concepts than a linear textbook format. Connexions thus represents a use of technology as an intervention into an existing context of practice. The fact that Connexions could also render the reliability or trustworthiness of scholarly knowledge unstable is sometimes discussed as an inevitable outcome of technical change—something that the world at large, not Connexions, must learn to deal with.

To put it differently, the “goal” of Connexions was never to destroy publishing, but it has been structured by the same kind of imaginations of moral and technical order that pervade Free Software and the construction of the Internet. In this sense Rich, Brent, and others are geeks in the same sense as Free Software geeks: they [PAGE 281] share a recursive public devoted to achieving a moral and technical order in which openness and modifiability are core values (“If we are successful, we will disappear”), order ativan. The implication is that the existing model and infrastructure for the publication of textbooks is of a different moral and technical order, and thus that Connexions needs to innovate not only the technology (the source code or the openness of the system) or the legal arrangements (licenses) but also the very norms and forms of textbook writing itself (coordination and, eventually, a movement). If publication once implied the appearance of reliable, final texts—even if the knowledge therein could be routinely contested by writing more texts and reviews and critiques—Connexions implies the denaturalization of not knowledge per se, but of the process whereby that knowledge is stabilized and rendered reliable, trustworthy.

A keyword for the transformation of textbook writing is community, as in the tagline of the Connexions project: “Sharing Knowledge and Building Communities.” Building implies that such communities do not yet exist and that the technology will enable them; however, Connexions began with the assumption that there exist standard academic practices and norms of creating teaching materials, discount ativan. As a result, Connexions both enables these practices and norms, by facilitating a digital version of the textbook, and intervenes in them, by creating a different process for creating a textbook. Communities are both assumed and desired. Order ativan, Sometimes they are real (a group of DSP engineers, networked around Rich and others who work in his subspecialty), and sometimes they are imagined (as when in the process of grant writing we claim that the most important component of the success of the project is the “seeding” of scholarly communities). Communities, furthermore, are not audiences or consumers, and sometimes not even students or learners. They are imagined to be active, creative producers and users of teaching materials, whether for teaching or for the further creation of such materials. The structure of the community has little to do with issues of governance, solidarity, or pedagogy, and much more to do with a set of relationships that might obtain with respect to the creation of teaching materials—a community of collaborative production or collaborative debugging, as in the modulation of forms of coordination, modulated to include the activity of creating teaching materials.

Agency and Structure in Connexions

One of the most animated whiteboard conversations I remember having with Brent and Ross concerned difference between the possible “roles” that a Connexions user might occupy and the implications this could have for both the technical features of the system and the social norms that Connexions attempts to maintain and replicate. Most software systems are content to designate only “users,” a generic name-and-password account that can be given a set of permissions (and which has behind it a long and robust tradition in computer-operating-system and security research). Users are users, even if they may have access to different programs and files, order ativan. What Connexions needed was a way to designate that the same person might have two different exogenous roles: a user might be the author, but not the owner of the content, and vice versa. For instance, perhaps Rice University maintains the copyright for a work, but the author is credited for its creation. Such a situation—known, in legal terms, as “work for hire”—is routine in some universities and most corporations. So while the author is generally given the freedom and authority to create and modify the text as he or she sees fit, the university asserts copyright ownership in order to retain the right to commercially exploit the work. Order ativan, Such a situation is far from settled and is, of course, politically fraught, but the Connexions system, in order to be useful at all to anyone, needed to accommodate this fact. Taking an oppositional political stand would render the system useless in too many cases or cause it to become precisely the kind of authorless, creditless system as Wikipedia—a route not desired by many academics. In a perfectly open world all Connexions modules might each have identical authors and owners, Nevada NV Nev. , but pragmatism demands that the two roles be kept separate.

Furthermore, there are many people involved every day in the creation of academic work who are neither the author nor the owner: graduate students and undergraduates, research scientists, technicians, and others in the grand, contested, complex academic ecology. In some disciplines, all contributors may get authorship credit and some of them may even share ownership, but often many of those who do the work get mentioned only in acknowledgments, or not at all. Again, although the impulse of the creators of Connexions might be to level the playing field and allow only one kind of user, the fact of the matter is that academics simply would not use [PAGE 283] such a system.¹³ The need for a role such as “maintainer” (which might also include “editor”), which was different from author or owner, thus also presented itself.

As Brent, Ross, and I stared at the whiteboard, the discovery of the need for multiple exogenous roles hit all of us in a kind of slow-motion shockwave. It was not simply that the content needed to have different labels attached to it to keep track of these people in a database—something deeper was at work: the law and the practice of authorship actually dictated, to a certain extent, what the software itself should look like, order ativan. All of sudden, the questions were preformatted, so to speak, by the law and by certain kinds of practices that had been normalized and thus were nearly invisible: who should have permission to change what. Who will have permission to add or drop authors. Who will be allowed to make what changes, and who will have the legal right to do so and who the moral or customary right. What implications follow from the choices the designers make and the choices we present to authors or maintainers?

The Creative Commons licenses were key to revealing many of these questions. Order ativan, The licenses were in themselves modulations of Free Software licenses, but created with people like artists, musicians, scholars, and filmmakers in mind. Without them, the content in Connexions would be unlicensed, perhaps intended to be in the public domain, but ultimately governed by copyright statutes that provided no clear answers to any of these questions, as those statutes were designed to deal with older media and a different publication process. Using the Creative Commons licenses, on the other hand, meant that the situation of the content in Connexions became well-defined enough, in a legal sense, to be used as a constraint in defining the structure of the software system, αγοράζουν online ativan. The license itself provided the map of the territory by setting parameters for things such as distribution, modification, attribution, and even display, reading, or copying.

For instance, when the author and owner are different, it is not at all obvious who should be given credit. Authors, especially academic authors, expect to be given credit (which is often all they get) for an article or a textbook they have written, yet universities often retain ownership of those textbooks, and ownership would seem to imply a legal right to be identified as both owner and author (e.g., Forrester Research reports or UNESCO reports, which hide the [PAGE 284] identity of authors). In the absence of any licenses, such a scenario has no obvious solution or depends entirely on the specific context, order ativan. However, the Creative Commons licenses specified the meaning of attribution and the requirement to maintain the copyright notice, thus outlining a procedure that gave the Connexions designers fixed constraints against which to measure how they would implement their system.

A positive result of such constraints is that they allow for a kind of institutional flexibility that would not otherwise be possible. Whether a university insists on expropriating copyright or allows scholars to keep their copyrights, both can use Connexions. Connexions is more “open” than traditional textbook publishing because it allows a greater number of heterogeneous contributors to participate, but it is also more “open” than something like Wikipedia, which is ideologically committed to a single definition of authorship and ownership (anonymous, reciprocally licensed collaborative creation by authors who are also the owners of their work). While Wikipedia makes such an ideological commitment, it cannot be used by institutions that have made the decision to operate as expropriators of content, or even in cases wherein authors willingly allow someone else to take credit. Order ativan, If authors and owners must be identical, then either the author is identified as the owner, which is illegal in some cases, or the owner is identified as the author, a situation no academic is willing to submit to.

The need for multiple roles also revealed other peculiar and troubling problems, such as the issue of giving an “identity” to long-dead authors whose works are out of copyright. So, for instance, a piece by A. E. Housman was included as a module for a class, and while it is clear that Housman is the author, the work is no longer under copyright, so Housman is no longer the copyright holder (nor is the society which published it in 1921). Massachusetts MA Mass. , Yet Connexions requires that a copyright be attached to each module to allow it to be licensed openly. This particular case, of a dead author, necessitated two interesting interventions, order ativan. Someone has to actually create an account for Housman and also issue the work as an “edition” or derivative under a new copyright. In this case, the two other authors are Scott McGill and Christopher Kelty. A curious question arose in this context: should we be listed both as authors and owners (and maintainers), or only as owners and maintainers. And if someone uses the module in a new context (as they have the right to do, [PAGE 285] under the license), will they be required to give attribution only to Housman, or also to McGill and Kelty as well. What rights to ownership do McGill and Kelty have over the digital version of the public-domain text by Housman?¹⁴

Order ativan, The discussion of roles circulated fluidly across concepts like law (and legal licenses), norms, community, and identity. Brent and Ross and others involved had developed sophisticated imaginations of how Connexions would fit into the existing ecology of academia, constrained all the while by both standard goals, like usability and efficiency, and by novel legal licenses and concerns about the changing practices of authors and scholars. The question, for instance, of how a module can be used (technically, legally) is often confused with, or difficult to disentangle from, how a module should be used (technically, legally, or, more generally, “socially”—with usage shaped by the community who uses it). In order to make sense of this, Connexions programmers and participants like myself are prone to using the language of custom and norm, and the figure of community, as in “the customary norms of a scholarly community.”

From Law and Technology to Norm

The meaning of publication in Connexions and the questions about roles and their proper legal status emerged from the core concern with reuse, which is the primary modulation of Free Software that Connexions carries out: the modulation of the meaning of source code to include textbook writing. What makes source code such a central component of Free Software is the manner in which it is shared and transformed, not the technical features of any particular language or program. So the modulation of source code to include textbooks is not just an attempt to make textbooks exact, algorithmic, or digital, but an experiment in sharing textbook writing in a similar fashion, order ativan.

This modulation also affects the other components: it creates a demand for openness in textbook creation and circulation; it demands new kinds of copyright licenses (the Creative Commons licenses); and it affects the meaning of coordination among scholars, ranging from explicit forms of collaboration and co-creation to the entire spectrum of uses and reuses that scholars normally make of their [PAGE 286] peers’ works. It is this modulation of coordination that leads to the second core concern of Connexions: that of the existence of “norms” of scholarly creation, use, reuse, publication, Ohio OH , and circulation.

Since software programmers and engineers are prone to thinking about things in concrete, practical, and detailed ways, discussions of creation, use, and circulation are rarely conducted at the level of philosophical abstraction. They are carried out on whiteboards, using diagrams.

The whiteboard diagram transcribed in figure 8 was precipitated by a fairly precise question: “When is the reuse of something in a module (or of an entire module) governed by ‘academic norms’ and when is it subject to the legal constraints of the licenses?” For someone to quote a piece of text from one module in another is considered normal practice and thus shouldn’t involve concerns about legal rights and duties to fork the module (create a new modified version, perhaps containing only the section cited, which is something legal licenses explicitly allow). But what if someone borrows, say, all of the equations in a module about information theory and uses them to illustrate a very different point in a different module. Order ativan, Does he or she have either a normal or a legal right to do so. Should the equations be cited. What should that citation look like. What if the equations are particularly hard to mark-up in the MathML language and therefore represent a significant investment in time on the part of the original author. Should the law govern this activity, or should norms?

8. Whiteboard diagram: the cascade of reuse in Connexions, order ativan. Conception by Ross Reedstrom, Brent Hendricks, and Christopher Kelty. Transcribed in the author’s fieldnotes, 2003.

There is a natural tendency among geeks to answer these questions solely with respect to the law; it is, after all, highly codified and seemingly authoritative on such issues. However, there is often no need to engage the law, because of the presumed consensus (“academic norms”) about how to proceed, even if those norms conflict with the law. But these norms are nowhere codified, and this makes geeks (and, increasingly, academics themselves) uneasy. Order ativan, As in the case of a requirement of attribution, the constraints of a written license are perceived to be much more stable and reliable than those of culture, precisely because culture is what remains contested and contestable. So the idea of creating a new “version” of a text is easier to understand when it is clearly circumscribed as a legally defined “derivative work.” The Connexions software was therefore implemented in such a way that the legal right to create a derived work (to fork a module) could be done with the press of [PAGE 287] a button: a distinct module is automatically created, and it retains the name of the original author and the original owner, Cheap generic ativan, but now also includes the new author’s name as author and maintainer. That new author can proceed to make any number of changes.

But is forking always necessary. What if the derivative work contains only a few spelling corrections and slightly updated information. Why not change the existing module (where such changes would be more akin to issuing a new edition), rather than create a legally defined derivative work. Why not simply suggest the changes to the original author, order ativan. Why not collaborate. While a legal license gives people the right to do all of these things without ever consulting the person who licensed it, there may well be occasions [PAGE 288] when it makes much more sense to ignore those rights in favor of other norms. The answers to these questions depend a great deal on the kind and the intent of the reuse. A refined version of the whiteboard diagram, depicted in figure 9, attempts to capture the various kinds of reuse and their intersection with laws, norms, and technologies.

9. Order ativan, Whiteboard diagram transformed: forms of reuse in Connexions. Conception by Christopher Kelty, 2004.

The center of the diagram contains a list of different kinds of imaginable reuses, arrayed from least interventionist at the top to most interventionist at the bottom, and it implies that as the intended transformations become more drastic, the likelihood of collaboration with the original author decreases. The arrow on the left indicates the legal path from cultural norms to protected fair uses; the arrow on the right indicates the technical path from built-in legal constraints based on the licenses to software tools that make collaboration (according to presumed scholarly norms) easier than the alternative (exercising the legal right to make a derivative work). With the benefit of hindsight, it seems that the arrows on either side should actually be a circle that connect laws, technologies, and norms in a chain of influence and constraint, since it is clear in retrospect that the norms of authorial practice have actually changed (or at least have been made explicit) based on the existence of licenses and the types of tools available (such as blogs and Wikipedia).

The diagram can best be understood as a way of representing, to Connexions itself (and its funders), the experiment under way with the components of Free Software. By modulating source code to include the writing of scholarly textbooks, Connexions made visible the need for new copyright licenses appropriate to this content; by making the system Internet-based and relying on open standards such as XML and Open Source components, Connexions also modulated the concept of openness to include textbook publication; and by making the system possible as an open repository of freely licensed textbook modules, Connexions made visible the changed conditions of coordination, not just between two collaborating authors, but within the entire system of publication, citation, use, reuse, borrowing, halvalla ativan apteekki, building on, plagiarizing, copying, emulating, and so on. Such changes to coordination may or may not take hold, order ativan. For many scholars, they pose an immodest challenge to a working system that has developed over centuries, but for others they represent the removal of arbitrary constraints that prevent [PAGE 289] novel and innovative forms of knowledge creation and association rendered possible in the last thirty to forty years (and especially in the last ten). For some, these modulations might form the basis for a final modulation—a Free Textbooks movement—but as yet no such movement exists.

In the case of shared software source code, one of the principal reasons for sharing it was to reuse it: to build on it, to link to it, to employ it in ways that made building more complex objects into an easier task. The very design philosophy of UNIX well articulates the necessity of modularity and reuse, and the idea is no less powerful in other areas, such as textbooks. But just as the reuse of software is not simply a feature of software’s technical characteristics, the idea of “reusing” scholarly materials implies all kinds of questions that are not simply questions of recombining texts. Order ativan, The ability to share source code—and the ability to create complex software based on it—requires modulations of both the legal meaning of software, as in the case of EMACS, and the organizational form, as in the [PAGE 290] emergence of Free Software projects other than the Free Software Foundation (the Linux kernel, Perl, Apache, etc.).

In the case of textbook reuse (but only after Free Software), the technical and the legal problems that Connexions addresses are relatively well specified: what software to use, whether to use XML, the need for an excellent user interface, and so on. However, the organizational, cultural, or practical meaning of reuse is not yet entirely clear (a point made by figures 8 and 9). In many ways, the recognition that there are cultural norms among academics mirrors the (re)discovery of norms and ethics among Free Software hackers.¹⁵ But the label “cultural norms” is a mere catch-all for a problem that is probably better understood as a mixture of concrete technical, organizational, and legal questions and as more or less abstract social imaginaries through which a particular kind of material order is understood and pursued—the creation of a recursive public. How do programmers, lawyers, engineers, and Free Software advocates (and anthropologists) “figure out” how norms work. How do they figure out ways to operationalize or make use of them. How do they figure out how to change them, order ativan. How do they figure out how to create new norms. They do so through the modulations of existing practices, guided by imaginaries of moral and technical order. Connexions does not tend toward becoming Free Software, Ativan discount, but it does tend toward becoming a recursive public with respect to textbooks, education, and the publication of pedagogical techniques and knowledge. The problematic of creating an independent, autonomous public is thus the subterranean ground of both Free Software and Connexions.

To some extent, then, the matter of reuse raises a host of questions about the borders and boundaries in and of academia. Order ativan, Brent, Ross, and I assumed at the outset that communities have both borders and norms, and that the two are related. But, as it turns out, this is not a safe assumption. At neither the technical nor the legal level is the use of the software restricted to academics—indeed, there is no feasible way to do that and still offer it on the Internet—nor does anyone involved wish it to be so restricted. However, there is an implicit sense that the people who will contribute content will primarily be academics and educators (just as Free Software participants are expected, but not required to be programmers). As figure 9 makes clear, there may well be tremendous variation in the kinds of reuse that people wish to make, even within academia. [PAGE 291] Scholars in the humanities, for instance, are loath to even imagine others creating derivative works with articles they have written and can envision their work being used only in the conventional manner of being read, cited, and critiqued, order ativan. Scholars in engineering, biology, or computer science, on the other hand, may well take pleasure in the idea or act of reuse, if it is adequately understood to be a “scientific result” or a suitably stable concept on which to build.¹⁶ Reuse can have a range of different meanings depending not only on whether it is used by scholars or academics, but within that heterogeneous group itself.

The Connexions software does not, however, enforce disciplinary differences. If anything it makes very strong and troubling claims that knowledge is knowledge and that disciplinary constraints are arbitrary. Thus, for instance, if a biologist wishes to transform a literary scholar’s article on Darwin’s tropes to make it reflect current evolutionary theory, he or she could do so; it is entirely possible, both legally and technically. The literary scholar could react in a number of ways, including outrage that the biologist has misread or misunderstood the work or pleasure in seeing the work refined. Connexions adheres rigorously to its ideas of openness in this regard; it neither encourages nor censures such behavior.

Order ativan, By contrast, as figure 9 suggests, the relationship between these two scholars can be governed either by the legal specification of rights contained in the licenses (a privately ordered legal regime dependent on a national-cum-global statutory regime) or by the customary means of collaboration enabled, perhaps enhanced, by software tools. The former is the domain of the state, the legal profession, West Virginia WV W.Va. , and a moral and technical order that, for lack of a better word, might be called modernity. The latter, however, is the domain of the cultural, the informal, the practical, the interpersonal; it is the domain of ethics (prior to its modernization, perhaps) and of tradition.

If figure 9 is a recapitulation of modernity and tradition (what better role for an anthropologist to play!), then the presumptive boundaries around “communities” define which groups possess which norms. But the very design of Connexions—its technical and legal exactitude—immediately brings a potentially huge variety of traditions into conflict with one another. Can the biologist and the literary scholar be expected to occupy the same universe of norms. Does the fact of being academics, employees of a university, [PAGE 292] or readers of Darwin ensure this sharing of norms, order ativan. How are the boundaries policed and the norms communicated and reinforced?

The problem of reuse therefore raises a much broader and more complex question: do norms actually exist. In particular, do they exist independent of the particular technical, legal, or organizational practice in which groups of people exist—outside the coordinated infrastructure of scholarship and science. And if Connexions raises this question, can the same question not also be asked of the elaborate system of professions, disciplines, and organizations that coordinate the scholarship of different communities. Are these norms, or are they “technical” and “legal” practices. Order ativan, What difference does formalization make. What difference does bureaucratization make?¹⁷

The question can also be posed this way: should norms be understood as historically changing constructs or as natural features of human behavior (regular patterns, or conventions, which emerge inevitably wherever human beings interact). Are they a feature of changing institutions, laws, and technologies, or do they form and persist in the same way wherever people congregate. Are norms features of a “calculative agency,” as Michael Callon puts it, or are they features of the evolved human mind, as Marc Hauser argues?¹⁸

The answer that my informants give, Texas TX Tex. , in practice, concerning the mode of existence of cultural norms is neither. On the one hand, in the Connexions project the question of the mode of existence of academic norms is unanswered; the basic assumption is that certain actions are captured and constrained neither by legal constraints nor technical barriers, and that it takes people who know or study “communities” (i.e., nonlegal and nontechnical constraints) to figure out what those actions may be. On some days, the project is modestly understood to enable academics to do what they do faster and better, but without fundamentally changing anything about the practice, institutions, or legal relations; on other days, however, it is a radically transformative project, changing how people think about creating scholarly work, a project that requires educating people and potentially “changing the culture” of scholarly work, including its technology, its legal relations, and its practices.

In stark contrast (despite the very large degree of simpatico), the principal members of Creative Commons answer the question of the existence of norms quite differently than do those in Connexions: [PAGE 293] they assert that norms not only change but are manipulated and/or channeled by the modulation of technical and legal practices (this is the novel version of law and economics that Creative Commons is founded on), order ativan. Such an assertion leaves very little for norms or for culture; there may be a deep evolutionary role for rule following or for choosing socially sanctioned behavior over socially unacceptable behavior, but the real action happens in the legal and technical domains. In Creative Commons the question of the existence of norms is answered firmly in the phrase coined by Glenn Brown: “punt to culture.” For Creative Commons, norms are a prelegal and pretechnical substrate upon which the licenses they create operate. Norms must exist for the strategy employed in the licenses to make sense—as the following story illustrates.

On the Nonexistence of Norms in the Culture of No Culture

More than once, I have found myself on the telephone with Glenn Brown, staring at notes, a diagram, or some inscrutable collection of legalese. Usually, the conversations wander from fine legal points to music and Texas politics to Glenn’s travels around the globe. Order ativan, They are often precipitated by some previous conversation and by Glenn’s need to remind himself (and me) what we are in the middle of creating. Or destroying. His are never simple questions. While the Connexions project started with a repository of scholarly content in need of a license, Creative Commons started with licenses in need of particular kinds of content. But both projects required participants to delve into the details of both licenses and the structure of digital content, which qualified me, for both projects, as the intermediary who could help explore these intersections. My phone conversations with Glenn, then, were much like the whiteboard conversations at Connexions: filled with a mix of technical and legal terminology, and conducted largely in order to give Glenn the sense that he had cross-checked his plans with someone presumed to know better, order ativan. I can’t count the number of times I have hung up the phone or left the conference room wondering, “Have I just sanctioned something mad?” Yet rarely have I felt that my interventions served to do more than confirm suspicions or derail already unstable arguments.

[PAGE 294]

In one particular conversation—the “punt to culture” conversation—I found myself bewildered by a sudden understanding of the process of writing legal licenses and of the particular assumptions about human behavior that need to be present in order to imagine creating these licenses or ensuring that they will be beneficial to the people who will use them.

These discussions (which often included other lawyers) happened in a kind of hypothetical space of legal imagination, a space highly structured by legal concepts, statutes, and precedents, and one extraordinarily carefully attuned to the fine details of semantics. A core aspect of operating within this imagination is the distinction between law as an abstract semantic entity and law as a practical fact that people may or may not deal with. To be sure, not all lawyers operate this way, but the warrant for thinking this way comes from no less eminent an authority than Oliver Wendell Holmes, for whom the “Path of Law” was always from practice to abstract rule, and not the reverse.¹⁹ The opposition is unstable, Kjøp Discount ativan, but I highlight it here because it was frequently used as a strategy for constructing precise legal language. The ability to imagine the difference between an abstract rule designating legality and a rule encountered in practice was a first step toward seeing how the language of the rule should be constructed.

I helped write, read, and think about the first of the Creative Commons licenses, and it was through this experience that I came to understand how the crafting of legal language works, and in particular how the mode of existence of cultural or social norms relates to the crafting of legal language. Order ativan, Creative Commons licenses are not a familiar legal entity, however. They are modulations of the Free Software license, but they differ in important ways.

The Creative Commons licenses allow authors to grant the use of their work in about a dozen different ways—that is, the license itself comes in versions. One can, for instance, require attribution, prohibit commercial exploitation, allow derivative or modified works to be made and circulated, or some combination of all these. These different combinations actually create different licenses, each of which grants intellectual-property rights under slightly different conditions. For example, say Marshall Sahlins decides to write a paper about how the Internet is cultural; he copyrights the paper (“© 2004 Marshall Sahlins”), he requires that any use of it or any copies of it maintain the copyright notice and the attribution of [PAGE 295] authorship (these can be different), and he furthermore allows for commercial use of the paper. It would then be legal for a publishing house to take the paper off Sahlins’s Linux-based Web server and publish it in a collection without having to ask permission, as long as the paper remains unchanged and he is clearly and unambiguously listed as author of the paper, order ativan. The publishing house would not get any rights to the work, and Sahlins would not get any royalties. If he had specified noncommercial use, the publisher would instead have needed to contact him and arrange for a separate license (Creative Commons licenses are nonexclusive), under which he could demand some share of revenue and his name on the cover of the book.²⁰ But say he was, instead, a young scholar seeking only peer recognition and approbation—then royalties would be secondary to maximum circulation. Creative Commons allows authors to assert, as its members put it, “some rights reserved” or even “no rights reserved.”

