sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bruce Perens, Francois Fluckiger, Open Letter to Hobbyists, Open Sources, Recursive acronym

Lehigh Preserve Institutional Repository

Binary Freedom: , the Internet, and Activism in the Digital Age Campbell, Christopher Bryan 2016

Find more at https://preserve.lib.lehigh.edu/

This document is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Binary Freedom:

Free Software, the Internet, and Activism in the Digital Age

By

Christopher Bryan Campbell

A Thesis

Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee

of Lehigh University

in Candidacy for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in

History

Lehigh University

May 23, 2016

© 2016 Copyright Christopher Bryan Campbell

ii

Thesis is accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts in History.

Binary Freedom: Free Software, the Internet, and Activism in the Digital Age Christopher Bryan Campbell

______Date Approved

______Dr. John K. Smith Thesis Director

______Dr. Stephen Cutcliffe Co-Director

______Dr. John K. Smith Department Chair

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract 1

Introduction 2

The Closing of the Source Code 7

GNU, the and the 13

Free Software and the Internet 22

Open Source & the Commercialization of the Free Software Movement 28

The Fracturing of the Movement 35

Free Software Consumers 40

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Rise of Internet Activism 45

Conclusion 53

Bibliography: 55

Vita 62

iv

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Web Server Market Share by Year 26

v

ABSTRACT

In the 1970s, software emerged as a distinct industry as it became unbundled from computer hardware. Corporate interests such as commoditized software by restricting access to source code and introducing licensing agreements to limit the rights of software consumers. The Free Software Movement reacted to this by collaboratively creating software free from the restrictions of commercial license agreements. As free software, such as , gained popularity, programmer Eric

Raymond re-articulated the movement as , a programmer-centric software development model. This re-casting sought to supplant the movement’s consumer freedom focused ideology with a model that favored corporate approval. A schism emerged within the movement, and free software ideologues gravitated toward individual rights based activism. As the Free Software Movement splintered, its distributed collaboration model was transposed to other cultural works and its ideology informed later activist groups, such as WikiLeaks.

1

Introduction

On December 9, 1999, VA Linux, a Virginia-based company that sold free / open source based computer systems, had their initial public offering. Opening at $30 a share, the stock posted a monumental 698 percent gain on its first day of trading. It was the largest NASDAQ IPO at the time.1 Taken as emblematic of the Free / Open Source

Software movement, open source2 was a capitalist juggernaut. Yet, six months later,

Microsoft co-founder Steve Ballmer publically dismissed the Free Software Movement as communism.3 Derided by some as communism, while popular in the corporate sphere, free and open source software defied definition.

The emergence in the 1970s of software as a distinct industry from hardware and computer systems led to a struggle over control over the shape of the industry.

Involved were three major sets of players: Corporate interests such as IBM and

Microsoft, consumer-orientated proponents of free software, and later, the developer- orientated supporters of corporate-focused open source software.

Companies such as IBM and Microsoft desired to commoditize the nascent computer software market, and later, the Internet. To achieve their goal, they changed the open culture of code development and sharing that was the norm, replacing it with a schema where software was a licensed commodity and source code was no longer available. The user-orientated proponents of free software reacted against these changes by forming the Free Software Movement, which sought to preserve consumer freedom by

1 Mark Gimein, “Dissecting the VA Linux IPO,” Salon, December 10, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.salon.com/1999/12/10/va_linux/. 2 In this paper, free and open source will be lower case except when referring to their respective movements. The combined movement will be referred to as the Free \ Open Source Software Movement. 3 Graham Lea, “MS' Ballmer: Linux Is Communism,” the Register, July 31, 2000, accessed March 23, 2015, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_communism/. 2 providing software that was free from the restrictions of commercial software license agreements. Finally, the open source software adherents recast free software as a development model and encouraged corporate adoption as a way to give the programmers direct control of their work.

This paper explores free and open source software ideologies. Since the Free

Software Movement and the Open Source Movement use the same schema,4 the differences between the groups and their intellectual legacies are visible ideologically.5

To explain the origin and evolution of these ideologies, this paper will look at many facets of this complex narrative. It will discuss open culture of the early hardware- focused computing industry and will explore the code-sharing schema used in projects such as the operating system. Companies such as Microsoft changed the culture by introducing a new schema that restricted access to source code and introduced software licensing agreements as a way to circumvent consumer rights. MIT programmer opposed these changes and started the Free Software

Movement, which provided ideological justification for the preservation of the existing, open schema. The Free Software Movement embraced notions of freedom transposed from academic research where software developers worked with the existing body of knowledge (source code) and made incremental contributions to it. Their efforts were shared with the community and peer reviewed. This open availability enabled software to evolve and mature quickly, based on the efforts of many contributors. Open source’s

4 The schema construct applied here comes from William H. Sewell’s Logics of History, where he defines schemas as generalizable procedures applied in the enactment of beliefs. Put another way, schemas are the operational models defining the approach to practices, such as to software development. 5 For the purposes of this paper, ideologies are the set of ideas, both conscious and unconscious, which inform the motivations, and objectives of a group. 3 re-articulation of free software created a schism within the movement. Open source founder Eric Raymond sought to supplant free software’s consumer freedom focused ideology with a revision focused more on corporate approval. At the same time that the open source adherents professionalized the movement by establishing standards and fostering commercial adoption, the free software ideologues gravitated toward activism in order to protect individual rights. While the distributed collaboration aspects of the

Free Software Movement’s open schema was adopted by projects such as Wikipedia, this activist exposure resulted in the transposition of free software ideologies into the ethical basis for Internet-based activist groups, such as WikiLeaks.

