vector 2_1.cdr - Universitatea de Arte "George Enescu"

transferring data
[1] The first to use this term was Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. Its meaning is rather
ambiguous, but it can be approximated
by "ideosphere" or by "global collective
consciousness". Its primary meaning,
that of unification of intellectual activities
(which also included a mystical
dimension), has found application in the
virtual medium of the Internet. Thus, the
noosphere may be interpreted today as
the set of collaborative projects of the
virtual world. The first of these projects
was GNU/Linux, then Slashdot appeared
(at the same time the first community
with self-regulation bodies), then the
SETI@home project, culminating with
the birth of Wikipedia in 2001.
[2] One of the "paradigmatic" texts
about the Internet, The Technorealist
Manifesto (www.technorealism.org) –
a humanist manifesto of the digital era,
details, in eight principles, the relationships
being built in the virtual world. Of
these, the following three deserve special
attention:
a) Technologies are not neutral. They
are loaded with both intended and unintended
social, political, and economic
leanings. These "tools" already
presuppose specific ways of interacting
with others, a social code that the users
must accept. Therefore, choosing one
technology over another (and the
discussion here is about closed source vs.
open source) represents an option
between values. To use one software or
another means to agree with its
"philosophical" assumptions.
b) The Internet is revolutionary, but
not Utopian. This is why cyber-space
increasingly resembles society in general.
All social forms can be found, to a certain
extent, on the Internet. And each aspect
of "wired" life has both a positive and a
negative side.
c) Government has an important role
to play on the electronic frontier.
Important in this assumption is the
positioning of government: on the
frontier. Government/the State should not
"stifle this new world" with inefficient
regulation or censorship. Its business is
to overview from the outside certain
intrusions. If we accept its legitimacy, its
action can be directed against competing
software companies. These companies
have little interest in preserving the open
standards that are essential to a fully
functioning interactive network. The role
of the State would be to protect "public
interest". But the State doesn't do these
things even in the real word, when it
imposes high costs for the protection of
copyright. Therefore, the best solution is
to keep it "on the frontier".
must note the first such occurrence: the development of GNU/Linux, the
first alternative and free-of-charge operating system. The difference be-tween
the two worlds is in their structures: in the real world, development is similar to
building a cathedral, whereas on the network the closest analogy would be that
5
of a bazaar . Eric S. Raymond, the one who made the analogy, describes the
Linux community in the following terms: "(it) seemed to re-semble a great
babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches [...] out of which a
coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of
6
miracles."
What is this "court of miracles"? The answer resides, possibly, also in a
metaphor: the workings of the "general intellect" or of the "global collective
consciousness". In economic terms, it is about just the coordination capacity
offered by the institution of common property / open property, which doesn't
influence the "invisible hand", not does it propose methods for balancing the
parts.
Open-source software and "the new new world”
The notion of "free software" doesn't mean "freeware", it doesn't mean
"shareware", the same way it doesn't mean any other type of software to which
the user has free access – such as Microsoft Internet Explorer or QuickTime.
7
Free software is "free'' as in "free speech,'' not as in "free beer'' . The rules of
free software are the following:
(1) it may be copied freely
(2) both the executable binary code and the source code are accessible
(3) anyone may change and use the source code for other software
(4) there are no restrictions for the use of the software. Even when used
commercially, no royalties/fees need to be paid.
Examples of free software: the Linux operating system, the GNU
instruments, the Apache server software, the PHP programming environment.
Open-source software programs are the only ones that can be treated as
text (text code). They have this quality: they are legible (intelligible) by the
human mind. Such software, from its very development, becomes a public
knowledge realm with free access. Instead of being created ex-nihilo, a new
free software program can be built starting from any element present in one of
the other programs' archives. We can say that we have an intertextual model of
creation based on algorithms. The text is recursive: any source is used as
source text as well as an instrument for creating the new code. The
infrastructure of such software also includes a "literary" part: documentation
and "mailing lists".