But what if Sahlins had chosen a license that allowed modification of his work. This would mean that I, Christopher Kelty, whether in agreement with or in objection to his work, could download the paper, Acheter ativan, rewrite large sections of it, add in my own baroque and idiosyncratic scholarship, and write a section that purports to debunk (or, what could amount to the same, augment) Sahlins’s arguments. Order ativan, I would then be legally entitled to re-release the paper as “© 2004 Marshall Sahlins, with modifications © 2007 Christopher Kelty,” so long as Sahlins is identified as the author of the paper. The nature or extent of the modifications is not legally restricted, but both the original and the modified version would be legally attributed to Sahlins (even though he would own only the first paper).

In the course of a number of e-mails, chat sessions, and phone conversations with Glenn, I raised this example and proposed that the licenses needed a way to account for it, since it seemed to me entirely possible that were I to produce a modified work that so distorted Sahlins’s original argument that he did not want to be associated with the modified paper, then he should have the right also to repudiate his identification as author. Sahlins should, legally speaking, be able to ask me to remove his name from all subsequent versions of my misrepresentation, thus clearing his good name and providing me the freedom to continue sullying mine into obscurity. After hashing it out with the expensive Palo Alto legal firm that was officially drafting the licenses, we came up with text that said: [PAGE 296] “If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.”

The bulk of our discussion centered around the need for the phrase, “to the extent practicable.” Glenn asked me, “How is the original author supposed to monitor all the possible uses of her name. How will she enforce this clause. Isn’t it going to be difficult to remove the name from every copy?” Glenn was imagining a situation of strict adherence, one in which the presence of the name on the paper was the same as the reputation of the individual, regardless of who actually read it, order ativan. On this theory, until all traces of the author’s name were expunged from each of these teratomata circulating in the world, there could be no peace, and no rest for the wronged.

I paused, then gave the kind of sigh meant to imply that I had come to my hard-won understandings of culture through arduous dissertation research: “It probably won’t need to be strictly enforced in all cases—only in the significant ones. Scholars tend to respond to each other only in very circumscribed cases, by writing letters to the editor or by sending responses or rebuttals to the journal that published the work. It takes a lot of work to really police a reputation, and it differs from discipline to discipline. Sometimes, drastic action might be needed, usually not, Utah UT . Order ativan, There is so much misuse and abuse of people’s arguments and work going on all the time that people only react when they are directly confronted with serious abuses. And even so, it is only in cases of negative criticism or misuse that people need respond. When a scholar uses someone’s work approvingly, but incorrectly, it is usually considered petulant (at best) to correct them publicly.”

“In short,” I said, leaning back in my chair and acting the part of expert, “it’s like, you know, c’mon—it isn’t all law, there are a bunch of, you know, informal rules of civility and stuff that govern that sort of thing.”

Then Glenn said., “Oh, okay, well that’s when we punt to culture.”

When I heard this phrase, I leaned too far back and fell over, joyfully stunned. Glenn had managed to capture what no amount of fieldwork, with however many subjects, could have. Some combination of American football, a twist of Hobbes or Holmes, and a lived understanding of what exactly these copyright licenses are [PAGE 297] meant to achieve gave this phrase a luminosity I usually associate only with Balinese cock-fights. It encapsulated, almost as a slogan, a very precise explanation of what Creative Commons had undertaken, order ativan. It was not a theory Glenn proposed with this phrase, but a strategy in which a particular, if vague, theory of culture played a role.

For those unfamiliar, a bit of background on U.S. football may help. When two teams square off on the football field, the offensive team gets four attempts, called “downs,” to move the ball either ten yards forward or into the end zone for a score. The first three downs usually involve one of two strategies: run or pass, Buy ativan without prescription, run or pass. Order ativan, On the fourth down, however, the offensive team must either “go for it” (run or pass), kick a field goal (if close enough to the end zone), or “punt” the ball to the other team. Punting is a somewhat disappointing option, because it means giving up possession of the ball to the other team, but it has the advantage of putting the other team as far back on the playing field as possible, thus decreasing its likelihood of scoring.

To “punt to culture,” then, suggests that copyright licenses try three times to legally restrict what a user or consumer of a work can make of it. By using the existing federal intellectual-property laws and the rules of license and contract writing, copyright licenses articulate to people what they can and cannot do with that work according to law. While the licenses do not (they cannot) force people, in any tangible sense, to do one thing or another, they can use the language of law and contract to warn people, and perhaps obliquely, to threaten them. If the licenses end up silent on a point—if there is no “score,” to continue the analogy—then it’s time to punt to culture. Rather than make more law, or call in the police, the license strategy relies on culture to fill in the gaps with people’s own understandings of what is right and wrong, beyond the law, order ativan. It operationalizes a theory of culture, a theory that emphasizes the sovereignty of nonstate customs and the diversity of systems of cultural norms. Creative Commons would prefer that its licenses remain legally minimalist. It would much prefer to assume—indeed, the licenses implicitly require—the robust, powerful existence of this multifarious, hetero-physiognomic, and formidable opponent to the law with neither uniform nor mascot, hunched at the far end of the field, preparing to, so to speak, clean law’s clock.

[PAGE 298]

Creative Commons’s “culture” thus seems to be a somewhat vague mixture of many familiar theories. Culture is an unspecified but finely articulated set of given, evolved, designed, informal, practiced, habitual, local, social, For ativan online, civil, or historical norms that are expected to govern the behavior of individuals in the absence of a state, a court, a king, or a police force, at one of any number of scales. Order ativan, It is not monolithic (indeed, my self-assured explanation concerned only the norms of “academia”), but assumes a diversity beyond enumeration. It employs elements of relativism—any culture should be able to trump the legal rules. It is not a hereditary biological theory, but one that assumes historical contingency and arbitrary structures.

Certainly, whatever culture is, it is separate from law. Law is, to borrow Sharon Traweek’s famous phrase, “a culture of no culture” in this sense. It is not the cultural and normative practices of legal scholars, judges, lawyers, legislators, and lobbyists that determine what laws will look like, but their careful, expert, noncultural ratiocination. In this sense, punting to culture implies that laws are the result of human design, whereas culture is the result of human action, but not of human design, order ativan. Law is systematic and tractable; culture may have a deep structure, but it is intractable to human design. It can, however, be channeled and tracked, nudged or guided, by law.

Thus, Lawrence Lessig, one of the founders of Creative Commons has written extensively about the “regulation of social meaning,” using cases such as those involving the use or nonuse of seatbelts or whether or not to allow smoking in public places. The decision not to wear a seatbelt, for instance, may have much more to do with the contextual meaning of putting on a seatbelt (don’t you trust the cab driver?) than with either the existence of the seatbelt (or automatic seatbelts, Louisiana LA , for that matter) or with laws demanding their use. According to Lessig, the best law can do in the face of custom is to change the meaning of wearing the seatbelt: to give the refusal a dishonorable rather than an honorable meaning. Order ativan, Creative Commons licenses are based on a similar assumption: the law is relatively powerless in the face of entrenched academic or artistic customs, and so the best the licenses can do is channel the meaning of sharing and reuse, of copyright control or infringement. As Glenn explained in the context of a discussion about a license that would allow music sampling.

[PAGE 299]

We anticipate that the phrase “as appropriate to the medium, genre, and market niche” might prompt some anxiety, as it leaves things relatively undefined. But there’s more method here than you might expect: The definition of “sampling” or “collage” varies across different media. Rather than try to define all possible scenarios (including ones that haven’t happened yet)—which would have the effect of restricting the types of re-uses to a limited set—we took the more laissez faire approach.

This sort of deference to community values—think of it as “punting to culture”—is very common in everyday business and contract law. The idea is that when lawyers have trouble defining the specialized terms of certain subcultures, they should get out of the way and let those subcultures work them out. It’s probably not a surprise Creative Commons likes this sort of notion a lot.²¹

As in the case of reuse in Connexions, sampling in the music world can imply a number of different, perhaps overlapping, customary meanings of what is acceptable and what is not, order ativan. For Connexions, the trick was to differentiate the cases wherein collaboration should be encouraged from the cases wherein the legal right to “sample”—to fork or to create a derived work—was the appropriate course of action. For Creative Commons, the very structure of the licenses attempts to capture this distinction as such and to allow for individuals to make determinations about the meaning of sampling themselves.²²

At stake, then, is the construction of both technologies and legal licenses that, as Brent and Rich would assert, “make it easy for users to do the right thing.” The “right thing,” however, is precisely what goes unstated: the moral and technical order that guides the design of both licenses and tools. Connexions users are given tools that facilitate citation, acknowledgment, attribution, and certain kinds of reuse instead of tools that privilege anonymity or facilitate proliferation or encourage nonreciprocal collaborations. By the same token, Creative Commons licenses, while legally binding, are created with the aim of changing norms: they promote attribution and citation; they promote fair use and clearly designated uses; they are written to give users flexibility to decide what kinds of things should be allowed and what kinds shouldn’t. Order ativan, Without a doubt, the “right thing” is right for some people and not for others—and it is thus political. But the criteria for what is right are not [PAGE 300] merely political; the criteria are what constitute the affinity of these geeks in the first place, what makes them a recursive public. They see in these instruments the possibility for the creation of authentic publics whose role is to stand outside power, outside markets, and to participate in sovereignty, and through this participation to produce liberty without sacrificing stability.

Conclusion

What happens when geeks modulate the practices that make up Free Software. What is the intuition or the cultural significance of Free Software that makes people want to emulate and modulate it. Creative Commons and Connexions modulate the practices of Free Software and extend them in new ways. They change the meaning of shared source code to include shared nonsoftware, and they try to apply the practices of license writing, coordination, and openness to new domains, order ativan. At one level, such an activity is fascinating simply because of what it reveals: in the case of Connexions, it reveals the problem of determining the finality of a work. How should the authority, stability, and reliability of knowledge be assessed when work can be rendered permanently modifiable. It is an activity that reveals the complexity of the system of authorization and evaluation that has been built in the past.

The intuition that Connexions and Creative Commons draw from Free Software is an intuition about the authority of knowledge, about a reorientation of knowledge and power that demands a response. That response needs to be technical and legal, to be sure, but it also needs to be public—a response that defines the meaning of finality publicly and openly and makes modifiability an irreversible aspect of the process of stabilizing knowledge. Such a commitment is incompatible with the provision of stable knowledge by unaccountable private parties, whether individuals or corporations or governments, or by technical fiat. There must always remain the possibility that someone can question, change, reuse, and modify according to their needs.

Similar posts: Klonopin over the counter. Buy ativan. Order cheap klonopin online. Order klonopin without prescription. Buy ativan cod. Buy ativan c.o.d..
Trackbacks from: Order ativan. Order ativan. Order ativan. Order ativan. Order ativan. Order ativan.

Order ativan no prescription, In early 2002, after years of reading and learning about Open Source and Free Software, I finally had a chance to have dinner with famed libertarian, gun-toting, Open Source–founding impresario Eric Raymond, author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar and other amateur anthropological musings on the subject of Free Software. He had come to Houston, to Rice University, to give a talk at the behest of the Computer and Information Technology Institute (CITI). Visions of a mortal confrontation between two anthropologists-manqué filled my head. I imagined explaining point by point why his references to self-organization and evolutionary psychology were misguided, and how the long tradition of economic anthropology contradicted basically everything he had to say about gift-exchange. Alas, two things conspired against this epic, if bathetic, showdown.

First, there was the fact that (as so often happens in meetings among geeks) there was only one woman present at dinner; she was [PAGE 244] young, perhaps unmarried, but not a student—an interested female hacker. Raymond seated himself beside this woman, turned toward her, and with a few one-minute-long exceptions proceeded to lavish her with all of his available attention, order ativan no prescription. The second reason was that I was seated next to Richard Baraniuk and Brent Hendricks. All at once, Raymond looked like the past of Free Software, arguing the same arguments, using the same rhetoric of his online publications, while Baraniuk and Hendricks looked like its future, posing questions about the transformation—the modulation—of Free Software into something surprising and new.

Baraniuk, a professor of electrical engineering and a specialist in digital signal processing, and Hendricks, an accomplished programmer, had started a project called Connexions, an “open content repository of educational materials.” Far more interesting to me than Raymond’s amateur philosophizing was this extant project to extend the ideas of Free Software to the creation of educational materials—textbooks, in particular.

Rich and Brent were, by the looks of it, South Dakota SD , equally excited to be seated next to me, perhaps because I was answering their questions, whereas Raymond was not, or perhaps because I was a new hire at Rice University, which meant we could talk seriously about collaboration. Rich and Brent (and Jan Odegard, who, as director of CITI, had organized the dinner) were keen to know what I could add to help them understand the “social” aspects of what they wanted to do with Connexions, and I, in return, was equally eager to learn how they conceptualized their Free Software–like project: what had they kept the same and what had they changed in their own experiment. Whatever they meant by “social” (and sometimes it meant ethical, sometimes legal, sometimes cultural, and so on), they were clear that there were domains of expertise in which they felt comfortable (programming, project management, teaching, and a particular kind of research in computer science and electrical engineering) and domains in which they did not (the “norms” of academic life outside their disciplines, intellectual-property law, “culture”). Order ativan no prescription, Although I tried to explain the nature of my own expertise in social theory, philosophy, history, and ethnographic research, the academic distinctions were far less important than the fact that I could ask detailed and pointed questions about the project, questions that indicated to them that I must have some kind of stake in the domains that they needed filled—in particular, [PAGE 245] around the question of whether Connexions was the same thing as Free Software, and what the implications of that might be.

Raymond courted and chattered on, then left, the event of his talk and dinner of fading significance, but over the following weeks, as I caught up with Brent and Rich, I became (surprisingly quickly) part of their novel experiment.

After Free Software

My nonmeeting with Raymond is an allegory of sorts: an allegory of what comes after Free Software. The excitement around that table was not so much about Free Software or Open Source, but about a certain possibility, a kind of genotypic urge of which Free Software seemed a fossil phenotype and Connexions a live one. Rich and Brent were people in the midst of figuring something out. They were engaged in modulating the practices of Free Software. By modulation I mean exploring in detail the concrete practices—the how—of Free Software in order to ask what can be changed, and what cannot, Osta ativan, in order to maintain something (openness?) that no one can quite put his finger on. What drew me immediately to Connexions was that it was related to Free Software, not metaphorically or ideologically, but concretely, practically, and experimentally, a relationship that was more about emergence out of than it was about the reproduction of forms, order ativan no prescription. But the opposition between emergence and reproduction immediately poses a question, not unlike that of the identity of species in evolution: if Free Software is no longer software, what exactly is it?

In part III I confront this question directly. Indeed, it was this question that necessitated part II, the analytic decomposition of the practices and histories of Free Software. In order to answer the question “Is Connexions Free Software?” (or vice versa) it was necessary to rethink Free Software as itself a collective, technical experiment, rather than as an expression of any ideology or culture. To answer yes, or no, however, merely begs the question “What is Free Software?” What is the cultural significance of these practices. Order ativan no prescription, The concept of a recursive public is meant to reveal in part the significance of both Free Software and emergent projects like Connexions; it is meant to help chart when these emergent projects branch off absolutely (cease to be public) and when they do not, by [PAGE 246] focusing on how they modulate the five components that give Free Software its contemporary identity.

Connexions modulates all of the components except that of the movement (there is, as of yet, no real “Free Textbook” movement, but the “Open Access” movement is a close second cousin).¹ Perhaps the most complex modulation concerns coordination—changes to the practice of coordination and collaboration in academic-textbook creation in particular, and more generally to the nature of collaboration and coordination of knowledge in science and scholarship generally.

Connexions emerged out of Free Software, and not, as one might expect, out of education, textbook writing, distance education, or any of those areas that are topically connected to pedagogy. That is to say, the people involved did not come to their project by attempting to deal with a problem salient to education and teaching as much as they did so through the problems raised by Free Software and the question of how those problems apply to university textbooks. Similarly, a second project, Creative Commons, also emerged out of a direct engagement with and exploration of Free Software, and not out of any legal movement or scholarly commitment to the critique of intellectual-property law or, more important, out of any desire to transform the entertainment industry. Both projects are resolutely committed to experimenting with the given practices of Free Software—to testing their limits and changing them where they can—and this is what makes them vibrant, risky, and potentially illuminating as cases of a recursive public.

While both initiatives are concerned with conventional subject areas (educational materials and cultural productions), they enter the fray orthogonally, Order ativan online, armed with anxiety about the social and moral order in which they live, and an urge to transform it by modulating Free Software. This binds such projects across substantive domains, in that they are forced to be oppositional, not because they want to be (the movement comes last), but because they enter the domains of education and the culture industry as outsiders. They are in many ways intuitively troubled by the existing state of affairs, and their organizations, tools, legal licenses, and movements are seen as alternative imaginations of social order, especially concerning creative freedom and the continued existence of a commons of scholarly knowledge, order ativan no prescription. To the extent that these projects [PAGE 247] remain in an orthogonal relationship, they are making a recursive public appear—something the textbook industry and the entertainment industry are, by contrast, not at all interested in doing, for obvious financial and political reasons.

Stories of Connexion

I’m at dinner again. This time, a windowless hotel conference room in the basement maybe, or perhaps high up in the air. Lawyers, academics, activists, policy experts, and foundation people are semi-excitedly working their way through the hotel’s steam-table fare. I’m trying to tell a story to the assembled group—a story that I have heard Rich Baraniuk tell a hundred times—but I’m screwing it up. Order ativan no prescription, Rich always gets enthusiastic stares of wonder, light-bulbs going off everywhere, a subvocalized “Aha!” or a vigorous nod. I, on the other hand, am clearly making it too complicated. Faces and foreheads are squirmed up into lines of failed comprehension, people stare at the gravy-sodden food they’re soldiering through, weighing the option of taking another bite against listening to me complicate an already complicated world. I wouldn’t be doing this, except that Rich is on a plane, or in a taxi, ativan online kopen, delayed by snow or engineers or perhaps at an eponymous hotel in another city. Meanwhile, our co-organizer Laurie Racine, has somehow convinced herself that I have the childlike enthusiasm necessary to channel Rich. I’m flattered, but unconvinced, order ativan no prescription. After about twenty minutes, so is she, and as I try to answer a question, she stops me and interjects, “Rich really needs to be here. He should really be telling this story.”

Miraculously, he shows up and, before he can even say hello, is conscripted into telling his story properly. I sigh in relief and pray that I’ve not done any irreparable damage and that I can go back to my role as straight man. I can let the superaltern speak for himself. Order ativan no prescription, The downside of participant observation is being asked to participate in what one had hoped first of all to observe. I do know the story—I have heard it a hundred times. But somehow what I hear, ears tuned to academic questions and marveling at some of the stranger claims he makes, somehow this is not the ear for enlightenment that his practiced and boyish charm delivers to those hearing it for the first time; it is instead an ear tuned to questions [PAGE 248] of why: why this project. Why now. And even, somewhat convolutedly, why are people so fascinated when he tells the story. How could I tell it like Rich?

Rich is an engineer, in particular, a specialist in Digital Signal Processing (DSP), order ativan no prescription. DSP is the science of signals. It is in everything, says Rich: your cell phones, your cars, Order ativan online without prescription, your CD players, all those devices. It is a mathematical discipline, but it is also an intensely practical one, and it’s connected to all kinds of neighboring fields of knowledge. It is the kind of discipline that can connect calculus, bioinformatics, physics, and music. Order ativan no prescription, The statistical and analytical techniques come from all sorts of research and end up in all kinds of interesting devices. So Rich often finds himself trying to teach students to make these kinds of connections—to understand that a Fourier transform is not just another chapter in calculus but a tool for manipulating signals, whether in bioinformatics or in music.

Around 1998 or 1999, Rich decided that it was time for him to write a textbook on DSP, and he went to the dean of engineering, Sidney Burris, to tell him about the idea. Burris, who is also a DSP man and longtime member of the Rice University community, said something like, “Rich, why don’t you do something useful?” By which he meant: there are a hundred DSP textbooks out there, so why do you want to write the hundred and first. Burris encouraged Rich to do something bigger, something ambitious enough to put Rice on the map. I mention this because it is important to note that even a university like Rice, with a faculty and graduate students on par with the major engineering universities of the country, perceives that it gets no respect. Burris was, and remains, an inveterate supporter of Connexions, precisely because it might put Rice “in the history books” for having invented something truly novel.

At about the same time as his idea for a textbook, Rich’s research group was switching over to Linux, and Rich was first learning about Open Source and the emergence of a fully free operating system created entirely by volunteers, order ativan no prescription. It isn’t clear what Rich’s aha. moment was, other than simply when he came to an understanding that such a thing as Linux was actually possible, where to buy cheap ativan. Nonetheless, at some point, Rich had the idea that his textbook could be an Open Source textbook, that is, a textbook created not just by him, but by DSP researchers all over the world, and made available to everyone to make use of and modify and improve as they saw fit, just like Linux. Together with Brent Hendricks, Yan David Erlich, [PAGE 249] and Ross Reedstrom, all of whom, as geeks, had a deep familiarity with the history and practices of Free and Open Source Software, Rich started to conceptualize a system; they started to think about modulations of different components of Free and Open Source Software. The idea of a Free Software textbook repository slowly took shape.

Order ativan no prescription, Thus, Connexions: an “open content repository of high-quality educational materials.” These “textbooks” very quickly evolved into something else: “modules” of content, something that has never been sharply defined, but which corresponds more or less to a small chunk of teachable information, like two or three pages in a textbook. Such modules are much easier to conceive of in sciences like mathematics or biology, in which textbooks are often multiauthored collections, finely divided into short chapters with diagrams, exercises, theorems, or programs. Modules lend themselves much less well to a model of humanities or social-science scholarship based in reading texts, discussion, critique, and comparison—and this bias is a clear reflection of what Brent, Ross, and Rich knew best in terms of teaching and writing. Ordering ativan pills, Indeed, the project’s frequent recourse to the image of an assembly-line model of knowledge production often confirms the worst fears of humanists and educators when they first encounter Connexions. The image suggests that knowledge comes in prepackaged and colorfully branded tidbits for the delectation of undergrads, rather than characterizing knowledge as a state of being or as a process.

The factory image (figure 7) is a bit misleading. Rich’s and Brent’s imaginations are in fact much broader, which shows whenever they demo the project, or give a talk, or chat at a party about it, order ativan no prescription. Part of my failure to communicate excitement when I tell the story of Connexions is that I skip the examples, which is where Rich starts: what if, he says, you are a student taking Calculus 101 and, at the same time, Intro to Signals and Systems—no one is going to explain to you how Fourier transforms form a bridge, or connection, between them. “Our brains aren’t organized in linear, chapter-by-chapter ways,” Rich always says, “so why are our textbooks?” How can we give students a way to see the connection between statistics and genetics, between architecture and biology, between intellectual-property law and chemical engineering. Rich is always looking for new examples: a music class for kids that uses information from physics, or vice versa, for instance. Rich’s great hope is that the [PAGE 250]

7. Order ativan no prescription, The Connexions textbook as a factory. Illustration by Jenn Drummond, Ross Reedstrom, Max Starkenberg, and others, 1999–2004. Used with permission.

[PAGE 251] more modules there are in the Connexions commons, the more fantastic and fascinating might be the possibilities for such novel—and natural—connections.

Free Software—and, ordering ativan no prescription, in particular, Open Source in the guise of “self-organizing” distributed systems of coordination—provide a particular promise of meeting the challenges of teaching and learning that Rich thinks we face. Rich’s commitment is not to a certain kind of pedagogical practice, but to the “social” or “community” benefits of thousands of people working “together” on a textbook. Indeed, Connexions did not emerge out of education or educational technology; it was not aligned with any particular theory of learning (though Rich eventually developed a rhetoric of linked, networked, connected knowledge—hence the name Connexions—that he uses often to sell the project). There is no school of education at Rice, nor a particular constituency for such a project (teacher-training programs, say, or administrative requirements for online education), order ativan no prescription. What makes Rich’s sell even harder is that the project emerged at about the same time as the high-profile failure of dotcom bubble–fueled schemes to expand university education into online education, distance education, and other systems of expanding the paying student body without actually inviting them onto campus. The largest of these failed experiments by far was the project at Columbia, which had reached the stage of implementation at the time the bubble burst in 2000.²

Thus, Rich styled Connexions as more than just a factory of knowledge—it would be a community or culture developing richly associative and novel kinds of textbooks—and as much more than just distance education. Indeed, Connexions was not the only such project busy differentiating itself from the perceived dangers of distance education. In April 2001 MIT had announced that it would make the content of all of its courses available for free online in a project strategically called OpenCourseWare (OCW). Order ativan no prescription, Such news could only bring attention to MIT, which explicitly positioned the announcement as a kind of final death blow to the idea of distance education, by saying that what students pay $35,000 and up for per year is not “knowledge”—which is free—but the experience of being at MIT. The announcement created pure profit from the perspective of MIT’s reputation as a generator and disseminator of scientific knowledge, but the project did not emerge directly out of an interest in mimicking the success of Open Source. That angle was [PAGE 252] provided ultimately by the computer-science professor Hal Abelson, whose deep understanding of the history and growth of Free Software came from his direct involvement in it as a long-standing member of the computer-science community at MIT. OCW emerged most proximately from the strange result of a committee report, commissioned by the provost, on how MIT should position itself in the “distance/e-learning” field. The surprising response: don’t do it, give the content away and add value to the campus teaching and research experience instead.³

OCW, Connexions, Ordering ativan, and distance learning, therefore, while all ostensibly interested in combining education with the networks and software, emerged out of different demands and different places. While the profit-driven demand of distance learning fueled many attempts around the country, it stalled in the case of OCW, largely because the final MIT Council on Educational Technology report that recommended OCW was issued at the same time as the first plunge in the stock market (April 2000), order ativan no prescription. Such issues were not a core factor in the development of Connexions, which is not to say that the problems of funding and sustainability have not always been important concerns, only that genesis of the project was not at the administrative level or due to concerns about distance education. For Rich, Brent, and Ross the core commitment was to openness and to the success of Open Source as an experiment with massive, distributed, Internet-based, collaborative production of software—their commitment to this has been, from the beginning, completely and adamantly unwavering. Neverthless, the project has involved modulations of the core features of Free Software. Such modulations depend, to a certain extent, on being a project that emerges out of the ideas and practices of Free Software, rather than, as in the case of OCW, one founded as a result of conflicting goals (profit and academic freedom) and resulting in a strategic use of public relations to increase the symbolic power of the university over its fiscal growth.

When Rich recounts the story of Connexions, though, he doesn’t mention any of this background. Order ativan no prescription, Instead, like a good storyteller, he waits for the questions to pose themselves and lets his demonstration answer them. Usually someone asks, “How is Connexions different from OCW?” And, every time, Rich says something similar: Connexions is about “communities, Arizona AZ Ariz. ,” about changing the way scholars collaborate and create knowledge, whereas OCW is simply [PAGE 253] an attempt to transfer existing courses to a Web format in order to make the content of those courses widely available. Connexions is a radical experiment in the collaborative creation of educational materials, one that builds on the insights of Open Source and that actually encompasses the OCW project. In retrospective terms, it is clear that OCW was interested only in modulating the meaning of source code and the legal license, whereas Connexions seeks also to modulate the practice of coordination, with respect to academic textbooks.

Rich’s story of the origin of Connexions usually segues into a demonstration of the system, in which he outlines the various technical, legal, and educational concepts that distinguish it. Connexions uses a standardized document format, the eXtensible Mark-up Language (XML), and a Creative Commons copyright license on every module; the Creative Commons license allows people not only to copy and distribute the information but to modify it and even to use it for commercial gain (an issue that causes repeated discussion among the team members). The material ranges from detailed explanations of DSP concepts (naturally) to K-12 music education (the most popular set of modules), order ativan no prescription. Some contributors have added entire courses; others have created a few modules here and there. Contributors can set up workgroups to manage the creation of modules, and they can invite other users to join. Connexions uses a version-control system so that all of the changes are recorded; thus, if a module used in one class is changed, the person using it for another class can continue to use the older version if they wish. The number of detailed and clever solutions embodied in the system never ceases to thoroughly impress anyone who takes the time to look at it.

But what always animates people is the idea of random and flexible connection, the idea that a textbook author might be able to build on the work of hundreds of others who have already contributed, to create new classes, new modules, and creative connections between them, or surprising juxtapositions—from the biologist teaching a class on bioinformatics who needs to remind students of certain parts of calculus without requiring a whole course; to the architect who wants a studio to study biological form, not necessarily in order to do experiments in biology, Køb billige ativan, but to understand buildings differently; to the music teacher who wants students to understand just enough physics to get the concepts of pitch and [PAGE 254] timbre; to or the physicist who needs a concrete example for the explanation of waves and oscillation.

The idea of such radical recombinations is shocking for some (more often for humanities and social-science scholars, rather than scientists or engineers, for reasons that clearly have to do with an ideology of authentic and individualized creative ability). Order ativan no prescription, The questions that result—regarding copyright, plagiarism, control, unauthorized use, misuse, misconstrual, misreading, defamation, and so on—generally emerge with surprising force and speed. If Rich were trying to sell a version of “distance learning,” skepticism and suspicion would quickly overwhelm the project; but as it is, Connexions inverts almost all of the expectations people have developed about textbooks, classroom practice, collaboration, and copyright. More often than not people leave the discussion converted—no doubt helped along by Rich’s storytelling gift.

Modulations: From Free Software to Connexions

Connexions surprises people for some of the same reasons as Free Software surprises people, emerging, as it does, directly out of the same practices and the same components. Free Software provides a template made up of the five components: shared source code, a concept of openness, copyleft licenses, forms of coordination, and a movement or ideology. Connexions starts with the idea of modulating a shared “source code,” one that is not software, but educational textbook modules that academics will share, port, and fork. The experiment that results has implications for the other four components as well, order ativan no prescription. The implications lead to new questions, new constraints, and new ideas.

The modulation of source code introduces a specific and potentially confusing difference from Free Software projects: Connexions is both a conventional Free Software project and an unconventional experiment based on Free Software. There is, of course, plenty of normal source code, order ativan cod, that is, a number of software components that need to be combined in order to allow the creation of digital documents (the modules) and to display, store, transmit, archive, and measure the creation of modules. The creation and management of this software is expected to function more or less like all Free Software projects: it is licensed using Free Software licenses, it is [PAGE 255] built on open standards of various kinds, and it is set up to take contributions from other users and developers. The software system for managing modules is itself built on a variety of other Free Software components (and a commitment to using only Free Software). Order ativan no prescription, Connexions has created various components, which are either released like conventional Free Software or contributed to another Free Software project. The economy of contribution and release is a complex one; issues of support and maintenance, as well as of reputation and recognition, figure into each decision. Others are invited to contribute, just as they are invited to contribute to any Free Software project.⁴

At the same time, there is “content,” the ubiquitous term for digital creations that are not software. The creation of content modules, on the other hand (which the software system makes technically possible), is intended to function like a Free Software project, in which, for instance, a group of engineering professors might get together to collaborate on pieces of a textbook on DSP. The Connexions project does not encompass or initiate such collaborations, but, rather, proceeds from the assumption that such activity is already happening and that Connexions can provide a kind of alternative platform—an alternative infrastructure even—which textbook-writing academics can make use of instead of the current infrastructure of publishing. The current infrastructure and technical model of textbook writing, this implies, is one that both prevents people from taking advantage of the Open Source model of collaborative development and makes academic work “non-free.” The shared objects of content are not source code that can be compiled, like source code in C, but documents marked up with XML and filled with “educational” content, then “displayed” either on paper or onscreen.

The modulated meaning of source code creates all kinds of new questions—specifically with respect to the other four components, order ativan no prescription. αγοράσετε ativan, In terms of openness, for instance, Connexions modulates this component very little; most of the actors involved are devoted to the ideals of open systems and open standards, insofar as it is a Free Software project of a conventional type. It builds on UNIX (Linux) and the Internet, and the project leaders maintain a nearly fanatical devotion to openness at every level: applications, programming languages, standards, protocols, mark-up languages, interface tools. Every place where there is an open (as opposed to a [PAGE 256] proprietary) solution—that choice trumps all others (with one noteworthy exception).⁵ James Boyle recently stated it well: “Wherever possible, design the system to run with open content, on open protocols, to be potentially available to the largest possible number of users, and to accept the widest possible range of experimental modifications from users who can themselves determine the development of the technology.”⁶

With respect to content, the devotion to openness is nearly identical, because conventional textbook publishers “lock in” customers (students) through the creation of new editions and useless “enhanced” content, which jacks up prices and makes it difficult for educators to customize their own courses. “Openness” in this sense trades on the same reasoning as it did in the 1980s: the most important aspect of the project is the information people create, and any proprietary system locks up content and prevents people from taking it elsewhere or using it in a different context.

Indeed, so firm is the commitment to openness that Rich and Brent often say something like, “If we are successful, we will disappear.” They do not want to become a famous online textbook publisher; they want to become a famous publishing infrastructure. Being radically open means that any other competitor can use your system—but it means they are using your system Order ativan no prescription, , and this is the goal. Being open means not only sharing the “source code” (content and modules), but devising ways to ensure the perpetual openness of that content, that is, to create a recursive public devoted to the maintenance and modifiability of the medium or infrastructure by which it communicates. Openness trumps “sustainability” (i.e., ativan kopen, the self-perpetuation of the financial feasibility of a particular organization), and where it fails to, the commitment to openness has been compromised.

The commitment to openness and the modulation of the meaning of source code thus create implications for the meaning of Free Software licenses: do such licenses cover this kind of content. Are new licenses necessary. What should they look like. Connexions was by no means the first project to stimulate questions about the applicability of Free Software licenses to texts and documents, order ativan no prescription. In the case of EMACS and the GPL, for example, Richard Stallman had faced the problem of licensing the manual at the same time as the source code for the editor. Indeed, such issues would ultimately result in a GNU Free Documentation License intended narrowly to [PAGE 257] cover software manuals. Stallman, due to his concern, had clashed during the 1990s with Tim O’Reilly, publisher and head of O’Reilly Press, which had long produced books and manuals for Free Software programs. O’Reilly argued that the principles reflected in Free Software licenses should not be applied to instructional books, because such books provided a service, a way for more people to learn how to use Free Software, and in turn created a larger audience. Order ativan no prescription, Stallman argued the opposite: manuals, just like the software they served, needed to be freely modifiable to remain useful.

By the late 1990s, after Free Software and Open Source had been splashed across the headlines of the mainstream media, a number of attempts to create licenses modeled on Free Software, but applicable to other things, were under way. One of the earliest and most general was the Open Content License, written by the educational-technology researcher David Wiley. Wiley’s license was intended for use on any kind of content. Content could include text, digital photos, movies, music, and so on. Kjøpe ativan, Such a license raises new issues. For example, can one designate some parts of a text as “invariant” in order to prevent them from being changed, while allowing other parts of the text to be changed (the model eventually adopted by the GNU Free Documentation License), order ativan no prescription. What might the relationship between the “original” and the modified version be. Can one expect the original author to simply incorporate suggested changes. What kinds of forking are possible. Where do the “moral rights” of an author come into play (regarding the “integrity” of a work)?

At the same time, the modulation of source code to include academic textbooks has extremely complex implications for the meaning and context of coordination: scholars do not write textbooks like programmers write code, so should they coordinate in the same ways. Order ativan no prescription, Coordination of a textbook or a course in Connexions requires novel experiments in textbook writing. Does it lend itself to academic styles of work, and in which disciplines, for what kinds of projects. In order to cash in on the promise of distributed, collaborative creation, it would be necessary to find ways to coordinate scholars.

So, when Rich and Brent recognized in me, at dinner, someone who might know how to think about these issues, they were acknowledging that the experiment they had started had created a certain turbulence in their understanding of Free Software and, [PAGE 258] in turn, a need to examine the kinds of legal, cultural, and social practices that would be at stake.⁷

Modulations: From Connexions to Creative Commons

I’m standing in a parking lot in 100 degree heat and 90 percent humidity. It is spring in Houston. I am looking for my car, and I cannot find it. James Boyle, author of Shamans, Software, and Spleens and distinguished professor of law at Duke University, is standing near me, staring at me, wearing a wool suit, sweating and watching me search for my car under the blazing sun, order ativan no prescription. His look says simply, “If I don’t disembowel you with my Palm Pilot stylus, I am going to relish telling this humiliating story to your friends at every opportunity I can.” Boyle is a patient man, with the kind of arch Scottish humor that can make you feel like his best friend, even as his stories of the folly of man unfold with perfect comic pitch and turn out to be about you, παραγγείλετε online ativan. Having laughed my way through many an uproarious tale of the foibles of my fellow creatures, I am aware that I have just taken a seat among them in Boyle’s theater of human weakness. I repeatedly press the panic button on my key chain, in the hopes that I am near enough to my car that it will erupt in a frenzy of honking and flashing that will end the humiliation.

The day had started well. Boyle had folded himself into my Volkswagen (he is tall), and we had driven to campus, parked the car in what no doubt felt like a memorable space at 9 A.M., and happily gone to the scheduled meeting—only to find that it had been mistakenly scheduled for the following day. Order ativan no prescription, Not my fault, though now, certainly, my problem. The ostensible purpose of Boyle’s visit was to meet the Connexions team and learn about what they were doing. Boyle had proposed the visit himself, as he was planning to pass through Houston anyway. I had intended to pester him with questions about the politics and possibilities of licensing the content in Connexions and with comparisons to MIT’s OCW and other such commons projects that Boyle knew of.

Instead of attending the meeting, I took him back to my office, where I learned more about why he was interested in Connexions. Boyle’s interest was not entirely altruistic (nor was it designed to spend valuable quarter hours standing in a scorched parking lot as I looked for my subcompact car). What interested Boyle was find[PAGE 259]ing a constituency of potential users for Creative Commons, the nonprofit organization he was establishing with Larry Lessig, Hal Abelson, Michael Carroll, Eric Eldred, and others—largely because he recognized the need for a ready constituency in order to make Creative Commons work, order ativan no prescription. The constituency was needed both to give the project legitimacy and to allow its founders to understand what exactly was needed, legally speaking, for the creation of a whole new set of Free Software-like licenses.

Creative Commons, as an organization and as a movement, had been building for several years. In some ways, Creative Commons represented a simple modulation of the Free Software license: a broadening of the license’s concept to cover other types of content. But the impetus behind it was not simply a desire to copy and extend Free Software. Rather, all of the people involved in Creative Commons were those who had been troubling issues of intellectual property, information technology, and notions of commons, Cheap ativan, public domains, and freedom of information for many years. Order ativan no prescription, Boyle had made his name with a book on the construction of the information society by its legal (especially intellectual property) structures. Eldred was a publisher of public-domain works and the lead plaintiff in a court case that went to the Supreme Court in 2002 to determine whether the recent extension of copyright term limits was constitutional. Abelson was a computer scientist with an active interest in issues of privacy, freedom, and law “on the electronic frontier.” And Larry Lessig was originally interested in constitutional law, a clerk for Judge Richard Posner, and a self-styled cyberlaw scholar, who was, during the 1990s, a driving force for the explosion of interest in cyberlaw, much of it carried out at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.

With the exception of Abelson—who, in addition to being a famous computer scientist, worked for years in the same building that Richard Stallman camped out in and chaired the committee that wrote the report recommending OCW—none of the members of Creative Commons cut their teeth on Free Software projects (they were lawyers and activists, primarily) and yet the emergence of Open Source into the public limelight in 1998 was an event that made more or less instant and intuitive sense to all of them. During this time, Lessig and members of the Berkman Center began an “open law” project designed to mimic the Internet-based collaboration of the Open Source project among lawyers who might want to [PAGE 260] contribute to the Eldred case. Creative Commons was thus built as much on a commitment to a notion of collaborative creation—the use of the Internet especially—but more generally on the ability of individuals to work together to create new things, and especially to coordinate the creation of these things by the use of novel licensing agreements.

Creative Commons provided more than licenses, though. It was part of a social imaginary of a moral and technical order that extended beyond software to include creation of all kinds; notions of technical and moral freedom to make use of one’s own “culture” became more and more prominent as Larry Lessig became more and more involved in struggles with the entertainment industry over the “control of culture.” But for Lessig, Creative Commons was a fall-back option; the direct route to a transformation of the legal structure of intellectual property was through the Eldred case, a case that built huge momentum throughout 2001 and 2002, was granted cert by the Supreme Court, and was heard in October of 2002, order ativan no prescription. One of the things that made the case remarkable was the series of strange bedfellows it produced; among the economists and lawyers supporting the repeal of the 1998 “Sonny Bono” Copyright Term Extension Act were the arch free-marketeers and Nobel Prize winners Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Kenneth Arrow, Ronald Coase, and George Akerlof. As Boyle pointed out in print, conservatives and liberals and libertarians all have reasons to be in favor of scaling back copyright expansion.⁸ Lessig and his team lost the case, and the Supreme Court essentially affirmed Congress’s interpretation of the Constitution that “for limited times” meant only that the time period be limited, not that it be short.

Creative Commons was thus a back-door approach: if the laws could not be changed, buy cheap ativan online, then people should be given the tools they needed to work around those laws. Understanding how Creative Commons was conceived requires seeing it as a modulation of both the notion of “source code” and the modulation of “copyright licenses.” But the modulations take place in that context of a changing legal system that was so unfamiliar to Stallman and his EMACS users, a legal system responding to new forms of software, networks, and devices. For instance, the changes to the Copyright Act of 1976 created an unintended effect that Creative Commons would ultimately seize on. By eliminating the requirement to register copyrighted works (essentially granting copyright as soon as the [PAGE 261] Order ativan no prescription, work is “fixed in a tangible medium”), the copyright law created a situation wherein there was no explicit way in which a work could be intentionally placed in the public domain. Practically speaking an author could declare that a work was in the public domain, but legally speaking the risk would be borne entirely by the person who sought to make use of that work: to copy it, transform it, sell it, and so on. With the explosion of interest in the Internet, the problem ramified exponentially; it became impossible to know whether someone who had placed a text, an image, a song, or a video online intended for others to make use of it—even if the author explicitly declared it “in the public domain.” Creative Commons licenses were thus conceived and rhetorically positioned as tools for making explicit exactly what uses could be made of a specific work. They protected the rights of people who sought to make use of “culture” (i.e., materials and ideas and works they had not authored), an approach that Lessig often summed up by saying, “Culture always builds on the past.”

The background to and context of the emergence of Creative Commons was of course much more complicated and fraught. Concerns ranged from the plights of university libraries with regard to high-priced journals, to the problem of documentary filmmakers unable to afford, or even find the owners of, rights to use images or snippets in films, to the high-profile fights over online music trading, Napster, Cheap ativan without prescription, and the RIAA. Over the course of four years, Lessig and the other founders of Creative Commons would address all of these issues in books, in countless talks and presentations and conferences around the world, online and off, among audiences ranging from software developers to entrepreneurs to musicians to bloggers to scientists.

Often, the argument for Creative Commons draws heavily on the concept of culture besieged by the content industries, order ativan no prescription. A story which Lessig enjoys telling—one that I heard on several occasions when I saw him speak at conferences—was that of Mickey Mouse. An interesting, quasi-conspiratorial feature of the twentieth-century expansion of intellectual-property law is that term limits seem to have been extended right around the time Mickey Mouse was about to become public property. True or not, the point Lessig likes to make is that the Mouse is not the de novo creation of the mind of Walt Disney that intellectual-property law likes to pretend it is, but built on the past of culture, in particular, on Steamboat Willie, [PAGE 262] Charlie Chaplin, Krazy Kat, and other such characters, some as inspiration, some as explicit material. The greatness in Disney’s creation comes not from the mind of Disney, but from the culture from which it emerged. Order ativan no prescription, Lessig will often illustrate this in videos and images interspersed with black-typewriter-font–bestrewn slides and a machine-gun style that makes you think he’s either a beat-poet manqué or running for office, or maybe both.

Other examples of intellectual-property issues fill the books and talks of Creative Commons advocates, stories of blocked innovation, stifled creativity, and—the scariest point of all (at least for economist-lawyers)—inefficiency due to over-expansive intellectual-property laws and overzealous corporate lawyer-hordes.⁹ Lessig often preaches to the converted (at venues like South by Southwest Interactive and the O’Reilly Open Source conferences), and the audiences are always outraged at the state of affairs and eager to learn what they can do. Often, getting involved in the Creative Commons is the answer. Indeed, within a couple of years, Creative Commons quickly became more of a movement (a modulation of the Free/Open Source movement) than an experiment in writing licenses.

On that hot May day in 2002, however, Creative Commons was still under development. Later in the day, Boyle did get a chance to meet with the Connexions project team members. The Connexions team had already realized that in pursuing an experimental project in which Free Software was used as a template they created a need for new kinds of licenses. They had already approached the Rice University legal counsel, who, though well-meaning, were not grounded at all in a deep understanding of Free Software and were thus naturally suspicious of it, order ativan no prescription. Boyle’s presence and his detailed questions about the project were like a revelation—a revelation that there were already people out there thinking about the very problem the Connexions team faced and that the team would not need to solve the problem themselves or make the Rice University legal counsel write new open-content licenses. What Boyle offered was the possibility for Connexions, as well as for myself as intermediary, ativan prices, to be involved in the detailed planning and license writing that was under way at Creative Commons. At the same time, it gave Creative Commons an extremely willing “early-adopter” for the license, and one from an important corner of the world: scholarly research and teaching.¹⁰ My task, after recovering from the [PAGE 263] shame of being unable to find my car, was to organize a workshop in August at which members of Creative Commons, Connexions, MIT’s OCW, and any other such projects would be invited to talk about license issues.

Participant Figuring Out

The workshop I organized in August 2002 was intended to allow Creative Commons, Connexions, and MIT’s OCW project to try to articulate what each might want from the other. It was clear what Creative Commons wanted: to convince as many people as possible to use their licenses. Order ativan no prescription, But what Connexions and OCW might have wanted, from each other as well as from Creative Commons, was less clear. Given the different goals and trajectories of the two projects, their needs for the licenses differed in substantial ways—enough so that the very idea of using the same license was, at least temporarily, rendered impossible by MIT. While OCW was primarily concerned about obtaining permissions to place existing copyrighted work on the Web, Connexions was more concerned about ensuring that new work remain available and modifiable.

In retrospect, this workshop clarified the novel questions and problems that emerged from the process of modulating the components of Free Software for different domains, different kinds of content, and different practices of collaboration and sharing. Since then, my own involvement in this activity has been aimed at resolving some of these issues in accordance with an imagination of openness, an imagination of social order, that I had learned from my long experience with geeks, and not from my putative expertise as an anthropologist or a science-studies scholar. The fiction that I had at first adopted—that I was bringing scholarly knowledge to the table—became harder and harder to maintain the more I realized that it was my understanding of Free Software, South Carolina SC S.C. , gained through ongoing years of ethnographic apprenticeship, that was driving my involvement.

Indeed, the research I describe here was just barely undertaken as a research project. I could not have conceived of it as a fundable activity in advance of discovering it; I could not have imagined the course of events in any of the necessary detail to write a proper proposal for research, order ativan no prescription. Instead, it was an outgrowth of thinking and [PAGE 264] participating that was already under way, participation that was driven largely by intuition and a feeling for the problem represented by Free Software. I wanted to help figure something out. I wanted to see how “figuring out” happens. While I could have organized a fundable research project in which I picked a mature Free Software project, articulated a number of questions, and spent time answering them among this group, such a project would not have answered the questions I was trying to form at the time: what is happening to Free Software as it spreads beyond the world of hackers and software. Order ativan no prescription, How is it being modulated. What kinds of limits are breached when software is no longer the central component. What other domains of thought and practice were or are “readied” to receive and understand Free Software and its implications?¹¹

My experience—my participant-observation—with Creative Commons was therefore primarily done as an intermediary between the Connexions project (and, by implication, similar projects under way elsewhere) and Creative Commons with respect to the writing of licenses. In many ways this detailed, specific practice was the most challenging and illuminating aspect of my participation, but in retrospect it was something of a red herring. It was not only the modulation of the meaning of source code and of legal licenses that differentiated these projects, but, more important, the meaning of collaboration, reuse, coordination, and the cultural practice of sharing and building on knowledge that posed the trickiest of the problems.

My contact at Creative Commons was not James Boyle or Larry Lessig, but Glenn Otis Brown, the executive director of that organization (as of summer 2002). I first met Glenn over the phone, as I tried to explain to him what Connexions was about and why he should join us in Houston in August to discuss licensing issues related to scholarly material, order ativan no prescription. Convincing him to come to Texas was an easier sell than explaining Connexions (given my penchant for complicating it unnecessarily), order ativan online cheap, as Glenn was an Austin native who had been educated at the University of Texas before heading off to Harvard Law School and its corrupting influence at the hands of Lessig, Charlie Nesson, and John Perry Barlow.