There are four steps in developing the open-source model:
(1) writing the source code. This means evaluating other sources and
searching for coding and compiling instruments.
(2) writing the documentation. This is necessary because it details the
method for using and evaluating the software. In the absence of
documentation, such software cannot remain free, because the rationale for its
construction is not visible. The documentation is the "history" of the software
and the starting point for further development.
(3) communication through "mailing lists", IRC, forums etc. The opensource
communities communicate almost exclusively through the Internet. The
information exchange is the "cybernetic loop": the feedback in the creation
process.
(4) writing legal documentation – licensing. Free software programs are
defined and protected according to the law. They work on the basis of certain
licenses: the best-known are General Public License GNU and BSD. For a software
program to be free, it must be registered under one form or another of copyleft.
GNU General Public License
The idea Richard Stallman started from when he wrote the first copyleft
8
GNU license is, surprisingly, an utilitarian one: the users must maximize their
9
benefits by using the GNU software . The second assumption: the software must
be protected, thus, placing them in the "public domain" isn't the best option. As it
can be seen from the assumptions, the third factor the creator doesn't even
have a place in the construction of the rule. The difference between copyright and
copyleft is precisely the modeling of the meaning of ownership: given the fact
that an idea cannot be exclusive and it doesn't imply rivalry, then whoever
produced it doesn't even matter. He/she matters only in a direct relation with the
user (provides service to the user) or in a direct relation with the software
(improves it, creates derivative work etc. – operates on the software).
"Public domain": anyone may choose software and assume ownership. In
order to prevent such unfair appropriation, there must be a contract between
users to protect this common fund. The GNU GPL license offers users the
permission to copy, modify and distribute Gnu software under the same terms
they have accessed them. There is no acquisition, only transactions, due to the
fact that the users are not allowed to establish ownership rights on the software.
They are required to provide the binary code together with the source code,
specify each time the contract terms (i.e. the licensing terms) and not
10
offer/require guarantees for/from this software .
Why is copyleft an economic model?
The open source discussion was constructed on two components, re-
11
united by the question: are our aims ethical or technical? Stallman argues in
favour of an ethical and political objective, justified by the concept of negative
liberty. The open source should encourage the individuals to perform an attentive
analysis of what is right and wrong, of the good and bad treatments they
receive. In reply, Linus Torvalds writes: "I am not awestruck. I believe that open
12
source is just the best access way to the best technology."
Here we can discuss an important difference: is open source just an
alternative (irrespective of whether it is better or not) to commercial software or
a libertarian framework for the virtual world? If it is a mere alternative, then the
open source communities are the competitors of the large software corporations
and must convince the rest of the large corporations to use their software
programs and to impose them on the users. But the very issue of the "one way" is
the one that worries us. A system should not be replaced with another through
the same monopoly-type methods, instead, an "Utopian" framework must be
created for all the communities, irrespective of values and preferences.
The central issue of the copyleft model is the framework of rights, and not
its philosophical sources (theoretical and practical: the values it complies with),
13
which can differ from one community to another . Stallman uses a strong
concept of law to justify the position of copyleft: "The idea of inalienable rights in
14
the GNU GPL comes from the founding fathers of the United States." From the
very beginning, the US Constitution didn't allow the treatment of author's
[3] [Barlow].
[4] I don't know whether this is the
best example, but the webcam
phenomenon in pornography is one
such model. One pays to see
someone else performing, but one
cannot keep recorded fragments of
the performance. At the same time,
one can decide how the performance
advances, its intensity and length in
time.
[5] [Raymond].
[6] [Raymond].
[7] The definition was given by
Richard Stallman. More information
on www.gnu.org.
[8] GNU is a recursive acronym for
“GNU's Not UNIX”.
[9] [Heffan 1997], p. 1507.
[10] [Heffan 1997], p. 1508.
[11] [Välimäki 2005], p. 44.
[12] apud [Välimäki 2005], p. 44.
[13] [Berry 2004].
[14] apud [Berry 2004], p. 72.
[15] [Berry 2004], p. 72.
124 125