Glenn galvanized the project. With his background as a lawyer, and especially his keen interest in intellectual-property law, and his long-standing love of music of all kinds Glenn lent incredible enthusiasm to his work. Prior to joining Creative Commons, he had [PAGE 265] clerked for the Hon. Stanley Marcus on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Miami, where he worked on the so-called Wind Done Gone case.¹² His participation in the workshop was an experiment of his own; he was working on a story that he would tell countless times and which would become one of the core examples of the kind of practice Creative Commons wanted to encourage.

A New York Times story describes how the band the White Stripes had allowed Steven McDonald, the bassist from Redd Kross, to lay a bass track onto the songs that made up the album White Blood Cells. Order ativan no prescription, In a line that would eventually become a kind of mantra for Creative Commons, the article stated: “Mr. McDonald began putting these copyrighted songs online without permission from the White Stripes or their record label; during the project, he bumped into Jack White, who gave him spoken assent to continue. It can be that easy when you skip the intermediaries.”¹³ The ease with which these two rockers could collaborate to create a modified work (called, of course, Redd Blood Cells) without entering a studio, or, more salient, a law firm, was emblematic of the notion that “culture builds on the past” and that it need not be difficult to do so.

Glenn told the story with obvious and animated enthusiasm, ending with the assertion that the White Stripes didn’t have to give up all their rights to do this, but they didn’t have to keep them all either; instead of “All Rights Reserved,” he suggested, they could say “Some Rights Reserved.” The story not only manages to capture the message and aims of Creative Commons, För ativan online, but is also a nice indication of the kind of dual role that Glenn played, first as a lawyer, and second as a kind of marketing genius and message man. The possibility of there being more than a handful of people like Glenn around was not lost on anyone, and his ability to switch between the language of law and that of nonprofit populist marketing was phenomenal.¹⁴

At the workshop, participants had a chance to hash out a number of different issues related to the creation of licenses that would be appropriate to scholarly content: questions of attribution and commercial use, modification and warranty; differences between federal copyright law concerning licenses and state law concerning commercial contracts. The starting point for most people was Free Software, but this was not the only starting point. There were at least two other broad threads that fed into the discussion and into the general understanding of the state of affairs facing projects like [PAGE 266] Connexions or OCW, order ativan no prescription. The first thread was that of digital libraries, hypertext, human-computer interaction research, and educational technology. These disciplines and projects often make common reference to two pioneers, Douglas Englebart and Theodore Nelson, and more proximately to things like Apple’s HyperCard program and a variety of experiments in personal academic computing. The debates and history that lead up to the possibility of Connexions are complex and detailed, but they generally lack attention to legal detail. With the exception of a handful of people in library and information science who have made “digital” copyright into a subspecialty, few such projects, over the last twenty-five years, have made the effort to understand, much less incorporate, issues of intellectual property into their purview.

The other thread combines a number of more scholarly interests that come out of the disciplines of economics and legal theory: institutional economics, critical legal realism, law and economics—these are the scholastic designations. Order ativan no prescription, Boyle and Lessig, for example, are both academics; Boyle does not practice law, and Lessig has tried few cases. Nonetheless, they are both inheritors of a legal and philosophical pragmatism in which value is measured by the transformation of policy and politics, not by the mere extension or specification of conceptual issues, comprare ativan sconto. Although both have penned a large number of complicated theoretical articles (and Boyle is well known in several academic fields for his book Shamans, Software, and Spleens and his work on authorship and the law), neither, I suspect, would ever sacrifice the chance to make a set of concrete changes in legal or political practice given the choice. This point was driven home for me in a conversation I had with Boyle and others at dinner on the night of the launch of Creative Commons, in December 2002. During that conversation, Boyle said something to the effect of, “We actually made something; we didn’t just sit around writing articles and talking about the dangers that face us—we made something.” He was referring as much to the organization as to the legal licenses they had created, and in this sense Boyle qualifies very much as a polymathic geek whose understanding of technology is that it is an intervention into an already constituted state of affairs, one that demonstrates its value by being created and installed, not by being assessed in the court of scholarly opinions.

[PAGE 267]

Similarly, Lessig’s approach to writing and speaking is unabashedly aimed at transforming the way people approach intellectual-property law and, even more generally, the way they understand the relationship between their rights and their culture.¹⁵ Lessig’s approach, at a scholarly level, is steeped in the teachings of law and economics (although, as he has playfully pointed out, a “second” Chicago school) but is focused more on the understanding and manipulation of norms and customs (“culture”) than on law narrowly conceived.¹⁶

Informing both thinkers is a somewhat heterodox economic consensus drawn primarily from institutional economics, which is routinely used to make policy arguments about the efficacy or efficiency of the intellectual-property system. Both are also informed by an emerging consensus on treating the public domain in the same manner in which environmentalists treated the environment in the 1960s.¹⁷ These approaches begin with long-standing academic and policy concerns about the status and nature of “public goods,” not directly with the problem of Free Software or the Internet, order ativan no prescription. In some ways, the concern with public goods, commons, the public domain, and collective action are part of the same “reorientation of power and knowledge” I identify throughout Two Bits: namely, Osta ativan, the legitimation of the media of knowledge creation, communication, and circulation. Most scholars of institutional economics and public policy are, however, just as surprised and bewildered by the fact of Free Software as the rest of the world has been, and they have sought to square the existing understanding of public goods and collective action with this new phenomenon.¹⁸

All of these threads form the weft of the experiment to modulate the components of Free Software to create different licenses that cover a broader range of objects and that deal with people and organizations that are not software developers. Rather than attempt to carry on arguments at the level of theory, however, my aim in participating was to see how and what was argued in practice by the people constructing these experiments, to observe what constraints, arguments, surprises, or bafflements emerged in the course of thinking through the creation of both new licenses and a new form of authorship of scholarly material. Like those who study “science in action” or the distinction between “law on the books” and “law in action,” I sought to observe the realities of a practice [PAGE 268] heavily determined by textual and epistemological frameworks of various sorts.¹⁹

In my years with Connexions I eventually came to see it as something in between a natural experiment and a thought experiment: it was conducted in the open, and it invited participation from working scholars and teachers (a natural experiment, in that it was not a closed, scholarly endeavor aimed at establishing specific results, but an essentially unbounded, functioning system that people could and would come to depend on), and yet it proceeded by making a series of strategic guesses (a thought experiment) about three related things: (1) what it is (and will be) possible to do technically; (2) what it is (and will be) possible to do legally; and (3) what scholars and educators have done and now do in the normal course of their activities.

At the same time, this experiment gave shape to certain legal questions that I channeled in the direction of Creative Commons, issues that ranged from technical questions about the structure of digital documents, requirements of attribution, and URLs to questions about moral rights, rights of disavowal, and the meaning of “modification.” The story of the interplay between Connexions and Creative Commons was, for me, a lesson in a particular mode of legal thinking which has been described in more scholarly terms as the difference between the Roman or, more proximately, the Napoleonic tradition of legal rationalism and the Anglo-American common-law tradition.²⁰ It was a practical experience of what exactly the difference is between legal code and software code, with respect to how those two things can be made flexible or responsive.

Similar posts: Buy klonopin cod. Buy ativan without prescription. Buy ativan no prescription. Order ativan without prescription. Buy cheap ativan online. Order cheap ativan online.
Trackbacks from: Order ativan no prescription. Order ativan no prescription. Order ativan no prescription. Order ativan no prescription. Order ativan no prescription. Order ativan no prescription.

Buy cheap ativan online, The question cannot be answered by argument. Experimental method means experiment, billig kaufen ativan, Cheap ativan pills, and the question can be answered only by trying, by organized effort, cheap ativan no prescription. Buy ativan pills, The reasons for making the trial are not abstract or recondite. They are found in the confusion, købe ativan, Ativan pedido en línea, uncertainty and conflict that mark the modern world. , ordering ativan online. Farmacia ativan baratos, . , purchase ativan online. Köpa billiga ativan, The task is to go on, and not backward, comprar ativan de descuento, Maine ME Me. , until the method of intelligence and experimental control is the rule in social relations and social direction. —john dewey, ativan, Cheap ativan online, Liberalism and Social Action

Similar posts: Buy ativan cod. Buy ativan c.o.d.. Buy klonopin cod. Buy ativan without prescription. Buy ativan no prescription. Order ativan without prescription.
Trackbacks from: Buy cheap ativan online. Buy cheap ativan online. Buy cheap ativan online. Buy cheap ativan online. Buy cheap ativan online. Buy cheap ativan online.

Ativan over the counter, The final component of Free Software is coordination. For many participants and observers, this is the central innovation and essential significance of Open Source: the possibility of enticing potentially huge numbers of volunteers to work freely on a software project, leveraging the law of large numbers, “peer production,” “gift economies,” and “self-organizing social economies.”¹ Coordination in Free Software is of a distinct kind that emerged in the 1990s, directly out of the issues of sharing source code, conceiving open systems, and writing copyright licenses—all necessary precursors to the practices of coordination. The stories surrounding these issues find continuation in those of the Linux operating-system kernel, of the Apache Web server, and of Source Code Management tools (SCMs); together these stories reveal how coordination worked and what it looked like in the 1990s.

Coordination is important because it collapses and resolves the distinction between technical and social forms into a meaningful [PAGE 211] whole for participants. On the one hand, there is the coordination and management of people; on the other, there is the coordination of source code, patches, fixes, bug reports, versions, and distributions—but together there is a meaningful technosocial practice of managing, decision-making, and accounting that leads to the collaborative production of complex software and networks. Such coordination would be unexceptional, essentially mimicking long-familiar corporate practices of engineering, except for one key fact: it has no goals. Coordination in Free Software privileges adaptability over planning, ativan over the counter. This involves more than simply allowing any kind of modification; the structure of Free Software coordination actually gives precedence to a generalized openness to change, rather than to the following of shared plans, goals, or ideals dictated or controlled by a hierarchy of individuals.²

Adaptability does not mean randomness or anarchy, however; it is a very specific way of resolving the tension between the individual curiosity and virtuosity of hackers, and the collective coordination necessary to create and use complex software and networks. No man is an island, Ativan sale, but no archipelago is a nation, so to speak. Adaptability preserves the “joy” and “fun” of programming without sacrificing the careful engineering of a stable product. Linux and Apache should be understood as the results of this kind of coordination: experiments with adaptability that have worked, to the surprise of many who have insisted that complexity requires planning and hierarchy. Ativan over the counter, Goals and planning are the province of governance—the practice of goal-setting, orientation, and definition of control—but adaptability is the province of critique, and this is why Free Software is a recursive public: it stands outside power and offers powerful criticism in the form of working alternatives. It is not the domain of the new—after all Linux is just a rewrite of UNIX—but the domain of critical and responsive public direction of a collective undertaking.

Linux and Apache are more than pieces of software; they are organizations of an unfamiliar kind. My claim that they are “recursive publics” is useful insofar as it gives a name to a practice that is neither corporate nor academic, neither profit nor nonprofit, neither governmental nor nongovernmental. The concept of recursive public includes, within the spectrum of political activity, the creation, modification, and maintenance of software, networks, and legal documents. While a “public” in most theories is a body of [PAGE 212] people and a discourse that give expressive form to some concern, “recursive public” is meant to suggest that geeks not only give expressive form to some set of concerns (e.g., that software should be free or that intellectual property rights are too expansive) but also give concrete infrastructural form to the means of expression itself. Linux and Apache are tools for creating networks by which expression of new kinds can be guaranteed and by which further infrastructural experimentation can be pursued, ativan over the counter. For geeks, hacking and programming are variants of free speech and freedom of assembly.

From UNIX to Minix to Linux

Linux and Apache are the two paradigmatic cases of Free Software in the 1990s, both for hackers and for scholars of Free Software. Linux is a UNIX-like operating-system kernel, bootstrapped out of the Minix operating system created by Andrew Tanenbaum.³ Apache is the continuation of the original National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) project to create a Web server (Rob McCool’s original program, called httpd), bootstrapped out of a distributed collection of people who were using and improving that software.

Linux and Apache are both experiments in coordination. Both projects evolved decision-making systems through experiment: a voting system in Apache’s case and a structured hierarchy of decision-makers, with Linus Torvalds as benevolent dictator, in Linux’s case. Both projects also explored novel technical tools for coordination, especially Source Code Management (SCM) tools such as Concurrent Versioning System (cvs). Ativan over the counter, Both are also cited as exemplars of how “fun,” “joy,” or interest determine individual participation and of how it is possible to maintain and encourage that participation and mutual aid instead of narrowing the focus or eliminating possible routes for participation.

Beyond these specific experiments, the stories of Linux and Apache are detailed here because both projects were actively central to the construction and expansion of the Internet of the 1990s by allowing a massive number of both corporate and noncorporate sites to cheaply install and run servers on the Internet. Were Linux and Apache nothing more than hobbyist projects with a few thousand [PAGE 213] interested tinkerers, rather than the core technical components of an emerging planetary network, they would probably not represent the same kind of revolutionary transformation ultimately branded a “movement” in 1998–99.

Linus Torvalds’s creation of the Linux kernel is often cited as the first instance of the real “Open Source” development model, Osta ativan online, and it has quickly become the most studied of the Free Software projects.⁴ Following its appearance in late 1991, Linux grew quickly from a small, barely working kernel to a fully functional replacement for the various commercial UNIX systems that had resulted from the UNIX wars of the 1980s. It has become versatile enough to be used on desktop PCs with very little memory and small CPUs, as well as in “clusters” that allow for massively parallel computing power.

When Torvalds started, he was blessed with an eager audience of hackers keen on seeing a UNIX system run on desktop computers and a personal style of encouragement that produced enormous positive feedback. Torvalds is often given credit for creating, through his “management style,” a “new generation” of Free Software—a younger generation than that of Stallman and Raymond. Linus and Linux are not in fact the causes of this change, but the results of being at the right place at the right time and joining together a number of existing components. Indeed, the title of Torvalds’s semi-autobiographical reflection on Linux—Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary—captures some of the character of its genesis.

The “fun” referred to in the title reflects the privileging of adaptability over planning, ativan over the counter. Projects, tools, people, and code that were fun were those that were not dictated by existing rules and ideas. Fun, for geeks, was associated with the sudden availability, especially for university students and amateur hackers, of a rapidly expanding underground world of networks and software—Usenet and the Internet especially, but also university-specific networks, online environments and games, and tools for navigating information of all kinds. Much of this activity occurred without the benefit of any explicit theorization, with the possible exception of the discourse of “community” (given print expression by Howard Rheingold in 1993 and present in nascent form in the pages of Wired and Mondo 2000) that took place through much of the 1990s.⁵ The late 1980s and early 1990s gave rise to vast experimentation with the collaborative possibilities of the Internet as a medium. Particularly attractive was [PAGE 214] that this medium was built using freely available tools, and the tools themselves were open to modification and creative reuse. Ativan over the counter, It was a style that reflected the quasi-academic and quasi-commercial environment, of which the UNIX operating system was an exemplar— not pure research divorced from commercial context, nor entirely the domain of commercial rapacity and intellectual property.

Fun included the creation of mailing lists by the spread of software such as list-serv and majordomo; the collaborative maintenance and policing of Usenet; and the creation of Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs) and MUD Object Orienteds (MOOs), both of which gave game players and Internet geeks a way to co-create software environments and discover many of the problems of management and policing that thereby emerged.⁶ It also included the increasing array of “information services” that were built on top of the Internet, like archie, gopher, Veronica, WAIS, ftp, IRC—all of which were necessary to access the growing information wealth of the underground community lurking on the Internet. The meaning and practice of coordination in all of these projects was up for grabs: some were organized strictly as university research projects (gopher), while others were more fluid and open to participation and even control by contributing members (MOOs and MUDs). Licensing issues were explicit in some, unclear in some, and completely ignored in others. Buy ativan from canada, Some projects had autocratic leaders, while others experimented with everything from representative democracy to anarchism.

During this period (roughly 1987 to 1993), the Free Software Foundation attained a mythic cult status—primarily among UNIX and EMACS users. Part of this status was due to the superiority of the tools Stallman and his collaborators had already created: the GNU C Compiler (gcc), GNU EMACS, the GNU Debugger (gdb), GNU Bison, and loads of smaller utilities that replaced the original AT&T UNIX versions. The GNU GPL had also acquired a life of its own by this time, having reached maturity as a license and become the de facto choice for those committed to Free Software and the Free Software Foundation, ativan over the counter. By 1991, however, the rumors of the imminent appearance of Stallman’s replacement UNIX operating system had started to sound empty—it had been six years since his public announcement of his intention. Most hackers were skeptical of Stallman’s operating-system project, even if they acknowledged the success of all the other tools necessary to create a full-fledged operating system, and Stallman himself was stymied by the devel[PAGE 215]opment of one particular component: the kernel itself, called GNU Hurd.

Linus Torvalds’s project was not initially imagined as a contribution to the Free Software Foundation: it was a Helsinki university student’s late-night project in learning the ins and outs of the relatively new Intel 386/486 microprocessor. Torvalds, along with tens of thousands of other computer-science students, was being schooled in UNIX through the pedagogy of Andrew Tanenbaum’s Minix, Douglas Comer’s Xinu-PC, and a handful of other such teaching versions designed to run on IBM PCs. Along with the classroom pedagogy in the 1980s came the inevitable connection to, lurking on, and posting to the Usenet and Arpanet mailing lists devoted to technical (and nontechnical) topics of all sorts.⁷ Torvalds was subscribed, naturally, to comp.os.minix, the newsgroup for users of Minix.

The fact of Linus Torvalds’s pedagogical embedding in the world of UNIX, Minix, the Free Software Foundation, and the Usenet should not be underestimated, as it often is in hagiographical accounts of the Linux operating system. Ativan over the counter, Without this relatively robust moral-technical order or infrastructure within which it was possible to be at the right place at the right time, Torvalds’s late-night dorm-room project would have amounted to little more than that—but the pieces were all in place for his modest goals to be transformed into something much more significant.

Consider his announcement on 25 August 1991:

Hello everybody out there using minix—I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I’d like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things), Maine ME Me. . I’ve currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I’ll get something practical within a few months, and I’d like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won’t promise I’ll implement them :-)

Linus, ativan over the counter. . .

PS. Yes—it’s free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT portable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that’s all I have :-(.⁸

[PAGE 216]

Torvalds’s announcement is telling as to where his project fit into the existing context: “just a hobby,” not “big and professional like gnu” (a comment that suggests the stature that Stallman and the Free Software Foundation had achieved, especially since they were in reality anything but “big and professional”). Ativan over the counter, The announcement was posted to the Minix list and thus was essentially directed at Minix users; but Torvalds also makes a point of insisting that the system would be free of cost, and his postscript furthermore indicates that it would be free of Minix code, just as Minix had been free of AT&T code.

Torvalds also mentions that he has ported “bash” and “gcc,” software created and distributed by the Free Software Foundation and tools essential for interacting with the computer and compiling new versions of the kernel. Torvalds’s decision to use these utilities, rather than write his own, reflects both the boundaries of his project (an operating-system kernel) and his satisfaction with the availability and reusability of software licensed under the GPL.

So the system is based on Minix, just as Minix had been based on UNIX—piggy-backed or bootstrapped, rather than rewritten in an entirely different fashion, that is, rather than becoming a different kind of operating system. And yet there are clearly concerns about the need to create something that is not Minix, rather than simply extending or “debugging” Minix. This concern is key to understanding what happened to Linux in 1991.

Tanenbaum’s Minix, since its inception in 1984, was always intended to allow students to see and change the source code of Minix in order to learn how an operating system worked, but it was not Free Software. It was copyrighted and owned by Prentice Hall, which distributed the textbooks. Tanenbaum made the case—similar to Gosling’s case for Unipress—that Prentice Hall was distributing the system far wider than if it were available only on the Internet: “A point which I don’t think everyone appreciates is that making something available by FTP is not necessarily the way to provide the widest distribution, ativan over the counter. The Internet is still a highly elite group. Most computer users are NOT on it. . . . Cheap generic ativan, MINIX is also widely used in Eastern Europe, Japan, Israel, South America, etc. Most of these people would never have gotten it if there hadn’t been a company selling it.”⁹

By all accounts, Prentice Hall was not restrictive in its sublicensing of the operating system, if people wanted to create an “enhanced” [PAGE 217] version of Minix. Similarly, Tanenbaum’s frequent presence on comp.os.minix testified to his commitment to sharing his knowledge about the system with anyone who wanted it—not just paying customers. Nonetheless, Torvalds’s pointed use of the word free and his decision not to reuse any of the code is a clear indication of his desire to build a system completely unencumbered by restrictions, based perhaps on a kind of intuitive folkloric sense of the dangers associated with cases like that of EMACS.¹⁰

The most significant aspect of Torvalds’s initial message, however, is his request: “I’d like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won’t promise I’ll implement them.” Torvalds’s announcement and the subsequent interest it generated clearly reveal the issues of coordination and organization that would come to be a feature of Linux, ativan over the counter. The reason Torvalds had so many eager contributors to Linux, from the very start, was because he enthusiastically took them off of Tanenbaum’s hands.

Design and Adaptability

Tanenbaum’s role in the story of Linux is usually that of the straw man—a crotchety old computer-science professor who opposes the revolutionary young Torvalds. Tanenbaum did have a certain revolutionary reputation himself, since Minix was used in classrooms around the world and could be installed on IBM PCs (something no other commercial UNIX vendors had achieved), but he was also a natural target for people like Torvalds: the tenured professor espousing the textbook version of an operating system. So, despite the fact that a very large number of people were using or knew of Minix as a UNIX operating system (estimates of comp.os.minix subscribers were at 40,000), Tanenbaum was emphatically not interested in collaboration or collaborative debugging, especially if debugging also meant creating extensions and adding features that would make the system bigger and harder to use as a stripped-down tool for teaching. For Tanenbaum, this point was central: “I’ve been repeatedly offered virtual memory, paging, symbolic links, window systems, and all manner of features. Ativan over the counter, I have usually declined because I am still trying to keep the system simple enough for students to understand. You can put all this stuff in your version, but I won’t [PAGE 218] put it in mine, Wisconsin WI Wis. . I think it is this point which irks the people who say ‘MINIX is not free,’ not the $60.”¹¹

So while Tanenbaum was in sympathy with the Free Software Foundation’s goals (insofar as he clearly wanted people to be able to use, update, enhance, and learn from software), he was not in sympathy with the idea of having 40,000 strangers make his software “better.” Or, to put it differently, the goals of Minix remained those of a researcher and a textbook author: to be useful in classrooms and cheap enough to be widely available and usable on the largest number of cheap computers.

By contrast, Torvalds’s “fun” project had no goals. Being a cocky nineteen-year-old student with little better to do (no textbooks to write, no students, grants, research projects, or committee meetings), Torvalds was keen to accept all the ready-made help he could find to make his project better. And with 40,000 Minix users, he had a more or less instant set of contributors. Stallman’s audience for EMACS in the early 1980s, by contrast, was limited to about a hundred distinct computers, which may have translated into thousands, but certainly not tens of thousands of users, ativan over the counter. Tanenbaum’s work in creating a generation of students who not only understood the internals of an operating system but, more specifically, understood the internals of the UNIX operating system created a huge pool of competent and eager UNIX hackers. It was the work of porting UNIX not only to various machines but to a generation of minds as well that set the stage for this event—and this is an essential, though often overlooked component of the success of Linux.

Many accounts of the Linux story focus on the fight between Torvalds and Tanenbaum, a fight carried out on comp.os.minix with the subject line “Linux is obsolete.”¹² Tanenbaum argued that Torvalds was reinventing the wheel, writing an operating system that, as far as the state of the art was concerned, was now obsolete. Torvalds, by contrast, asserted that it was better to make something quick and dirty that worked, invite contributions, Cheap ativan, and worry about making it state of the art later. Far from illustrating some kind of outmoded conservatism on Tanenbaum’s part, the debate highlights the distinction between forms of coordination and the meanings of collaboration. Ativan over the counter, For Tanenbaum, the goals of Minix were either pedagogical or academic: to teach operating-system essentials or to explore new possibilities in operating-system design. By this model, Linux could do neither; it couldn’t be used in the classroom because [PAGE 219] it would quickly become too complex and feature-laden to teach, and it wasn’t pushing the boundaries of research because it was an out-of-date operating system. Torvalds, by contrast, had no goals. What drove his progress was a commitment to fun and to a largely inarticulate notion of what interested him and others, defined at the outset almost entirely against Minix and other free operating systems, like FreeBSD. In this sense, it could only emerge out of the context—which set the constraints on its design—of UNIX, open systems, Minix, GNU, and BSD.

Both Tanenbaum and Torvalds operated under a model of coordination in which one person was ultimately responsible for the entire project: Tanenbaum oversaw Minix and ensured that it remained true to its goals of serving a pedagogical audience; Torvalds would oversee Linux, but he would incorporate as many different features as users wanted or could contribute. Very quickly—with a pool of 40,000 potential contributors—Torvalds would be in the same position Tanenbaum was in, that is, forced to make decisions about the goals of Linux and about which enhancements would go into it and which would not, ativan over the counter. What makes the story of Linux so interesting to observers is that it appears that Torvalds made no decision: he accepted almost everything.

Tanenbaum’s goals and plans for Minix were clear and autocratically formed. Control, hierarchy, and restriction are after all appropriate in the classroom. But Torvalds wanted to do more. He wanted to go on learning and to try out alternatives, and with Minix as the only widely available way to do so, his decision to part ways starts to make sense; clearly he was not alone in his desire to explore and extend what he had learned. Ativan over the counter, Nonetheless, Torvalds faced the problem of coordinating a new project and making similar decisions about its direction. On this point, Linux has been the subject of much reflection by both insiders and outsiders. Despite images of Linux as either an anarchic bazaar or an autocratic dictatorship, the reality is more subtle: it includes a hierarchy of contributors, maintainers, and “trusted lieutenants” and a sophisticated, informal, Koop korting ativan, and intuitive sense of “good taste” gained through reading and incorporating the work of co-developers.

While it was possible for Torvalds to remain in charge as an individual for the first few years of Linux (1991–95, roughly), he eventually began to delegate some of that control to people who would make decisions about different subcomponents of the kernel. [PAGE 220] It was thus possible to incorporate more of the “patches” (pieces of code) contributed by volunteers, by distributing some of the work of evaluating them to people other than Torvalds. This informal hierarchy slowly developed into a formal one, as Steven Weber points out: “The final de facto ‘grant’ of authority came when Torvalds began publicly to reroute relevant submissions to the lieutenants. In 1996 the decision structure became more formal with an explicit differentiation between ‘credited developers’ and ‘maintainers.’, ativan over the counter. . . If this sounds very much like a hierarchical decision structure, that is because it is one—albeit one in which participation is strictly voluntary.”¹³

Almost all of the decisions made by Torvalds and lieutenants were of a single kind: whether or not to incorporate a piece of code submitted by a volunteer. Each such decision was technically complex: insert the code, recompile the kernel, test to see if it works or if it produces any bugs, decide whether it is worth keeping, issue a new version with a log of the changes that were made. Ativan over the counter, Although the various official leaders were given the authority to make such changes, coordination was still technically informal. Since they were all working on the same complex technical object, one person (Torvalds) ultimately needed to verify a final version, containing all the subparts, in order to make sure that it worked without breaking.

Such decisions had very little to do with any kind of design goals or plans, only with whether the submitted patch “worked,” a term that reflects at once technical, aesthetic, legal, and design criteria that are not explicitly recorded anywhere in the project—hence, the privileging of adaptability over planning. At no point were the patches assigned or solicited, although Torvalds is justly famous for encouraging people to work on particular problems, but only if they wanted to. As a result, the system morphed in subtle, unexpected ways, Washington WA Wash. , diverging from its original, supposedly backwards “monolithic” design and into a novel configuration that reflected the interests of the volunteers and the implicit criteria of the leaders.

By 1995–96, Torvalds and lieutenants faced considerable challenges with regard to hierarchy and decision-making, as the project had grown in size and complexity. The first widely remembered response to the ongoing crisis of benevolent dictatorship in Linux was the creation of “loadable kernel modules,” conceived as a way to release some of the constant pressure to decide which patches would be incorporated into the kernel. The decision to modularize [PAGE 221] Linux was simultaneously technical and social: the software-code base would be rewritten to allow for external loadable modules to be inserted “on the fly,” rather than all being compiled into one large binary chunk; at the same time, it meant that the responsibility to ensure that the modules worked devolved from Torvalds to the creator of the module, ativan over the counter. The decision repudiated Torvalds’s early opposition to Tanenbaum in the “monolithic vs. microkernel” debate by inviting contributors to separate core from peripheral functions of an operating system (though the Linux kernel remains monolithic compared to classic microkernels). It also allowed for a significant proliferation of new ideas and related projects. It both contracted and distributed the hierarchy; now Linus was in charge of a tighter project, but more people could work with him according to structured technical and social rules of responsibility.

Creating loadable modules changed the look of Linux, but not because of any planning or design decisions set out in advance. Ativan over the counter, The choice is an example of the privileged adaptability of the Linux, resolving the tension between the curiosity and virtuosity of individual contributors to the project and the need for hierarchical control in order to manage complexity. The commitment to adaptability dissolves the distinction between the technical means of coordination and the social means of management. It is about producing a meaningful whole by which both people and code can be coordinated—an achievement vigorously defended by kernel hackers.

The adaptable organization and structure of Linux is often described in evolutionary terms, as something without teleological purpose, but responding to an environment. Indeed, Torvalds himself has a weakness for this kind of explanation.

Let’s just be honest, and admit that it [Linux] wasn’t designed.

Sure, there’s design too—the design of UNIX made a scaffolding for the system, and more importantly it made it easier for people to communicate because people had a mental model for what the system was like, which means that it’s much easier to discuss changes.

But that’s like saying that you know that you’re going to build a car with four wheels and headlights—it’s true, but the real bitch is in the details.

And I know better than most that what I envisioned 10 years ago has nothing in common with what Linux is today. There was certainly no premeditated design there.¹⁴

[PAGE 222]

Adaptability does not answer the questions of intelligent design, ativan over the counter. Why, for example, does a car have four wheels and two headlights. Often these discussions are polarized: either technical objects are designed, or they are the result of random mutations. What this opposition overlooks is the fact that design and the coordination of collaboration go hand in hand; one reveals the limits and possibilities of the other. Linux represents a particular example of such a problematic—one that has become the paradigmatic case of Free Software—but there have been many others, including UNIX, for which the engineers created a system that reflected the distributed collaboration of users around the world even as the lawyers tried to make it conform to legal rules about licensing and practical concerns about bookkeeping and support.

Because it privileges adaptability over planning, Linux is a recursive public: operating systems and social systems, cheap ativan online cheap. Ativan over the counter, It privileges openness to new directions, at every level. It privileges the right to propose changes by actually creating them and trying to convince others to use and incorporate them. It privileges the right to fork the software into new and different kinds of systems. Given what it privileges, Linux ends up evolving differently than do systems whose life and design are constrained by corporate organization, or by strict engineering design principles, or by legal or marketing definitions of products—in short, by clear goals. What makes this distinction between the goal-oriented design principle and the principle of adaptability important is its relationship to politics. Goals and planning are the subject of negotiation and consensus, or of autocratic decision-making; adaptability is the province of critique, ativan over the counter. It should be remembered that Linux is by no means an attempt to create something radically new; it is a rewrite of a UNIX operating system, as Torvalds points out, but one that through adaptation can end up becoming something new.

Patch and Vote

The Apache Web server and the Apache Group (now called the Apache Software Foundation) provide a second illuminating example of the how and why of coordination in Free Software of the 1990s. As with the case of Linux, the development of the Apache project illustrates how adaptability is privileged over planning [PAGE 223] and, in particular, how this privileging is intended to resolve the tensions between individual curiosity and virtuosity and collective control and decision-making. It is also the story of the progressive evolution of coordination, the simultaneously technical and social mechanisms of coordinating people and code, patches and votes.

The Apache project emerged out of a group of users of the original httpd (HyperText Transmission Protocol Daemon) Web server created by Rob McCool at NCSA, based on the work of Tim Berners-Lee’s World Wide Web project at CERN. Berners-Lee had written a specification for the World Wide Web that included the mark-up language HTML, the transmission protocol http, and a set of libraries that implemented the code known as libwww, which he had dedicated to the public domain.¹⁵

The NCSA, at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, picked up both www projects, subsequently creating both the first widely used browser, Mosaic, directed by Marc Andreessen, and httpd. Ativan over the counter, Httpd was public domain up until version 1.3. Development slowed when McCool was lured to Netscape, along with the team that created Mosaic. Ordering ativan without prescription, By early 1994, when the World Wide Web had started to spread, many individuals and groups ran Web servers that used httpd; some of them had created extensions and fixed bugs. They ranged from university researchers to corporations like Wired Ventures, which launched the online version of its magazine (HotWired.com) in 1994. Most users communicated primarily through Usenet, on the comp.infosystems.www.* newsgroups, sharing experiences, instructions, and updates in the same manner as other software projects stretching back to the beginning of the Usenet and Arpanet newsgroups.

When NCSA failed to respond to most of the fixes and extensions being proposed, a group of several of the most active users of httpd began to communicate via a mailing list called new-httpd in 1995. The list was maintained by Brian Behlendorf, the webmaster for HotWired, on a server he maintained called hyperreal; its participants were those who had debugged httpd, created extensions, or added functionality, ativan over the counter. The list was the primary means of association and communication for a diverse group of people from various locations around the world. During the next year, participants hashed out issues related to coordination, to the identity of and the processes involved in patching the “new” httpd, version 1.3.¹⁶

[PAGE 224]

Patching a piece of software is a peculiar activity, akin to debugging, but more like a form of ex post facto design. Patching covers the spectrum of changes that can be made: from fixing security holes and bugs that prevent the software from compiling to feature and performance enhancements. A great number of the patches that initially drew this group together grew out of needs that each individual member had in making a Web server function. Ativan over the counter, These patches were not due to any design or planning decisions by NCSA, McCool, or the assembled group, but most were useful enough that everyone gained from using them, because they fixed problems that everyone would or could encounter. As a result, the need for a coordinated new-httpd release was key to the group’s work. This new version of NCSA httpd had no name initially, but apache was a persistent candidate; the somewhat apocryphal origin of the name is that it was “a patchy webserver.”¹⁷

At the outset, in February and March 1995, the pace of work of the various members of new-httpd differed a great deal, but was in general extremely rapid. Even before there was an official release of a new httpd, process issues started to confront the group, as Roy Fielding later explained: “Apache began with a conscious attempt to solve the process issues first, before development even started, because it was clear from the very beginning that a geographically distributed set of volunteers, without any traditional organizational ties, would require a unique development process in order to make decisions.”¹⁸

The need for process arose more or less organically, acheter ativan, as the group developed mechanisms for managing the various patches: assigning them IDs, testing them, and incorporating them “by hand” into the main source-code base. As this happened, members of the list would occasionally find themselves lost, confused by the process or the efficiency of other members, as in this message from Andrew Wilson concerning Cliff Skolnick’s management of the list of bugs:

Cliff, can you concentrate on getting an uptodate copy of the bug/improvement list please. I’ve already lost track of just what the heck is meant to be going on, ativan over the counter. Also what’s the status of this pre-pre-pre release Apache stuff. It’s either a pre or it isn’t surely. AND is the pre-pre-etc thing the same as the thing Cliff is meant to be working on?

Just what the fsck is going on anyway. Ay, ay ay. Andrew Wilson.¹⁹

[PAGE 225]

Ativan over the counter, To which Rob Harthill replied, “It is getting messy. I still think we should all implement one patch at a time together. At the rate (and hours) some are working we can probably manage a couple of patches a day. . . , ativan over the counter. If this is acceptable to the rest of the group, I think we should order the patches, and start a systematic processes of discussion, implementations and testing.”²⁰

Some members found the pace of work exciting, while others appealed for slowing or stopping in order to take stock. Cliff Skolnick created a system for managing the patches and proposed that list-members vote in order to determine which patches be included.²¹ Rob Harthill voted first.

Here are my votes for the current patch list shown at http://www.hyperreal.com/httpd/patchgen/list.cgi
I’ll use a vote of
-1 have a problem with it
0 haven’t tested it yet (failed to understand it or whatever)
+1 tried it, liked it, have no problem with it.
[Here Harthill provides a list of votes on each patch.]
If this voting scheme makes sense, lets use it to filter out the stuff we’re happy with. A “-1” vote should veto any patch. There seems to be about 6 or 7 of us actively commenting on patches, so I’d suggest that once a patch gets a vote of +4 (with no vetos), we can add it to an alpha.²²

Harthill’s votes immediately instigated discussion about various patches, further voting, and discussion about the process (i.e., Order ativan online without prescription, how many votes or vetoes were needed), all mixed together in a flurry of e-mail messages. Ativan over the counter, The voting process was far from perfect, but it did allow some consensus on what “apache” would be, that is, which patches would be incorporated into an “official” (though not very public) release: Apache 0.2 on 18 March.²³ Without a voting system, the group of contributors could have gone on applying patches individually, each in his own context, fixing the problems that ailed each user, but ignoring those that were irrelevant or unnecessary in that context. With a voting process, however, a convergence on a tested and approved new-httpd could emerge. As the process was refined, members sought a volunteer to take votes, to open and close the voting once a week, and to build a new version of Apache when the voting was done. (Andrew Wilson was the first volunteer, to which Cliff Skolnick replied, “I guess the first vote is [PAGE 226] voting Andrew as the vote taker :-).”)²⁴ The patch-and-vote process that emerged in the early stages of Apache was not entirely novel; many contributors noted that the FreeBSD project used a similar process, and some suggested the need for a “patch coordinator” and others worried that “using patches gets very ugly, very quickly.”²⁵

The significance of the patch-and-vote system was that it clearly represented the tension between the virtuosity of individual developers and a group process aimed at creating and maintaining a common piece of software. It was a way of balancing the ability of each separate individual’s expertise against a common desire to ship and promote a stable, bug-free, public-domain Web server. As Roy Fielding and others would describe it in hindsight, this tension was part of Apache’s advantage.

Although the Apache Group makes decisions as a whole, all of the actual work of the project is done by individuals, ativan over the counter. The group does not write code, design solutions, document products, or provide support to our customers; individual people do that. The group provides an environment for collaboration and an excellent trial-by-fire for ideas and code, but the creative energy needed to solve a particular problem, redesign a piece of the system, or fix a given bug is almost always contributed by individual volunteers working on their own, for their own purposes, and not at the behest of the group. Competitors mistakenly assume Apache will be unable to take on new or unusual tasks because of the perception that we act as a group rather than follow a single leader. What they fail to see is that, by remaining open to new contributors, the group has an unlimited supply of innovative ideas, and it is the individuals who chose to pursue their own ideas who are the real driving force for innovation.²⁶

Although openness is widely touted as the key to the innovations of Apache, the claim is somewhat disingenuous: patches are just that, patches, Alaska AK . Ativan over the counter, Any large-scale changes to the code could not be accomplished by applying patches, especially if each patch must be subjected to a relatively harsh vote to be included. The only way to make sweeping changes—especially changes that require iteration and testing to get right—is to engage in separate “branches” of a project or to differentiate between internal and external releases—in short, to fork the project temporarily in hopes that it would soon rejoin its stable parent. Apache encountered this problem very early on with the “Shambhala” rewrite of httpd by Robert Thau.

[PAGE 227]

Shambhala was never quite official: Thau called it his “noodling” server, or a “garage” project. It started as his attempt to rewrite httpd as a server which could handle and process multiple requests at the same time. As an experiment, it was entirely his own project, which he occasionally referred to on the new-httpd list: “Still hacking Shambhala, and laying low until it works well enough to talk about.”²⁷ By mid-June of 1995, he had a working version that he announced, quite modestly, to the list as “a garage project to explore some possible new directions I thought *might* be useful for the group to pursue.”²⁸ Another list member, Randy Terbush, tried it out and gave it rave reviews, and by the end of June there were two users exclaiming its virtues. But since it hadn’t ever really been officially identified as a fork, or an alternate development pathway, this led Rob Harthill to ask: “So what’s the situation regarding Shambhala and Apache, are those of you who have switched to it giving up on Apache and this project, ativan over the counter. If so, do you need a separate list to discuss Shambhala?”²⁹

Harthill had assumed that the NCSA code-base was “tried and tested” and that Shambhala represented a split, a fork: “The question is, should we all go in one direction, continue as things stand or Shambahla [sic] goes off on its own?”³⁰ His query drew out the miscommunication in detail: that Thau had planned it as a “drop-in” replacement for the NCSA httpd, and that his intentions were to make it the core of the Apache server, if he could get it to work. Harthill, who had spent no small amount of time working hard at patching the existing server code, was not pleased, and made the core issues explicit.

Maybe it was rst’s [Robert Thau’s] choice of phrases, such as “garage project” and it having a different name, maybe I didn’t read his mailings thoroughly enough, maybe they weren’t explicit enough, whatever. . . . Buy generic ativan, It’s a shame that nobody using Shambhala (who must have realized what was going on) didn’t raise these issues weeks ago. I can only presume that rst was too modest to push Shambhala, or at least discussion of it, onto us more vigourously. I remember saying words to the effect of “this is what I plan to do, stop me if you think this isn’t a good idea.” Why the hell didn’t anyone say something. . , ativan over the counter. . [D]id others get the same impression about rst’s work as I did. Come on people, if you want to be part of this group, collaborate!³¹

[PAGE 228]

Harthill’s injunction to collaborate seems surprising in the context of a mailing list and project created to facilitate collaboration, but the injunction is specific: collaborate by making plans and sharing goals. Implicit in his words is the tension between a project with clear plans and goals, an overarching design to which everyone contributes, as opposed to a group platform without clear goals that provides individuals with a setting to try out alternatives. Ativan over the counter, Implicit in his words is the spectrum between debugging an existing piece of software with a stable identity and rewriting the fundamental aspects of it to make it something new. The meaning of collaboration bifurcates here: on the one hand, the privileging of the autonomous work of individuals which is submitted to a group peer review and then incorporated; on the other, the privileging of a set of shared goals to which the actions and labor of individuals is subordinated.³²

Indeed, the very design of Shambhala reflects the former approach of privileging individual work: like UNIX and EMACS before it, Shambhala was designed as a modular system, one that could “make some of that process [the patch-and-vote process] obsolete, by allowing stuff which is not universally applicable (e.g., database back-ends), controversial, or just half-baked, to be shipped anyway as optional modules.”³³ Such a design separates the core platform from the individual experiments that are conducted on it, rather than creating a design that is modular in the hierarchical sense of each contributor working on an assigned section of a project. Undoubtedly, the core platform requires coordination, but extensions and modifications can happen without needing to transform the whole project.³⁴ Shambhala represents a certain triumph of the “shut up and show me the code” aesthetic: Thau’s “modesty” is instead a recognition that he should be quiet until it “works well enough to talk about,” whereas Harthill’s response is frustration that no one has talked about what Thau was planning to do before it was even attempted. The consequence was that Harthill’s work seemed to be in vain, replaced by the work of a more virtuosic hacker’s demonstration of a superior direction.

In the case of Apache one can see how coordination in Free Software is not just an afterthought or a necessary feature of distributed work, ativan online, but is in fact at the core of software production itself, governing the norms and forms of life that determine what will count as good software, how it will progress with respect to a context and [PAGE 229] background, and how people will be expected to interact around the topic of design decisions. The privileging of adaptability brings with it a choice in the mode of collaboration: it resolves the tension between the agonistic competitive creation of software, such as Robert Thau’s creation of Shambhala, and the need for collective coordination of complexity, such as Harthill’s plea for collaboration to reduce duplicated or unnecessary work.

Check Out and Commit

The technical and social forms that Linux and Apache take are enabled by the tools they build and use, from bug-tracking tools and mailing lists to the Web servers and kernels themselves. One such tool plays a very special role in the emergence of these organizations: Source Code Management systems (SCMs), ativan over the counter. SCMs are tools for coordinating people and code; they allow multiple people in dispersed locales to work simultaneously on the same object, the same source code, without the need for a central coordinating overseer and without the risk of stepping on each other’s toes. The history of SCMs—especially in the case of Linux—also illustrates the recursive-depth problem: namely, is Free Software still free if it is created with non-free tools?

SCM tools, like the Concurrent Versioning System (cvs) and Subversion, have become extremely common tools for Free Software programmers; indeed, it is rare to find a project, even a project conducted by only one individual, which does not make use of these tools. Their basic function is to allow two or more programmers to work on the same files at the same time and to provide feedback on where their edits conflict. When the number of programmers grows large, an SCM can become a tool for managing complexity. Ativan over the counter, It keeps track of who has “checked out” files; it enables users to lock files if they want to ensure that no one else makes changes at the same time; it can keep track of and display the conflicting changes made by two users to the same file; it can be used to create “internal” forks or “branches” that may be incompatible with each other, but still allows programmers to try out new things and, if all goes well, merge the branches into the trunk later on. In sophisticated forms it can be used to “animate” successive changes to a piece of code, in order to visualize its evolution.

[PAGE 230]

Beyond mere coordination functions, SCMs are also used as a form of distribution; generally SCMs allow anyone to check out the code, but restrict those who can check in or “commit” the code. The result is that users can get instant access to the most up-to-date version of a piece of software, and programmers can differentiate between stable releases, which have few bugs, and “unstable” or experimental versions that are under construction and will need the help of users willing to test and debug the latest versions. SCM tools automate certain aspects of coordination, not only reducing the labor involved but opening up new possibilities for coordination.

The genealogy of SCMs can be seen in the example of Ken Thompson’s creation of a diff tape, Where to buy cheap ativan, which he used to distribute changes that had been contributed to UNIX. Where Thompson saw UNIX as a spectrum of changes and the legal department at Bell Labs saw a series of versions, SCM tools combine these two approaches by minutely managing the revisions, assigning each change (each diff) a new version number, and storing the history of all of those changes so that software changes might be precisely undone in order to discover which changes cause problems. Written by Douglas McIlroy, “diff” is itself a piece of software, one of the famed small UNIX tools that do one thing well, ativan over the counter. The program diff compares two files, line by line, and prints out the differences between them in a structured format (showing a series of lines with codes that indicate changes, additions, or removals). Given two versions of a text, one could run diff to find the differences and make the appropriate changes to synchronize them, a task that is otherwise tedious and, given the exactitude of source code, prone to human error. A useful side-effect of diff (when combined with an editor like ed or EMACS) is that when someone makes a set of changes to a file and runs diff on both the original and the changed file, the output (i.e., the changes only) can be used to reconstruct the original file from the changed file. Diff thus allows for a clever, space-saving way to save all the changes ever made to a file, rather than retaining full copies of every new version, one saves only the changes. Ativan over the counter, Ergo, version control. diff—and programs like it—became the basis for managing the complexity of large numbers of programmers working on the same text at the same time.

One of the first attempts to formalize version control was Walter Tichy’s Revision Control System (RCS), from 1985.³⁵ RCS kept track of the changes to different files using diff and allowed programmers [PAGE 231] to see all of the changes that had been made to that file. RCS, however, could not really tell the difference between the work of one programmer and another. All changes were equal, in that sense, and any questions that might arise about why a change was made could remain unanswered.

In order to add sophistication to RCS, Dick Grune, at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, began writing scripts that used RCS as a multi-user, purchase ativan, Internet-accessible version-control system, a system that eventually became the Concurrent Versioning System. cvs allowed multiple users to check out a copy, make changes, and then commit those changes, and it would check for and either prevent or flag conflicting changes. Ultimately, cvs became most useful when programmers could use it remotely to check out source code from anywhere on the Internet, ativan over the counter. It allowed people to work at different speeds, different times, and in different places, without needing a central person in charge of checking and comparing the changes. cvs created a form of decentralized version control for very-large-scale collaboration; developers could work offline on software, and always on the most updated version, yet still be working on the same object.

Both the Apache project and the Linux kernel project use SCMs. In the case of Apache the original patch-and-vote system quickly began to strain the patience, time, and energy of participants as the number of contributors and patches began to grow. From the very beginning of the project, the contributor Paul Richards had urged the group to make use of cvs. Ativan over the counter, He had extensive experience with the system in the Free-BSD project and was convinced that it provided a superior alternative to the patch-and-vote system. Few other contributors had much experience with it, however, so it wasn’t until over a year after Richards began his admonitions that cvs was eventually adopted. However, cvs is not a simple replacement for a patch-and-vote system; it necessitates a different kind of organization. Richards recognized the trade-off. The patch-and-vote system created a very high level of quality assurance and peer review of the patches that people submitted, while the cvs system allowed individuals to make more changes that might not meet the same level of quality assurance. The cvs system allowed branches—stable, testing, experimental—with different levels of quality assurance, while the patch-and-vote system was inherently directed at one final and stable version, ativan over the counter. As the case of Shambhala [PAGE 232] exhibited, under the patch-and-vote system experimental versions would remain unofficial garage projects, rather than serve as official branches with people responsible for committing changes.

While SCMs are in general good for managing conflicting changes, they can do so only up to a point. To allow anyone to commit a change, however, Pharmacie ativan bon marché, could result in a chaotic mess, just as difficult to disentangle as it would be without an SCM. In practice, therefore, most projects designate a handful of people as having the right to “commit” changes. The Apache project retained its voting scheme, for instance, but it became a way of voting for “committers” instead for patches themselves. Ativan over the counter, Trusted committers—those with the mysterious “good taste,” or technical intuition—became the core members of the group.

The Linux kernel has also struggled with various issues surrounding SCMs and the management of responsibility they imply. The story of the so-called VGER tree and the creation of a new SCM called Bitkeeper is exemplary in this respect.³⁶ By 1997, Linux developers had begun to use cvs to manage changes to the source code, though not without resistance. Torvalds was still in charge of the changes to the official stable tree, but as other “lieutenants” came on board, the complexity of the changes to the kernel grew. One such lieutenant was Dave Miller, who maintained a “mirror” of the stable Linux kernel tree, the VGER tree, on a server at Rutgers. In September 1998 a fight broke out among Linux kernel developers over two related issues: one, the fact that Torvalds was failing to incorporate (patch) contributions that had been forwarded to him by various people, including his lieutenants; and two, as a result, the VGER cvs repository was no longer in synch with the stable tree maintained by Torvalds. Two different versions of Linux threatened to emerge.

A great deal of yelling ensued, as nicely captured in Moody’s Rebel Code, culminating in the famous phrase, uttered by Larry McVoy: “Linus does not scale.” The meaning of this phrase is that the ability of Linux to grow into an ever larger project with increasing complexity, one which can handle myriad uses and functions (to “scale” up), is constrained by the fact that there is only one Linus Torvalds, ativan over the counter. By all accounts, Linus was and is excellent at what he does—but there is only one Linus. The danger of this situation is the danger of a fork. A fork would mean one or more new versions would proliferate under new leadership, a situation much like [PAGE 233] the spread of UNIX. Both the licenses and the SCMs are designed to facilitate this, but only as a last resort. Forking also implies dilution and confusion—competing versions of the same thing and potentially unmanageable incompatibilities.

Ativan over the counter, The fork never happened, however, but only because Linus went on vacation, returning renewed and ready to continue and to be more responsive. But the crisis had been real, and it drove developers into considering new modes of coordination. Larry McVoy offered to create a new form of SCM, one that would allow a much more flexible response to the problem that the VGER tree represented, ativan prescription. However, his proposed solution, called Bitkeeper, would create far more controversy than the one that precipitated it.

McVoy was well-known in geek circles before Linux. In the late stages of the open-systems era, as an employee of Sun, he had penned an important document called “The Sourceware Operating System Proposal.” It was an internal Sun Microsystems document that argued for the company to make its version of UNIX freely available. It was a last-ditch effort to save the dream of open systems, ativan over the counter. It was also the first such proposition within a company to “go open source,” much like the documents that would urge Netscape to Open Source its software in 1998. Despite this early commitment, McVoy chose not to create Bitkeeper as a Free Software project, but to make it quasi-proprietary, a decision that raised a very central question in ideological terms: can one, or should one, create Free Software using non-free tools?

On one side of this controversy, naturally, was Richard Stallman and those sharing his vision of Free Software. On the other were pragmatists like Torvalds claiming no goals and no commitment to “ideology”—only a commitment to “fun.” The tension laid bare the way in which recursive publics negotiate and modulate the core components of Free Software from within. Torvalds made a very strong and vocal statement concerning this issue, responding to Stallman’s criticisms about the use of non-free software to create Free Software: “Quite frankly, I don’t _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons. Ativan over the counter, I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people had less ideology, and a whole lot more ‘I do this because it’s FUN and because others might find it useful, not because I got religion.’”³⁷

Torvalds emphasizes pragmatism in terms of coordination: the right tool for the job is the right tool for the job. In terms of licenses, [PAGE 234] however, such pragmatism does not play, and Torvalds has always been strongly committed to the GPL, refusing to let non-GPL software into the kernel. This strategic pragmatism is in fact a recognition of where experimental changes might be proposed, and where practices are settled. The GPL was a stable document, φτηνές φαρμακείο ativan, sharing source code widely was a stable practice, but coordinating a project using SCMs was, during this period, still in flux, and thus Bitkeeper was a tool well worth using so long as it remained suitable to Linux development. Torvalds was experimenting with the meaning of coordination: could a non-free tool be used to create Free Software?

McVoy, on the other hand, was on thin ice, ativan over the counter. He was experimenting with the meaning of Free Software licenses. He created three separate licenses for Bitkeeper in an attempt to play both sides: a commercial license for paying customers, a license for people who sell Bitkeeper, and a license for “free users.” The free-user license allowed Linux developers to use the software for free—though it required them to use the latest version—and prohibited them from working on a competing project at the same time. McVoy’s attempt to have his cake and eat it, too, created enormous tension in the developer community, a tension that built from 2002, when Torvalds began using Bitkeeper in earnest, to 2005, when he announced he would stop.

The tension came from two sources: the first was debates among developers addressing the moral question of using non-free software to create Free Software. The moral question, as ever, was also a technical one, as the second source of tension, the license restrictions, would reveal.

The developer Andrew Trigdell, well known for his work on a project called Samba and his reverse engineering of a Microsoft networking protocol, began a project to reverse engineer Bitkeeper by looking at the metadata it produced in the course of being used for the Linux project. Ativan over the counter, By doing so, he crossed a line set up by McVoy’s experimental licensing arrangement: the “free as long as you don’t copy me” license. Lawyers advised Trigdell to stay silent on the topic while Torvalds publicly berated him for “willful destruction” and a moral lapse of character in trying to reverse engineer Bitkeeper. Bruce Perens defended Trigdell and censured Torvalds for his seemingly contradictory ethics.³⁸ McVoy never sued Trigdell, and Bitkeeper has limped along as a commercial project, because, [PAGE 235] much like the EMACS controversy of 1985, the Bitkeeper controversy of 2005 ended with Torvalds simply deciding to create his own SCM, called git.

The story of the VGER tree and Bitkeeper illustrate common tensions within recursive publics, specifically, the depth of the meaning of free. On the one hand, cheap ativan online without prescription, there is Linux itself, an exemplary Free Software project made freely available; on the other hand, however, there is the ability to contribute to this process, a process that is potentially constrained by the use of Bitkeeper. So long as the function of Bitkeeper is completely circumscribed—that is, completely planned—there can be no problem. However, the moment one user sees a way to change or improve the process, and not just the kernel itself, then the restrictions and constraints of Bitkeeper can come into play, ativan over the counter. While it is not clear that Bitkeeper actually prevented anything, it is also clear that developers clearly recognized it as a potential drag on a generalized commitment to adaptability. Or to put it in terms of recursive publics, only one layer is properly open, that of the kernel itself; the layer beneath it, the process of its construction, is not free in the same sense. It is ironic that Torvalds—otherwise the spokesperson for antiplanning and adaptability—willingly adopted this form of constraint, but not at all surprising that it was collectively rejected.

The Bitkeeper controversy can be understood as a kind of experiment, a modulation on the one hand of the kinds of acceptable licenses (by McVoy) and on the other of acceptable forms of coordination (Torvalds’s decision to use Bitkeeper). The experiment was a failure, but a productive one, as it identified one kind of non-free software that is not safe to use in Free Software development: the SCM that coordinates the people and the code they contribute. Ativan over the counter, In terms of recursive publics the experiment identified the proper depth of recursion. Although it might be possible to create Free Software using some kinds of non-free tools, SCMs are not among them; both the software created and the software used to create it need to be free.³⁹

The Bitkeeper controversy illustrates again that adaptability is not about radical invention, but about critique and response. Whereas controlled design and hierarchical planning represent the domain of governance—control through goal-setting and orientation of a collective or a project—adaptability privileges politics, properly speaking, the ability to critique existing design and to [PAGE 236] propose alternatives without restriction. The tension between goal-setting and adaptability is also part of the dominant ideology of intellectual property. According to this ideology, IP laws promote invention of new products and ideas, but restrict the re-use or transformation of existing ones; defining where novelty begins is a core test of the law. McVoy made this tension explicit in his justifications for Bitkeeper: “Richard [Stallman] might want to consider the fact that developing new software is extremely expensive, ativan over the counter. He’s very proud of the collection of free software, but that’s a collection of re-implementations, Buy cheap ativan, but no profoundly new ideas or products. . . . What if the free software model simply can’t support the costs of developing new ideas?”⁴⁰

Ativan over the counter, Novelty, both in the case of Linux and in intellectual property law more generally, is directly related to the interplay of social and technical coordination: goal direction vs. adaptability. The ideal of adaptability promoted by Torvalds suggests a radical alternative to the dominant ideology of creation embedded in contemporary intellectual-property systems. If Linux is “new,” it is new through adaptation and the coordination of large numbers of creative contributors who challenge the “design” of an operating system from the bottom up, not from the top down. By contrast, McVoy represents a moral imagination of design in which it is impossible to achieve novelty without extremely expensive investment in top-down, goal-directed, unpolitical design—and it is this activity that the intellectual-property system is designed to reward. Both are engaged, however, in an experiment; both are engaged in “figuring out” what the limits of Free Software are.

Coordination Is Design

Many popular accounts of Free Software skip quickly over the details of its mechanism to suggest that it is somehow inevitable or obvious that Free Software should work—a self-organizing, emergent system that manages complexity through distributed contributions by hundreds of thousands of people, ativan over the counter. In The Success of Open Source Steven Weber points out that when people refer to Open Source as a self-organizing system, they usually mean something more like “I don’t understand how it works.”⁴¹

[PAGE 237]

Eric Raymond, for instance, suggests that Free Software is essentially the emergent, self-organizing result of “collaborative debugging”: “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.”⁴² The phrase implies that the core success of Free Software is the distributed, isolated, labor of debugging, and that design and planning happen elsewhere (when a developer “scratches an itch” or responds to a personal need). On the surface, such a distinction seems quite obvious: designing is designing, and debugging is removing bugs from software, and presto!—Free Software. At the extreme end, it is an understanding by which only individual geniuses are capable of planning and design, and if the initial conditions are properly set, then collective wisdom will fill in the details.

However, the actual practice and meaning of collective or collaborative debugging is incredibly elastic. Sometimes debugging means fixing an error; sometimes it means making the software do something different or new. Ativan over the counter, (A common joke, often made at Microsoft’s expense, captures some of this elasticity: whenever something doesn’t seem to work right, one says, “That’s a feature, not a bug.”) Some programmers see a design decision as a stupid mistake and take action to correct it, whereas others simply learn to use the software as designed. Debugging can mean something as simple as reading someone else’s code and helping them understand why it does not work; it can mean finding bugs in someone else’s software; it can mean reliably reproducing bugs; it can mean pinpointing the cause of the bug in the source code; it can mean changing the source to eliminate the bug; or it can, at the limit, West Virginia WV W.Va. , mean changing or even re-creating the software to make it do something different or better.⁴³ For academics, debugging can be a way to build a career: “Find bug. Write paper. Fix bug. Write paper. Repeat.”⁴⁴ For commercial software vendors, by contrast, debugging is part of a battery of tests intended to streamline a product.

Coordination in Free Software is about adaptability over planning, ativan over the counter. It is a way of resolving the tension between individual virtuosity in creation and the social benefit in shared labor. If all software were created, maintained, and distributed only by individuals, coordination would be superfluous, and software would indeed be part of the domain of poetry. But even the paradigmatic cases of virtuosic creation—EMACS by Richard Stallman, UNIX by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie—clearly represent the need for creative forms [PAGE 238] of coordination and the fundamental practice of reusing, reworking, rewriting, and imitation. UNIX was not created de novo, but was an attempt to streamline and rewrite Multics, itself a system that evolved out of Project MAC and the early mists of time-sharing and computer hacking.⁴⁵ EMACS was a reworking of the TECO editor. Both examples are useful for understanding the evolution of modes of coordination and the spectrum of design and debugging.

Ativan over the counter, UNIX was initially ported and shared through mixed academic and commercial means, through the active participation of computer scientists who both received updates and contributed fixes back to Thompson and Ritchie. No formal system existed to manage this process. When Thompson speaks of his understanding of UNIX as a “spectrum” and not as a series of releases (V1, V2, etc.), the implication is that work on UNIX was continuous, both within Bell Labs and among its widespread users. Thompson’s use of the diff tape encapsulates the core problem of coordination: how to collect and redistribute the changes made to the system by its users.

Similarly, Bill Joy’s distribution of BSD and James Gosling’s distribution of GOSMACS were both ad hoc, noncorporate experiments in “releasing early and often.” These distribution schemes had a purpose (beyond satisfying demand for the software). The frequent distribution of patches, fixes, and extensions eased the pain of debugging software and satisfied users’ demands for new features and extensions (by allowing them to do both themselves). Had Thompson and Ritchie followed the conventional corporate model of software production, they would have been held responsible for thoroughly debugging and testing the software they distributed, and AT&T or Bell Labs would have been responsible for coming up with all innovations and extensions as well, based on marketing and product research, ativan over the counter. Such an approach would have sacrificed adaptability in favor of planning. Vermont VT Vt. , But Thompson’s and Ritchie’s model was different: both the extension and the debugging of software became shared responsibilities of the users and the developers. Stallman’s creation of EMACS followed a similar pattern; since EMACS was by design extensible and intended to satisfy myriad unforeseen needs, the responsibility rested on the users to address those needs, and sharing their extensions and fixes had obvious social benefit.

The ability to see development of software as a spectrum implies more than just continuous work on a product; it means seeing the [PAGE 239] product itself as something fluid, built out of previous ideas and products and transforming, differentiating into new ones. Debugging, from this perspective, is not separate from design. Ativan over the counter, Both are part of a spectrum of changes and improvements whose goals and direction are governed by the users and developers themselves, and the patterns of coordination they adopt. It is in the space between debugging and design that Free Software finds its niche.

Conclusion: Experiments and Modulations

Coordination is a key component of Free Software, and is frequently identified as the central component. Free Software is the result of a complicated story of experimentation and construction, and the forms that coordination takes in Free Software are specific outcomes of this longer story. Apache and Linux are both experiments—not scientific experiments per se but collective social experiments in which there are complex technologies and legal tools, systems of coordination and governance, and moral and technical orders already present.

Free Software is an experimental system, a practice that changes with the results of new experiments. The privileging of adaptability makes it a peculiar kind of experiment, however, one not directed by goals, plans, or hierarchical control, but more like what John Dewey suggested throughout his work: the experimental praxis of science extended to the social organization of governance in the service of improving the conditions of freedom. What gives this experimentation significance is the centrality of Free Software—and specifically of Linux and Apache—to the experimental expansion of the Internet, ativan over the counter. As an infrastructure or a milieu, the Internet is changing the conditions of social organization, changing the relationship of knowledge to power, and changing the orientation of collective life toward governance. Free Software is, arguably, the best example of an attempt to make this transformation public, to ensure that it uses the advantages of adaptability as critique to counter the power of planning as control. Free Software, as a recursive public, proceeds by proposing and providing alternatives. It is a bit like Kant’s version of enlightenment: insofar as geeks speak (or hack) as scholars, in a public realm, they have a right to propose criticisms and changes of any sort; as soon as they relinquish [PAGE 240] that commitment, they become private employees or servants of the sovereign, bound by conscience and power to carry out the duties of their given office. The constitution of a public realm is not a universal activity, however, but a historically specific one: Free Software confronts the specific contemporary technical and legal infrastructure by which it is possible to propose criticisms and offer alternatives. What results is a recursive public filled not only with individuals who govern their own actions but also with code and concepts and licenses and forms of coordination that turn these actions into viable, concrete technical forms of life useful to inhabitants of the present.

Similar posts: Order ativan online cheap. Buy ativan online cheap. Buy klonopin c.o.d.. Order ativan no prescription. Buy klonopin. Klonopin over the counter.
Trackbacks from: Ativan over the counter. Ativan over the counter. Ativan over the counter. Ativan over the counter. Ativan over the counter. Ativan over the counter.

Buy ativan without prescription, To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. —Preamble to the GNU General Public License

The use of novel, unconventional copyright licenses is, without a doubt, the most widely recognized and exquisitely refined component of Free Software. The GNU General Public License (GPL), written initially by Richard Stallman, is often referred to as a beautiful, clever, powerful “hack” of intellectual-property law—when it isn’t being denounced as a viral, infectious object threatening the very fabric of economy and society. The very fact that something so boring, so arcane, and so legalistic as a copyright license can become an object of both devotional reverence and bilious scorn means there is much more than fine print at stake.

[PAGE 180]

By the beginning of the twenty-first century, there were hundreds of different Free Software licenses, each with subtle legal and technical differences, and an enormous legal literature to explain their details, motivation, and impact.¹ Free Software licenses differ from conventional copyright licenses on software because they usually restrict only the terms of distribution, while so-called End User License Agreements (EULAs) that accompany most proprietary software restrict what users can do with the software. Ethnographically speaking, licenses show up everywhere in the field, and contemporary hackers are some of the most legally sophisticated non-lawyers in the world. Indeed, apprenticeship in the world of hacking is now impossible, as Gabriella Coleman has shown, without a long, deep study of intellectual-property law.²

But how did it come to be this way, buy ativan without prescription. As with the example of sharing UNIX source code, Free Software licenses are often explained as a reaction to expanding intellectual-property laws and resistance to rapacious corporations. The text of the GPL itself begins deep in such assumptions: “The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it.”³ But even if corporations are rapacious, sharing and modifying software are by no means natural human activities. The ideas of sharing and of common property and its relation to freedom must always be produced through specific practices of sharing, before being defended. The GPL is a precise example of how geeks fit together the practices of sharing and modifying software with the moral and technical orders—the social imaginaries—of freedom and autonomy. Buy ativan without prescription, It is at once an exquisitely precise legal document and the expression of an idea of how software should be made available, shareable, and modifiable.

In this chapter I tell the story of the creation of the GPL, the first Free Software license, during a controversy over EMACS, a very widely used and respected piece of software; the controversy concerned the reuse of bits of copyrighted source code in a version of EMACS ported to UNIX. There are two reasons to retell this story carefully. The first is simply to articulate the details of the origin of the Free Software license itself, order ativan overnight delivery, as a central component of Free Software, details that should be understood in the context of changing copyright law and the UNIX and open-systems struggles of the 1980s. Second, although the story of the GPL is also an oft-told story of the “hacker ethic,” the GPL is not an “expression” of this [PAGE 181] ethic, as if the ethic were genotype to a legal phenotype. Opposite the familiar story of ethics, I explain how the GPL was “figured out” in the controversy over EMACS, how it was formed in response to a complicated state of affairs, both legal and technical, and in a medium new to all the participants: the online mailing lists and discussion lists of Usenet and Arpanet.⁴

The story of the creation of the GNU General Public License ultimately affirms the hacker ethic, not as a story of the ethical hacker genius, but as a historically specific event with a duration and a context, as something that emerges in response to the reorientation of knowledge and power, and through the active modulation of existing practices among both human and nonhuman actors. While hackers themselves might understand the hacker ethic as an unchanging set of moral norms, their practices belie this belief and demonstrate how ethics and norms can emerge suddenly and sharply, undergo repeated transformations, and bifurcate into ideologically distinct camps (Free Software vs, buy ativan without prescription. Open Source), even as the practices remain stable relative to them. The hacker ethic does not descend from the heights of philosophy like the categorical imperative—hackers have no Kant, nor do they want one. Rather, as Manuel Delanda has suggested, the philosophy of Free Software is the fact of Free Software itself, its practices and its things. If there is a hacker ethic, it is Free Software itself, it is the recursive public itself, which is much more than a list of norms.⁵ By understanding it in this way, it becomes possible to track the proliferation and differentiation of the hacker ethic into new and surprising realms, instead of assuming its static universal persistence as a mere procedure that hackers execute.

Free Software Licenses, Once More with Feeling

In lecturing on liberalism in 1935, Buy ativan, John Dewey said the following of Jeremy Bentham: “He was, we might say, the first great muck-raker in the field of law . . . but he was more than that, whenever he saw a defect, he proposed a remedy. He was an inventor in law and administration, as much so as any contemporary in mechanical production.”⁶ Dewey’s point was that the liberal reforms attributed to Bentham came not so much from his theories as from his direct involvement in administrative and legal reform—his experimentation. [PAGE 182] Whether or not Bentham’s influence is best understood this way, it nonetheless captures an important component of liberal reform in Europe and America that is also a key component in the story of Free Software: that the route to achieving change is through direct experiment with the system of law and administration.

A similar story might be told of Richard Stallman, hacker hero and founder of the Free Software Foundation, creator of (among many other things) the GNU C Compiler and GNU EMACS, two of the most widely used and tested Free Software tools in the world. Stallman is routinely abused for holding what many perceive to be “dogmatic” or “intractable” ideological positions about freedom and the right of individuals to do what they please with software, buy ativan without prescription. While it is no doubt quite true that his speeches and writings clearly betray a certain fervor and fanaticism, it would be a mistake to assume that his speeches, ideas, or belligerent demands concerning word choice constitute the real substance of his reform. In fact, it is the software he has created and the licenses he has written and rewritten which are the key to his Bentham-like inventiveness. Unlike Bentham, however, Stallman is not a creator of law and administrative structure, but a hacker.

Stallman’s GNU General Public License “hacks” the federal copyright law, as is often pointed out. It does this by taking advantage of the very strong rights granted by federal law to actually loosen the restrictions normally associated with ownership. Buy ativan without prescription, Because the statutes grant owners strong powers to create restrictions, Stallman’s GPL contains the restriction that anybody can use the licensed material, for any purpose, so long as they subsequently offer the same restriction. Hacks (after which hackers are named) are clever solutions to problems or shortcomings in technology. Hacks are work-arounds, clever, shortest-path solutions that take advantage of characteristics of the system that may or may not have been obvious to the people who designed it. Hacks range from purely utilitarian to mischievously pointless, but they always depend on an existing system or tool through which they achieve their point, ativan online stores. To call Free Software a hack is to point out that it would be nothing without the existence of intellectual-property law: it relies on the structure of U.S. copyright law (USC§17) in order to subvert it, buy ativan without prescription. Free Software licenses are, in a sense, immanent to copyright laws—there is nothing illegal or even legally arcane about what they accomplish—but there is nonetheless a kind of lingering sense [PAGE 183] that this particular use of copyright was not how the law was intended to function.

Like all software since the 1980 copyright amendments, Free Software is copyrightable—and what’s more, automatically copyrighted as it is written (there is no longer any requirement to register). Copyright law grants the author (or the employer of the author) a number of strong rights over the dispensation of what has been written: rights to copy, distribute, and change the work.⁷ Free Software’s hack is to immediately make use of these rights in order to abrogate the rights the programmer has been given, thus granting all subsequent licensees rights to copy, distribute, modify, and use the copyrighted software. Some licenses, like the GPL, add the further restriction that every licensee must offer the same terms to any subsequent licensee, others make no such restriction on subsequent uses. Thus, while statutory law suggests that individuals need strong rights and grants them, Free Software licenses effectively annul them in favor of other activities, such as sharing, porting, and forking software. It is for this reason that they have earned the name “copyleft.”⁸

Buy ativan without prescription, This is a convenient ex post facto description, however. Neither Stallman nor anyone else started out with the intention of hacking copyright law. The hack of the Free Software licenses was a response to a complicated controversy over a very important invention, a tool that in turn enabled an invention called EMACS. The story of the controversy is well-known among hackers and geeks, but not often told, and not in any rich detail, outside of these small circles.⁹

EMACS, Colorado CO Colo. , the Extensible, Customizable, Self-documenting, Real-time Display Editor

EMACS is a text editor; it is also something like a religion. As one of the two most famous text editors, it is frequently lauded by its devoted users and attacked by detractors who prefer its competitor (Bill Joy’s vi, also created in the late 1970s). EMACS is more than just a tool for writing text; for many programmers, it was (and still is) the principal interface to the operating system, buy ativan without prescription. For instance, it allows a programmer not only to write a program but also to debug it, to compile it, to run it, and to e-mail it to another user, [PAGE 184] all from within the same interface. What’s more, it allows users to quickly and easily write extensions to EMACS itself, extensions that automate frequent tasks and in turn become core features of the software. It can do almost anything, but it can also frustrate almost anyone. The name itself is taken from its much admired extensibility: EMACS stands for “editing macros” because it allows programmers to quickly record a series of commands and bundle them into a macro that can be called with a simple key combination. Buy ativan without prescription, In fact, it was one of the first editors (if not the first) to take advantage of keys like ctrl and meta, as in the now ubiquitous ctrl-S familiar to users of non-free word processors like Microsoft Word™.

Appreciate the innovation represented by EMACS: before the UNIX-dominated minicomputer era, there were very few programs for directly manipulating text on a display. To conceive of source code as independent of a program running on a machine meant first conceiving of it as typed, printed, or hand-scrawled code which programmers would scrutinize in its more tangible, paper-based form. Editors that allowed programmers to display the code in front of them on a screen, to manipulate it directly, and to save changes to those files were an innovation of the mid- to late 1960s and were not widespread until the mid-1970s (and this only for bleeding-edge academics and computer corporations). Along with a few early editors, such as QED (originally created by Butler Lampson and Peter Deutsch, and rewritten for UNIX by Ken Thompson), one of the most famous of these was TECO (text editor and corrector), written by Dan Murphy for DEC’s PDP-1 computer in 1962–63. Over the years, acquistare online ativan, TECO was transformed (ported and extended) to a wide variety of machines, including machines at Berkeley and MIT, and to other DEC hardware and operating systems. By the early 1970s, there was a version of TECO running on the Incompatible Time-sharing System (ITS), the system in use at MIT’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Lab, and it formed the basis for EMACS, buy ativan without prescription. (Thus, EMACS was itself conceived of as a series of macros for a separate editor: Editing MACroS for TECO.)

Like all projects on ITS at the AI Lab, many people contributed to the extension and maintenance of EMACS (including Guy Steele, Dave Moon, Richard Greenblatt, and Charles Frankston), but there is a clear recognition that Stallman made it what it was. The earliest AI Lab memo on EMACS, by Eugene Ciccarelli, says: “Finally, of all the people who have contributed to the development of EMACS, [PAGE 185] and the TECO behind it, special mention and appreciation go to Richard M. Stallman. He not only gave TECO the power and generality it has, but brought together the good ideas of many different Teco-function packages, added a tremendous amount of new ideas and environment, and created EMACS. Buy ativan without prescription, Personally one of the joys of my avocational life has been writing Teco/EMACS functions; what makes this fun and not painful is the rich set of tools to work with, all but a few of which have an ‘RMS’ chiseled somewhere on them.”¹⁰

At this point, in 1978, EMACS lived largely on ITS, but its reputation soon spread, and it was ported to DEC’s TOPS-20 (Twenex) operating system and rewritten for Multics and the MIT’s LISP machine, on which it was called EINE (Eine Is Not EMACS), and which was followed by ZWEI (Zwei Was Eine Initially).

The proliferation of EMACS was both pleasing and frustrating to Stallman, since it meant that the work fragmented into different projects, each of them EMACS-like, rather than building on one core project, and in a 1981 report he said, “The proliferation of such superficial facsimiles of EMACS has an unfortunate confusing effect: their users, not knowing that they are using an imitation of EMACS and never having seen EMACS itself, are led to believe they are enjoying all the advantages of EMACS. Since any real-time display editor is a tremendous improvement over what they probably had before, they believe this readily. To prevent such confusion, we urge everyone to refer to a nonextensible imitation of EMACS as an ‘ersatz EMACS.’ ”¹¹

Thus, while EMACS in its specific form on ITS was a creation of Stallman, the idea of EMACS or of any “real-time display editor” was proliferating in different forms and on different machines. The porting of EMACS, like the porting of UNIX, was facilitated by both its conceptual design integrity and its widespread availability.

The phrase “nonextensible imitation” captures the combination of design philosophy and moral philosophy that EMACS represented. Köpa billiga ativan, Extensibility was not just a useful feature for the individual computer user; it was a way to make the improvements of each new user easily available equally to all by providing a standard way for users to add extensions and to learn how to use new extensions that were added (the “self-documenting” feature of the system). The program had a conceptual integrity that was compromised when it was copied imperfectly, buy ativan without prescription. EMACS has a modular, extensible design [PAGE 186] that by its very nature invites users to contribute to it, to extend it, and to make it perform all manner of tasks—to literally copy and modify it, instead of imitating it. For Stallman, this was not only a fantastic design for a text editor, but an expression of the way he had always done things in the small-scale setting of the AI Lab. The story of Stallman’s moral commitments stresses his resistance to secrecy in software production, and EMACS is, both in its design and in Stallman’s distribution of it an example of this resistance.

Not everyone shared Stallman’s sense of communal order, however. In order to facilitate the extension of EMACS through sharing, Stallman started something he called the “EMACS commune.” At the end of the 1981 report—“EMACS: The Extensible, Customizable Self-documenting Display Editor,” dated 26 March—he explained the terms of distribution for EMACS: “It is distributed on a basis of communal sharing, which means that all improvements must be given back to me to be incorporated and distributed. Buy ativan without prescription, Those who are interested should contact me. Further information about how EMACS works is available in the same way.”¹²

In another report, intended as a user’s manual for EMACS, Stallman gave more detailed and slightly more colorful instructions:

EMACS does not cost anything; instead, you are joining the EMACS software-sharing commune. The conditions of membership are that you must send back any improvements you make to EMACS, including any libraries you write, and that you must not redistribute the system except exactly as you got it, complete. (You can also distribute your customizations, separately.) Please do not attempt to get a copy of EMACS, for yourself or anyone else, by dumping it off of your local system. It is almost certain to be incomplete or inconsistent. It is pathetic to hear from sites that received incomplete copies lacking the sources [source code], asking me years later whether sources are available, buy ativan without prescription. (All sources are distributed, buy ativan online legally, and should be on line at every site so that users can read them and copy code from them). If you wish to give away a copy of EMACS, copy a distribution tape from MIT, or mail me a tape and get a new one.¹³

Because EMACS was so widely admired and respected, Stallman had a certain amount of power over this commune. If it had been an obscure, nonextensible tool, useful for a single purpose, no one would have heeded such demands, but because EMACS was by nature the kind of tool that was both useful for all kinds of tasks and [PAGE 187] customizable for specific ones, Stallman was not the only person who benefited from this communal arrangement. Two disparate sites may well have needed the same macro extension, and therefore many could easily see the social benefit in returning extensions for inclusion, as well as in becoming a kind of co-developer of such a powerful system. Buy ativan without prescription, As a result, the demands of the EMACS commune, while unusual and autocratic, were of obvious value to the flock. In terms of the concept of recursive public, EMACS was itself the tool through which it was possible for users to extend EMACS, the medium of their affinity; users had a natural incentive to share their contributions so that all might receive the maximum benefit.

The terms of the EMACS distribution agreement were not quite legally binding; nothing compelled participation except Stallman’s reputation, his hectoring, or a user’s desire to reciprocate. On the one hand, Stallman had not yet chosen to, or been forced to, understand the details of the legal system, and so the EMACS commune was the next best thing. On the other hand, the state of intellectual-property law was in great flux at the time, and it was not clear to anyone, whether corporate or academic, exactly what kind of legal arrangements would be legitimate (the 1976 changes to copyright law were some of the most drastic in seventy years, and a 1980 amendment made software copyrightable, Cheap ativan online, but no court cases had yet tested these changes). Stallman’s “agreement” was a set of informal rules that expressed the general sense of mutual aid that was a feature of both the design of the system and Stallman’s own experience at the AI Lab. It was an expression of the way Stallman expected others to behave, and his attempts to punish or shame people amounted to informal enforcement of these expectations, buy ativan without prescription. The small scale of the community worked in Stallman’s favor.

At its small scale, Stallman’s commune was confronting many of the same issues that haunted the open-systems debates emerging at the same time, issues of interoperability, source-code sharing, standardization, portability, and forking. In particular, Stallman was acutely aware of the blind spot of open systems: the conflict of moral-technical orders represented by intellectual property. While UNIX vendors left intellectual-property rules unchallenged and simply assumed that they were the essential ground rules of debate, Stallman made them the substance of his experiment and, like Bentham, became something of a legal muckraker as a result.

[PAGE 188]

Stallman’s communal model could not completely prevent the porting and forking of software. Despite Stallman’s request that imitators refer to their versions of EMACS as ersatz EMACS, few did. Buy ativan without prescription, In the absence of legal threats over a trademarked term there was not much to stop people from calling their ports and forks EMACS, a problem of success not unlike that of Kleenex or Xerox. Few people took the core ideas of EMACS, implemented them in an imitation, and then called it something else (EINE and ZWEI were exceptions). In the case of UNIX the proliferation of forked versions of the software did not render them any less UNIX, even when AT&T insisted on ownership of the trademarked name. But as time went on, EMACS was ported, forked, rewritten, copied, or imitated on different operating systems and different computer architectures in universities and corporations around the world; within five or six years, many versions of EMACS were in wide use. It was this situation of successful adoption that would provide the context for the controversy that occurred between 1983 and 1985.

The Controversy

In brief the controversy was this: in 1983 James Gosling decided to sell his version of EMACS—a version written in C for UNIX called GOSMACS—to a commercial software vendor called Unipress. GOSMACS, the second most famous implementation of EMACS (after Stallman’s itself ), was written when Gosling was a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University, buy ativan without prescription. For years, Gosling had distributed GOSMACS by himself and had run a mailing list on Usenet, ativan without a prescription, on which he answered queries and discussed extensions. Gosling had explicitly asked people not to redistribute the program, but to come back to him (or send interested parties to him directly) for new versions, making GOSMACS more of a benevolent dictatorship than a commune. Gosling maintained his authority, but graciously accepted revisions and bug-fixes and extensions from users, incorporating them into new releases. Stallman’s system, by contrast, allowed users to distribute their extensions themselves, as well as have them included in the “official” EMACS. Buy ativan without prescription, By 1983, Gosling had decided he was unable to effectively maintain and support GOSMACS—a task he considered the proper role of a corporation.

[PAGE 189]

For Stallman, Gosling’s decision to sell GOSMACS to Unipress was “software sabotage.” Even though Gosling had been substantially responsible for writing GOSMACS, Stallman felt somewhat proprietorial toward this ersatz version—or, at the very least, was irked that no noncommercial UNIX version of EMACS existed. So Stallman wrote one himself (as part of a project he announced around the same time, called GNU [GNU’s Not UNIX], to create a complete non-AT&T version of UNIX). He called his version GNU EMACS and released it under the same EMACS commune terms. The crux of the debate hinged on the fact that Stallman used, albeit ostensibly with permission, a small piece of Gosling’s code in his new version of EMACS, a fact that led numerous people, including the new commercial suppliers of EMACS, to cry foul. Recriminations and legal threats ensued and the controversy was eventually resolved when Stallman rewrote the offending code, thus creating an entirely “Gosling-free” version that went on to become the standard UNIX version of EMACS.

The story raises several questions with respect to the changing legal context. In particular, it raises questions about the difference between “law on the books” and “law in action,” that is, the difference between the actions of hackers and commercial entities, advised by lawyers and legally minded friends, and the text and interpretation of statutes as they are written by legislators and interpreted by courts and lawyers, buy ativan without prescription. The legal issues span trade secret, patent, and trademark, but copyright is especially significant. Three issues were undecided at the time: the copyrightability of software, the definition of what counts as software and what doesn’t, and the meaning of copyright infringement. Generic ativan, While the controversy did not resolve any of these issues (the first two would be resolved by Congress and the courts, the third remains somewhat murky), it did clarify the legal issues for Stallman sufficiently that he could leave behind the informal EMACS commune and create the first version of a Free Software license, the GNU General Public License, which first started appearing in 1985.

Gosling’s decision to sell GOSMACS, announced in April of 1983, played into a growing EMACS debate being carried out on the GOSMACS mailing list, a Usenet group called net.emacs. Since net.emacs was forwarded to the Arpanet via a gateway maintained by John Gilmore at Sun Microsystems, a fairly large community [PAGE 190] of EMACS users were privy to Gosling’s announcement. Buy ativan without prescription, Prior to his declaration, there had been quite a bit of discussion regarding different versions of EMACS, including an already “commercial” version called CCA EMACS, written by Steve Zimmerman, of Computer Corporation of America (CCA).¹⁴ Some readers wanted comparisons between CCA EMACS and GOSMACS; others objected that it was improper to discuss a commercial version on the list: was such activity legitimate, or should it be carried out as part of the commercial company’s support activities. Gosling’s announcement was therefore a surprise, since it was already perceived to be the “noncommercial” version.

Date: Tue Apr 12 04:51:12 1983
Subject: EMACS goes commercial

The version of EMACS that I wrote is now available commercially through a company called Unipress. . . . They will be doing development, maintenance and will be producing a real manual, buy ativan without prescription. EMACS will be available on many machines (it already runs on VAXen under Unix and VMS, SUNs, codatas, and Microsoft Xenix). Along with this, I regret to say that I will no longer be distributing it.

This is a hard step to take, but I feel that it is necessary. I can no longer look after it properly, there are too many demands on my time. Buy ativan without prescription, EMACS has grown to be completely unmanageable. Its popularity has made it impossible to distribute free: just the task of writing tapes and stuffing them into envelopes is more than I can handle.

The alternative of abandoning it to the public domain is unacceptable. Too many other programs have been destroyed that way.

Please support these folks. The effort that they can afford to put into looking after EMACS is directly related to the support they get. Their prices are reasonable.

James.¹⁵

The message is worth paying careful attention to: Gosling’s work of distributing the tapes had become “unmanageable,” and the work of maintenance, upkeep, and porting (making it available on multiple architectures) is something he clearly believes should be done by a commercial enterprise, ativan pedido en línea. Gosling, it is clear, did not understand his effort in creating and maintaining EMACS to have emerged from a communal sharing of bits of code—even if he had done a Sisyphean amount of work to incorporate all the changes and suggestions his users had made—but he did long have a commit[PAGE 191]ment to distributing it for free, a commitment that resulted in many people contributing bits and pieces to GOSMACS.

“Free,” however, did not mean “public domain,” as is clear from his statement that “abandoning it” to the public domain would destroy the program, buy ativan without prescription. The distinction is an important one that was, and continues to be, lost on many sophisticated members of net.emacs. Here, free means without charge, but Gosling had no intention of letting that word suggest that he was not the author, owner, maintainer, distributor, and sole beneficiary of whatever value GOSMACS had. Public domain, by contrast, implied giving up all these rights.¹⁶ His decision to sell GOSMACS to Unipress was a decision to transfer these rights to a company that would then charge for all the labor he had previously provided for no charge (for “free”). Such a distinction was not clear to everyone; many people considered the fact that GOSMACS was free to imply that it was in the public domain.¹⁷ Not least of these was Richard Stallman, who referred to Gosling’s act as “software sabotage” and urged people to avoid using the “semi-ersatz” Unipress version.¹⁸

To Stallman, the advancing commercialization of EMACS, both by CCA and by Unipress, was a frustrating state of affairs. Buy ativan without prescription, The commercialization of CCA had been of little concern so long as GOSMACS remained free, but with Gosling’s announcement, there was no longer a UNIX version of EMACS available. To Stallman, however, “free” meant something more than either “public domain” or “for no cost.” The EMACS commune was designed to keep EMACS alive and growing as well as to provide it for free—it was an image of community stewardship, a community that had included Gosling until April 1983.

The disappearance of a UNIX version of EMACS, as well as the sudden commercial interest in making UNIX into a marketable operating system, fed into Stallman’s nascent plan to create a completely new, noncommercial, non-AT&T UNIX operating system that he would give away free to anyone who could use it. He announced his intention on 27 September 1983:¹⁹

Free Unix!

Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu’s Not Unix), and give it away free to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time, money, Ativan ordine on-line, programs and equipment are greatly needed.

[PAGE 192]

His justifications were simple.

Why I Must Write GNU

I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement.

So that I can continue to use computers without violating my principles, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free.²⁰

At that point, it is clear, there was no “free software license.” There was the word free, but not the term public domain. There was the “golden rule,” and there was a resistance to nondisclosure and license arrangements in general, but certainly no articulated conception of copyleft of Free Software as a legally distinct entity, buy ativan without prescription. And yet Stallman hardly intended to “abandon it” to the public domain, as Gosling suggested. Instead, Stallman likely intended to require the same EMACS commune rules to apply to Free Software, rules that he would be able to control largely by overseeing (in a nonlegal sense) who was sent or sold what and by demanding (in the form of messages attached to the software) that any modifications or improvements come in the form of donations. It was during the period 1983–85 that the EMACS commune morphed into the GPL, as Stallman began adding copyrights and appending messages that made explicit what people could do with the software.²¹

The GNU project initially received little attention, however; scattered messages to net.unix-wizards over the course of 1983–84 periodically ask about the status and how to contact them, often in the context of discussions of AT&T UNIX licensing practices that were unfolding as UNIX was divested and began to market its own version of UNIX.²² Stallman’s original plan for GNU was to start with the core operating system, the kernel, but his extensive work on EMACS and the sudden need for a free EMACS for UNIX led him to start with a UNIX version of EMACS. In 1984 and into 1985, he and others began work on a UNIX version of GNU EMACS. Buy ativan without prescription, The two commercial versions of UNIX EMACS (CCA EMACS and Unipress EMACS) continued to circulate and improve in parallel. DEC users meanwhile used the original free version created by Stallman. And, as often happens, life went on: Zimmerman left CCA in Au[PAGE 193]gust 1984, and Gosling moved to Sun, neither of them remaining closely involved in the software they had created, but leaving the new owners to do so.

By March 1985, Stallman had a complete version (version 15) of GNU EMACS running on the BSD 4.2 version of UNIX (the version Bill Joy had helped create and had taken with him to form the core of Sun’s version of UNIX), running on DEC’s VAX computers. Stallman announced this software in a characteristically flamboyant manner, publishing in the computer programmers’ monthly magazine Dr. Dobbs an article entitled “The GNU Manifesto.”²³

Stallman’s announcement that a free version of UNIX EMACS was available caused some concern among commercial distributors. The main such concern was that GNU EMACS 15.34 contained code marked “Copyright (c) James Gosling,” code used to make EMACS display on screen.²⁴ The “discovery” (not so difficult, since Stallman always distributed the source code along with the binary) that this code had been reused by Stallman led to extensive discussion among EMACS users of issues such as the mechanics of copyright, the nature of infringement, the definition of software, the meaning of public domain, the difference between patent, copyright, and trade secret, and the mechanics of permission and its granting—in short, a discussion that would be repeatedly recapitulated in nearly every software and intellectual property controversy in the future.

The story of the controversy reveals the structure of rumor on the Usenet to be a bit like the child’s game of Chinese Whispers, except that the translations are all archived, buy ativan without prescription. GNU EMACS 15.34 was released in March 1985, comprar ativan baratos. Between March and early June there was no mention of its legal status, but around June 3 messages on the subject began to proliferate. The earliest mention of the issue appeared not on net.emacs, but on fa.info-vax—a newsgroup devoted to discussions of VAX computer systems (“fa” stands for “from Arpanet”)—and it included a dialogue, between Ron Natalie and Marty Sasaki, labeled “GNU EMACS: How Public Domain?”: “FOO, don’t expect that GNU EMACS is really in the public domain. UNIPRESS seems rather annoyed that there are large portions of it that are marked copyright James Gosling.”²⁵ This message was reprinted on 4 June 1985 on net.emacs, with the addendum: “RMS’s work is based on a version of Gosling code that existed before Unipress got it. Buy ativan without prescription, Gosling had put that code into the public domain. Any [PAGE 194] work taking off from the early Gosling code is therefore also public domain.”²⁶

The addendum was then followed by an extensive reply from Zimmerman, whose CCA EMACS had been based on Warren Montgomery’s Bell Labs EMACS but rewritten to avoid reusing the code, which may account for why his understanding of the issue seems to have been both deep and troubling for him.

This is completely contrary to Gosling’s public statements. Before he made his arrangements with Unipress, Gosling’s policy was that he would send a free copy of his EMACS to anyone who asked, but he did not (publicly, at least) give anyone else permission to make copies. Once Unipress started selling Gosling’s EMACS, Gosling stopped distributing free copies and still did not grant anyone else permission to make them; instead, he suggested that people buy EMACS from Unipress. All versions of Gosling’s EMACS distributed by him carry his copyright notice, and therefore none of them are in the public domain. Removing copyright notices without the author’s permission is, of course, illegal, buy ativan without prescription. Now, a quick check of my GNU EMACS sources shows that sure enough, a number of files have Gosling’s copyright notice in them. What this all means is that unless RMS got written permission from Gosling to distribute his code, all copies of GNU EMACS constitute violations of the copyright law. All those people making such copies, including those people who allow them to be copied off their machines, could each be liable for large sums of money. I think that RMS had better tell us if he has Gosling’s written permission to make these copies. Buy ativan without prescription, If so, why has he not stated this earlier (preferably in the distribution itself ) and thereby cleared up a potentially major point of confusion. Order ativan online, If not, why has he gone ahead and made many, many people liable for criminal prosecution by recommending that they distribute this code without even warning them of their liability. (People who distribute this code would be liable even if they claim that they didn’t see Gosling’s notices; the fact that the notices are there is sufficient. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”)

Now, I have nothing against free software; it’s a free country and people can do what they want. It’s just that people who do distribute free software had better be sure that they have the legal right to do so, or be prepared to face the consequences. (Jun 9, 1985).²⁷

Stallman replied the next day.

[PAGE 195]

Nobody has any reason to be afraid to use or distribute GNU EMACS, buy ativan without prescription. It is well known that I do not believe any software is anyone’s property. However, for the GNU project, I decided it was necessary to obey the law. I have refused to look at code I did not have permission to distribute. About 5% of GNU EMACS is close to (though quite a bit changed from) an old version of Gosling EMACS. Buy ativan without prescription, I am distributing it for Fen Labalme, who received permission from Gosling to distribute it. It is therefore legal for me to do so. To be scrupulously legal, I put statements at the front of the files concerned, describing this situation.

I don’t see anything I should warn people about—except that Zimmerman is going to try to browbeat them.²⁸

Stallman’s original defense for using Gosling’s code was that he had permission to do so. According to him, Fen Labalme had received written permission—whether to make use of or to redistribute is not clear—the display code that was included in GNU EMACS 15.34. According to Stallman, versions of Labalme’s version of Gosling’s version of EMACS were in use in various places (including at Labalme’s employer, Megatest), and Stallman and Labalme considered this a legally defensible position.²⁹

Over the next two weeks, a slew of messages attempted to pick apart and understand the issues of copyright, ownership, distribution, and authorship. Gosling wrote to clarify that GOSMACS had never been in the public domain, but that “unfortunately, two moves have left my records in a shambles,” and he is therefore silent on the question of whether he granted permission.³⁰ Gosling’s claim could well be strategic: giving permission, had he done so, might have angered Unipress, which expected exclusive control over the version he had sold; by the same token, he may well have approved of Stallman’s re-creation, but not have wanted to affirm this in any legally actionable way, buy ativan without prescription. Meanwhile, Zimmerman relayed an anonymous message suggesting that some lawyers somewhere found the “third hand redistribution” argument was legally “all wet.”³¹

Stallman’s biggest concern was not so much the legality of his own actions as the possibility that people would choose not to use the software because of legal threats (even if such threats were issued only as rumors by former employees of companies that distributed software they had written). Stallman wanted users not only [PAGE 196] to feel safe using his software but to adopt his view that software exists to be shared and improved and that anything that hinders this is a loss for everyone, which necessitates an EMACS commune.

Stallman’s legal grounds for using Gosling’s code may or may not have been sound, buy ativan no prescription. Zimmerman did his best throughout to explain in detail what kind of permission Stallman and Labalme would have needed, drawing on his own experience with the CCA lawyers and AT&T Bell Labs, all the while berating Stallman for not creating the display code himself. Meanwhile, Unipress posted an official message that said, “UniPress wants to inform the community that portions of the GNU EMACS program are most definitely not public domain, and that use and/or distribution of the GNU EMACS program is not necessarily proper.”³² The admittedly vague tone of the message left most people wondering what that meant—and whether Unipress intended to sue anyone. Buy ativan without prescription, Strategically speaking, the company may have wished to maintain good will among hackers and readers of net.emacs, an audience likely composed of many potential customers. Furthermore, if Gosling had given permission to Stallman, then Unipress would themselves have been on uncertain legal ground, unable to firmly and definitively threaten users of GNU EMACS with legal action. In either case, the question of whether or not permission was needed was not in question—only the question of whether it had been granted.³³

However, a more complicated legal issue also arose as a result, one concerning the status of code contributed to Gosling by others. Fen Labalme wrote a message to net.emacs, which, although it did not clarify the legal status of Gosling’s code (Labalme was also unable to find his “permission” from Gosling), did raise a related issue: the fact that he and others had made significant contributions to GOSMACS, which Gosling had incorporated into his version, then sold to Unipress without their permission: “As one of the ‘others’ who helped to bring EMACS [GOSMACS] up to speed, I was distressed when Jim sold the editor to UniPress. This seemed to be a direct violation of the trust that I and others had placed in Jim as we sent him our improvements, modifications, and bug fixes. I am especially bothered by the general mercenary attitude surrounding EMACS which has taken over from the once proud ‘hacker’ ethic—EMACS is a tool that can make all of our lives better, buy ativan without prescription. Let’s help it to grow!”³⁴

[PAGE 197]

Labalme’s implication, though he may not even have realized this himself, is that Gosling may have infringed on the rights of others in selling the code to Unipress, as a separate message from Joaquim Martillo makes clear: “The differences between current version of Unipress EMACS and Gnu EMACS display.c (a 19 page module) is about 80%. For all the modules which Fen LeBalme [sic] gave RMS permission to use, Ativan generic, the differences are similar. Unipress is not even using the disputed software anymore. Now, these modules contain code people like Chris Torek and others contributed when Gosling’s emacs was in the public domain. I must wonder whether these people would have contributed had they known their freely-given code was going to become part of someone’s product.”³⁵

Buy ativan without prescription, Indeed, the general irony of this complicated situation was certainly not as evident as it might have been given the emotional tone of the debates: Stallman was using code from Gosling based on permission Gosling had given to Labalme, but Labalme had written code for Gosling which Gosling had commercialized without telling Labalme—conceivably, but not likely, the same code. Furthermore, all of them were creating software that had been originally conceived in large part by Stallman (but based on ideas and work on TECO, an editor written twenty years before EMACS), who was now busy rewriting the very software Gosling had rewritten for UNIX. The “once proud hacker ethic” that Labalme mentions would thus amount not so much to an explicit belief in sharing so much as a fast-and-loose practice of making contributions and fixes without documenting them, giving oral permission to use and reuse, and “losing” records that may or may not have existed—hardly a noble enterprise.

But by 27 June 1985, all of the legal discussion was rendered moot when Stallman announced that he would completely rewrite the display code in EMACS.

I have decided to replace the Gosling code in GNU EMACS, even though I still believe Fen and I have permission to distribute that code, in order to keep people’s confidence in the GNU project.

I came to this decision when I found, this night, that I saw how to rewrite the parts that had seemed hard. I expect to have the job done by the weekend.³⁶

On 5 July, Stallman sent out a message that said:

[PAGE 198]

Celebrate our independence from Unipress.

EMACS version 16, 100% Gosling-free, is now being tested at several places. It appears to work solidly on Vaxes, but some other machines have not been tested yet.³⁷

The fact that it only took one week to create the code is a testament to Stallman’s widely recognized skills in creating great software—it doesn’t appear to have indicated any (legal) threat or urgency, buy ativan without prescription. Indeed, even though Unipress seems also to have been concerned about their own reputation, and despite the implication made by Stallman that they had forced this issue to happen, they took a month to respond. At that point, the Unipress employee Mike Gallaher wrote to insist, somewhat after the fact, that Unipress had no intention of suing anyone—as long as they were using the Gosling-free EMACS version 16 and higher.

UniPress has no quarrel with the Gnu project. It bothers me that people seem to think we are trying to hinder it. In fact, we hardly did or said much at all, Køb discount ativan, except to point out that the Gnumacs code had James Gosling’s copyright in it. Buy ativan without prescription, We have not done anything to keep anyone from using Gnumacs, nor do we intend to now that it is “Gosling-free” (version 16.56).

You can consider this to be an official statement from UniPress: There is nothing in Gnumacs version 16.56 that could possibly cause UniPress to get upset. If you were afraid to use Gnumacs because you thought we would hassle you, don’t be, on the basis of version 16.56.³⁸

Both Stallman and Unipress received various attacks and defenses from observers of the controversy. Many people pointed out that Stallman should get credit for “inventing” EMACS and that the issue of him infringing on his own invention was therefore ironic. Others proclaimed the innocence and moral character of Unipress, which, it was claimed, was providing more of a service (support for EMACS) than the program itself.

Some readers interpreted the fact that Stallman had rewritten the display code, whether under pressure from Unipress or not, as confirmation of the ideas expressed in “The GNU Manifesto,” namely, that commercial software stifles innovation. According to this logic, precisely because Stallman was forced to rewrite the code, rather than build on something that he himself assumed he had permis[PAGE 199]sion to do, there was no innovation, only fear-induced caution.³⁹ On the other hand, latent within this discussion is a deep sense of propriety about what people had created; many people, not only Stallman and Gosling and Zimmerman, had contributed to making EMACS what it was, and most had done so under the assumption, legally correct or not, that it would not be taken away from them or, worse, that others might profit by it.

Gosling’s sale of EMACS is thus of a different order from his participation in the common stewardship of EMACS. The distinction between creating software and maintaining it is a commercial fiction driven in large part by the structure of intellectual property, buy ativan without prescription. It mirrors the experience of open systems. Maintaining software can mean improving it, and improving it can mean incorporating the original work and ideas of others. To do so by the rules of a changing intellectual-property structure forces different choices than to do so according to an informal hacker ethic or an experimental “commune.” One programmer’s minor improvement is another programmer’s original contribution.

The Context of Copyright

The EMACS controversy occurred in a period just after some of the largest changes to U.S. Buy ativan without prescription, intellectual-property law in seventy years. Buy ativan without prescription, Two aspects of this context are worth emphasizing: (1) practices and knowledge about the law change slowly and do not immediately reflect the change in either the law or the strategies of actors; (2) U.S. law creates a structural form of uncertainty in which the interplay between legislation and case law is never entirely certain. In the former aspect, programmers who grew up in the 1970s saw a commercial practice entirely dominated by trade secret and patent protection, and very rarely by copyright; thus, the shift to widespread use of copyright law (facilitated by the 1976 and 1980 changes to the law) to protect software was a shift in thinking that only slowly dawned on many participants, even the most legally astute, since it was a general shift in strategy as well as a statutory change. In the latter aspect, the 1976 and 1980 changes to the copyright law contained a number of uncertainties that would take over a decade to be worked out in case law, issues such as the copyrightability of software, the definition of software, and the meaning [PAGE 200] of infringement in software copyright, to say nothing of the impact of the codification of fair use and the removal of the requirement to register (issues that arguably went unnoticed until the turn of the millennium). Both aspects set the stage for the EMACS controversy and Stallman’s creation of the GPL.

Legally speaking, the EMACS controversy was about copyright, permission, and the meanings of a public domain and the reuse of software (and, though never explicitly mentioned, fair use). Software patenting and trade-secret law are not directly concerned, but they nonetheless form a background to the controversy, buy ativan without prescription. Many of the participants expressed a legal and conventional orthodoxy that software was not patentable, that is, that algorithms, ideas, or fundamental equations fell outside the scope of patent, even though the 1981 case Diamond v. Diehr is generally seen as the first strong support by the courts for forcing the United States Patent and Trademark Office to grant patents on software.⁴⁰ Software, this orthodoxy went, was better protected by trade-secret law (a state-by-state law, not a federal statute), which provided protection for any intellectual property that an owner reasonably tried to maintain as a secret. The trade-secret status of UNIX, Delaware DE Del. , for example, meant that all the educational licensees who were given the source code of UNIX had agreed to keep it secret, even though it was manifestly circulating the world over; one could therefore run afoul of trade-secret rules if one looked at the source code (e.g., signed a nondisclosure license or was shown the code by an employee) and then implemented something similar.

By contrast, copyright law was rarely deployed in matters of software production. The first copyright registration of software occurred in 1964, but the desirability of relying on copyright over trade secret was uncertain well into the 1970s.⁴¹ Some corporations, like IBM, routinely marked all source code with a copyright symbol. Buy ativan without prescription, Others asserted it only on the binaries they distributed or in the license agreements. The case of software on the UNIX operating system and its derivatives is particularly haphazard, and the existence of copyright notices by the authors varies widely. An informal survey by Barry Gold singled out only James Gosling, Walter Tichy (author of rcs), and the RAND Corporation as having adequately labeled source code with copyright notices.⁴² Gosling was also the first to register EMACS as copyrighted software in 1983, [PAGE 201] while Stallman registered GNU EMACS just after version 15.34 was released in May 1985.⁴³

The uncertainty of the change from reliance on trade secret to reliance on copyright is clear in some of the statements made by Stallman around the reuse of Gosling’s code. Since neither Stallman nor Gosling sought to keep the program secret in any form—either by licensing it or by requiring users to keep it secret—there could be no claims of trade-secret status on either program. Nonetheless, there was frequent concern about whether one had seen any code (especially code from a UNIX operating system, which is covered by trade secret) and whether code that someone else had seen, rewritten, or distributed publicly was therefore “in the public domain.”⁴⁴ But, at the same time, Stallman was concerned that rewriting Gosling’s display code would be too difficult: “Any display code would have a considerable resemblance to that display code, just by virtue of doing the same job. Without any clear idea of exactly how much difference there would have to be to reassure you users, I cannot tell whether the rewrite would accomplish that, buy ativan without prescription. The law is not any guidance here. . . . Writing display code that is significantly different is not easy.”⁴⁵

Buy ativan without prescription, Stallman’s strategy for rewriting software, including his plan for the GNU operating system, also involved “not looking at” anyone else’s code, so as to ensure that no trade-secret violations would occur. Although it was clear that Gosling’s code was not a trade secret, it was also not obvious that it was “in the public domain, Comprar ativan de descuento, ” an assumption that might be made about other kinds of software protected by trade secret. Under trade-secret rules, Gosling’s public distribution of GOSMACS appears to give the green light for its reuse, but under copyright law, a law of strict liability, any unauthorized use is a violation, regardless of how public the software may have been.⁴⁶

The fact of trade-secret protection was nonetheless an important aspect of the EMACS controversy: the version of EMACS that Warren Montgomery had created at Bell Labs (and on which Zimmerman’s CCA version would be based) was the subject of trade-secret protection by AT&T, by virtue of being distributed with UNIX and under a nondisclosure agreement. AT&T was at the time still a year away from divestiture and thus unable to engage in commercial exploitation of the software. When CCA sought to commercialize [PAGE 202] the version of UNIX Zimmerman had based on Montgomery’s, it was necessary to remove any AT&T code in order to avoid violating their trade-secret status. CCA in turn distributed their EMACS as either binary or as source (the former costing about $1,000, the latter as much as $7,000) and relied on copyright rather than trade-secret protection to prevent unauthorized uses of their software.⁴⁷

The uncertainty over copyright was thus in part a reflection of a changing strategy in the computer-software industry, a kind of uneven development in which copyright slowly and haphazardly came to replace trade secret as the main form of intellectual-property protection, buy ativan without prescription. This switch had consequences for how noncommercial programmers, researchers, and amateurs might interpret their own work, as well as for the companies whose lawyers were struggling with the same issues. Of course, copyright and trade-secret protection are not mutually exclusive, but they structure the need for secrecy in different ways, and they make different claims on issues like similarity, reuse, and modification.

The 1976 changes to copyright law were therefore extremely significant in setting out a new set of boundaries and possibilities for intellectual-property arguments, arguments that created a different kind of uncertainty from that of a changing commercial strategy: a structural uncertainty created by the need for a case law to develop around the statutory changes implemented by Congress.

The Copyright Act of 1976 introduced a number of changes that had been some ten years in the making, largely organized around new technologies like photocopier machines, home audiotaping, and the new videocassette recorders. It codified fair-use rights, it removed the requirement to register, and it expanded the scope of copyrightable materials considerably. It did not, however, explicitly address software, an oversight that frustrated many in the computer industry, Kentucky KY Ky. , in particular the young software industry. Buy ativan without prescription, Pursuant to this oversight, the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyright (CONTU) was charged with making suggestions for changes to the law with respect to software. It was therefore only in 1980 that Congress implemented these changes, adding software to title 17 of the U.S. copyright statute as something that could be considered copyrightable by law.⁴⁸

The 1980 amendment to the copyright law answered one of three lingering questions about the copyrightability of software: the simple question of whether it was copyrightable material at all. Con[PAGE 203]gress answered yes. It did not, however, designate what constituted “software.” During the 1980s, a series of court cases helped specify what counted as software, including source code, object code (binaries), screen display and output, look and feel, and microcode and firmware.⁴⁹ The final question, which the courts are still faced with adjudicating, concerns how much similarity constitutes an infringement in each of these cases. The implications of the codification of fair use and the requirement to register continue to unfold even into the present.

The EMACS controversy confronts all three of these questions, buy ativan without prescription. Stallman’s initial creation of EMACS was accomplished under conditions in which it was unclear whether copyright would apply (i.e., before 1980). Stallman, of course, did not attempt to copyright the earliest versions of EMACS, but the 1976 amendments removed the requirement to register, thus rendering everything written after 1978 automatically copyrighted. Registration represented only an additional effort to assert ownership in cases of suspected infringement.

Throughout this period, the question of whether software was copyrightable—or copyrighted—was being answered differently in different cases: AT&T was relying on trade-secret status; Gosling, Unipress, and CCA negotiated over copyrighted material; and Stallman was experimenting with his “commune.” Although the uncertainty was answered statutorily by the 1980 amendment, not everyone instantly grasped this new fact or changed practices based on it. There is ample evidence throughout the Usenet archive that the 1976 changes were poorly understood, especially by comparison with the legal sophistication of hackers in the 1990s and 2000s. Buy ativan without prescription, Although the law changed in 1980, practices changed more slowly, and justifications crystallized in the context of experiments like that of GNU EMACS.

Further, a tension emerged between the meaning of source code and the meaning of software. Cheap ativan no rx, On the one hand was the question of whether the source code or the binary code was copyrightable, and on the other was the question of defining the boundaries of software in a context wherein all software relies on other software in order to run at all. For instance, EMACS was originally built on top of TECO, which was referred to both as an editor and as a programming language; even seemingly obvious distinctions (e.g., application vs. programming language) were not necessarily always clear. [PAGE 204] If EMACS was an application written in TECO qua programming language, then it would seem that EMACS should have its own copyright, distinct from any other program written in TECO. But if EMACS was an extension or modification of TECO qua editor, then it would seem that EMACS was a derivative work and would require the explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Further, each version of EMACS, in order to be EMACS, needed a LISP interpreter in order to make the extensible interface similar across all versions, buy ativan without prescription. But not all versions used the same LISP interpreter. Gosling’s used an interpreter called MOCKLISP (mlisp in the trademarked Unipress version), for instance. The question of whether the LISP interpreter was a core component of the software or an “environment” needed in order to extend the application was thus also uncertain and unspecified in the law. While both might be treated as software suitable for copyright protection, both might also be understood as necessary components out of which copyrightable software would be built.⁵⁰

What’s more, both the 1976 and 1980 amendments are silent on the copyright status of source code vs. Buy ativan without prescription, binary code. While all the versions of EMACS were distributed in binary, Stallman and Gosling both included the source to allow users to modify it and extend it, but they differed on the proper form of redistribution. The threshold between modifying software for oneself and copyright infringement was not yet clear, and it hung on the meaning of redistribution. Changing the software for use on a single computer might be necessary to get it to run, but by the early days of the Arpanet, innocently placing that code in a public directory on one computer could look like mass distribution.⁵¹

Finally, the question of what constitutes infringement was at the heart of this controversy and was not resolved by law or by legal adjudication, but simply by rewriting the code to avoid the question. Stallman’s use of Gosling’s code, his claim of third-hand permission, the presence or absence of written permission, the sale of GOSMACS to Unipress when it most likely contained code not written by Gosling but copyrighted in his name—all of these issues complicated the question of infringement to the point where Stallman’s only feasible option for continuing to create software was to avoid using anyone else’s code at all. Indeed, Stallman’s decision to use Gosling’s code (which he claims to have changed in significant portions) might have come to nothing if he had unethi[PAGE 205]cally and illegally chosen not to include the copyright notice at all (under the theory that the code was original to Stallman, or an imitation, rather than a portion of Gosling’s work), buy ativan without prescription. Indeed, billig ativan apotek, Chris Torek received Gosling’s permission to remove Gosling’s name and copyright from the version of display.c he had heavily modified, but he chose not to omit them: “The only reason I didn’t do so is that I feel that he should certainly be credited as the inspiration (at the very least) for the code.”⁵² Likewise, Stallman was most likely concerned to obey the law and to give credit where credit was due, and therefore left the copyright notice attached—a clear case of blurred meanings of authorship and ownership.

In short, the interplay between new statutes and their settlement in court or in practice was a structural uncertainty that set novel constraints on the meaning of copyright, and especially on the norms and forms of permission and reuse. GNU EMACS 15.34 was the safest option—a completely new version that performed the same tasks, but in a different manner, using different algorithms and code.

Even as it resolved the controversy, however, GNU EMACS posed new problems for Stallman: how would the EMACS commune survive if it wasn’t clear whether one could legally use another person’s code, even if freely contributed. Was Gosling’s action in selling work by others to Unipress legitimate. Would Stallman be able to enforce its opposite, namely, prevent people from commercializing EMACS code they contributed to him. How would Stallman avoid the future possibility of his own volunteers and contributors later asserting that he had infringed on their copyright?

Buy ativan without prescription, By 1986, Stallman was sending out a letter that recorded the formal transfer of copyright to the Free Software Foundation (which he had founded in late 1985), with equal rights to nonexclusive use of the software.⁵³ While such a demand for the expropriation of copyright might seem contrary to the aims of the GNU project, in the context of the unfolding copyright law and the GOSMACS controversy it made perfect sense. Having been accused himself of not having proper permission to use someone else’s copyrighted material in his free version of GNU EMACS, Stallman took steps to forestall such an event in the future.

The interplay between technical and legal issues and “ethical” concerns was reflected in the practical issues of fear, intimidation, and common-sense (mis)understandings of intellectual-property [PAGE 206] law. Zimmerman’s veiled threats of legal liability were directed not only at Stallman but at anyone who was using the program Stallman had written; breaking the law was, for Zimmerman, an ethical lapse, not a problem of uncertainty and change. Whether or not such an interpretation of the law was correct, it did reveal the mechanisms whereby a low level of detailed knowledge about the law—and a law in flux, at that (not to mention the litigious reputation of the U.S. legal system worldwide)—often seemed to justify a sense that buying software was simply a less risky option than acquiring it for free. Businesses, not customers, it was assumed, would be liable for such infringements, buy ativan without prescription. By the same token, the sudden concern of software programmers (rather than lawyers) with the detailed mechanics of copyright law meant that a very large number of people found themselves asserting common-sense notions, Georgia GA Ga. , only to be involved in a flame war over what the copyright law “actually says.”

Such discussion has continued and grown exponentially over the last twenty years, to the point that Free Software hackers are now nearly as deeply educated about intellectual property law as they are about software code.⁵⁴ Far from representing the triumph of the hacker ethic, the GNU General Public License represents the concrete, tangible outcome of a relatively wide-ranging cultural conversation hemmed in by changing laws, court decisions, practices both commercial and academic, and experiments with the limits and forms of new media and new technology.

Conclusion

The rest of the story is quickly told: Stallman resigned from the AI Lab at MIT and started the Free Software Foundation in 1985; he created a raft of new tools, but ultimately no full UNIX operating system, and issued General Public License 1.0 in 1989. In 1990 he was awarded a MacArthur “genius grant.” During the 1990s, he was involved in various high-profile battles among a new generation of hackers; those controversies included the debate around Linus Torvalds’s creation of Linux (which Stallman insisted be referred to as GNU/Linux), the forking of EMACS into Xemacs, and Stallman’s own participation in—and exclusion from—conferences and events devoted to Free Software.

[PAGE 207]

Between 1986 and 1990, the Free Software Foundation and its software became extremely well known among geeks. Much of this had to do with the wealth of software that they produced and distributed via Usenet and Arpanet. And as the software circulated and was refined, so were the new legal constraints and the process of teaching users to understand what they could and could not do with the software—and why it was not in the public domain.

Each time a new piece of software was released, it was accompanied by one or more text files which explained what its legal status was. Buy ativan without prescription, At first, there was a file called DISTRIB, which contained an explanation of the rights the new owner had to modify and redistribute the software.⁵⁵ DISTRIB referenced a file called COPYING, which contained the “GNU EMACS copying permission notice,” also known as the GNU EMACS GPL. The first of these licenses listed the copyright holder as Richard Stallman (in 1985), but by 1986 all licenses referred to the Free Software Foundation as the copyright holder.

As the Free Software Foundation released other pieces of software, the license was renamed—GNU CC GPL, a GNU Bison GPL, a GNU GDB GPL, and so on, all of which were essentially the same terms—in a file called COPYING, which was meant to be distributed along with the software. In 1988, after the software and the licenses had become considerably more widely available, Stallman made a few changes to the license that relaxed some of the terms and specified others.⁵⁶ This new version would become the GNU GPL 1.0. By the time Free Software emerged into the public consciousness in the late 1990s, the GPL had reached version 2.0, and the Free Software Foundation had its own legal staff.

The creation of the GPL and the Free Software Foundation are often understood as expressions of the hacker ethic, purchase ativan online, or of Stallman’s ideological commitment to freedom. But the story of EMACS and the complex technical and legal details that structure it illustrate how the GPL is more than just a hack: it was a novel, privately ordered legal “commune.” It was a space thoroughly independent of, but insinuated into the existing bedrock of rules and practices of the world of corporate and university software, and carved out of the slippery, changing substance of intellectual-property statutes. At a time when the giants of the software industry were fighting to create a different kind of openness—one that preserved and would even strengthen existing relations of intellectual property—this [PAGE 208] hack was a radical alternative that emphasized the sovereignty not of a national or corporate status quo, but of self-fashioning individuals who sought to opt out of that national-corporate unity, buy ativan without prescription. The creation of the GNU GPL was not a return to a golden age of small-scale communities freed from the dominating structures of bureaucratic modernity, but the creation of something new out of those structures. It relied on and emphasized, not their destruction, but their stability—at least until they are no longer necessary.

The significance of the GPL is due to its embedding within and emergence from the legal and technical infrastructure. Such a practice of situated reworking is what gives Free Software—and perhaps all forms of engineering and creative practice—its warp and weft. Stallman’s decision to resign from the AI Lab and start the Free Software Foundation is a good example; it allowed Stallman no only to devote energy to Free Software but also to formally differentiate the organizations, to forestall at least the potential threat that MIT (which still provided him with office space, equipment, and network connection) might decide to claim ownership over his work. Buy ativan without prescription, One might think that the hacker ethic and the image of self-determining free individuals would demand the total absence of organizations, but it requires instead their proliferation and modulation. Stallman himself was never so purely free: he relied on the largesse of MIT’s AI Lab, without which he would have had no office, no computer, no connection to the network, and indeed, for a while, no home.

The Free Software Foundation represents a recognition on his part that individual and communal independence would come at the price of a legally and bureaucratically recognizable entity, set apart from MIT and responsible only to itself. The Free Software Foundation took a classic form: a nonprofit organization with a hierarchy. But by the early 1990s, a new set of experiments would begin that questioned the look of such an entity. The stories of Linux and Apache reveal how these ventures both depended on the work of the Free Software Foundation and departed from the hierarchical tradition it represented, in order to innovate new similarly embedded sociotechnical forms of coordination.

The EMACS text editor is still widely used, in version 22.1 as of 2007, and ported to just about every conceivable operating system. The controversy with Unipress has faded into the distance, as newer and more intense controversies have faced Stallman and Free Soft[PAGE 209]ware, but the GPL has become the most widely used and most finely scrutinized of the legal licenses. More important, the EMACS controversy was by no means the only one to have erupted in the lives of software programmers; indeed, it has become virtually a rite of passage for young geeks to be involved in such debates, because it is the only way in which the technical details and the legal details that confront geeks can be explored in the requisite detail. Not all such arguments end in the complete rewriting of source code, and today many of them concern the attempt to convince or evangelize for the release of source code under a Free Software license. The EMACS controversy was in some ways a primal scene—a traumatic one, for sure—that determined the outcome of many subsequent fights by giving form to the Free Software license and its uses.

Similar posts: Buy ativan. Order ativan. Order cheap klonopin online. Order klonopin without prescription. Buy ativan cod. Buy ativan c.o.d..
Trackbacks from: Buy ativan without prescription. Buy ativan without prescription. Buy ativan without prescription. Buy ativan without prescription. Buy ativan without prescription. Buy ativan without prescription.