Academic historiography on free software is sparse, and what research does exist privileges the eventual corporate acceptance of open source at the expense of free software’s foundational principles. Ignoring the ideological aspect of the movement blurs the distinction between free software and open source software. As a result, the relationships between the free software ideology and later Internet-based activists have also remained unexamined by scholars.

In political scientist Steven Weber’s 2005 text, The Success of Open Source,

Weber provides a history of UNIX and free software, with a focus on the commercially appealing open source reinterpretation. He perceives open source as a method of organizing production, and he specifically avoids community ethnography and ideological discussions.6 For Weber, open source’s success is in its efficacy as a process and the abilities of businesses to leverage the open source model. Consistent with this

6 Steve Weber, The Success of Open Source (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004), 224-225. 4 business-centric focus, the author ignores the role of ideology. When discussing individual motivations, Weber downplays data that does not fit his thesis. The author states that motivations for “many open source developers” were doing battle with a “joint enemy,” which he suggests was Microsoft.7 To support this, he references a Boston

Consulting Group Survey that cites 11.3 percent of the respondents as suggesting this opposition as a primary motivation for their free software development work. However, in the same survey, 34.2 percent of respondents reported their motivation as ideological, in that “code should be open.”8 The author acknowledges that this reflects an ideological commitment, but he dismisses this as inconsistent with the “observed practices of most open source users.”9 In this glib dismissal, he also fails to differentiate between free software developers and users. He suggests that rather than representative of ideological beliefs, “code should be open” was intended merely as a descriptor of their own development practices.10

Anthropologist Christopher Kelty’s Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free

Software also ignores the ideological aspects of free software. In his work, Kelty reduces the Free Software Movement to “an international community of geeks brought together by their shared interest in the Internet.”11 He provides an ethnographic discussion of the community, which he describes as a “recursive public,” which is "constituted by a shared concern for maintaining the means of association through which they come together as a

7 Ibid., 139. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 139-140. 11 Kelty, Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software, Experimental Futures (Durham: Duke University Press, 2008), 5. 5 public.” Kelty’s model also fails to account for free software users who have no active role in maintaining the means of association that is key to his definition.

Similar to Weber, Kelty aligns his history of Free / open source software with the commercialization of the movement and interprets the VA Linux IPO as proof of the open source reinterpretation’s success. His discussion of the Free Software Movement’s founder, Richard Stallman, is largely limited to the license complications that Stallman encountered in his development of the GNU Emacs12 software. In the process of detailing the schism within free software and open source, Kelty dismisses free software ideologues as “kindling flames of worry over intellectual-property expansion.”13 In interpreting Free / open source Software merely as a process for circulating knowledge,

Kelty rejects the role of ideology. He determines that “Free software is not an ethical stance,” and its source-accessible progenitor, the UNIX operating system14 was “never free in any sense.” Instead, UNIX simply set the stage for what “free” would be in

Kelty’s interpretation of the open source community.15

With the academic focus on the processes and corporate acceptance of open source, the development of the ideology remains unexplored. Part of this oversight comes from focusing on the Free / open source developers rather than examining the user community. This emphasis is understandable, as from a corporate perspective, the most incredible aspect of free software is the unpaid time spent in the development of the

12 was a text editor and the first software ported to the GNU project. The stands for “Editor MACroS.” See “The GNU Emacs FAQ: Where Does the Name “Emacs” Come From?,” GNU.org, accessed October 28, 2015, https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/efaq.html#Origin-of-the-term-Emacs. 13 Kelty, Two Bits, 99. 14 Kelty provides wonderful detail about the creation of UNIX, including the free (gratis and libre) sharing of the software. The text is at times inconsistent with its stated conclusions. See Ibid. 125-128, 308. 15 Ibid., 307-308. 6 software. However, since the Free Software Movement emerged from concerns over the rights of the software users, this aspect must be considered as well. This oversight clouds the historical conception of free software, ignores its philosophical origins, and obscures its connection to Internet activism.

The Closing of the Source Code

The Free Software Movement emerged as a reaction to corporate driven changes to the schema of software production and distribution. To understand free software and its ideological focus on freedom to access and modify source code, it is necessary to understand what source code is and how it became closed. First generation computers, such as ENIAC, were large, rare, and expensive machines. Organizations purchased computers to perform specific tasks. Lacking internal storage mechanisms, the computers did not have software installed on them. Originally, programmers gave computers instructions by toggling switches on the computer itself. Later programs were stored on punched cards, punched tape, and later tape reels. Thus, the code was accessible for modification to meet the local organization’s demands. These programs were source code, computer instructions in human readable form. System Operators compiled the code to machine-readable form when the program was run on the mainframe.16 Computer companies like IBM generally leased their large computers with software included.17

As the computer industry grew, smaller, non-mainframe computers emerged.

Called mini-computers, these newer computers had different architectures, and as such,

16 Paul E. Ceruzzi, A History of Modern Computing, 2nd ed., History of Computing (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003), 80. 17 Ibid., 28. 7 each required unique versions of software. This need resulted in a large software support burden for corporations like IBM, which had many products. This challenge was the impetus for IBM to develop the System 360 series, which used uniform software across all hardware types.18 With a common code base, IBM could just re-compile the same software for each different platform. Software became platform independent and recognized as distinct from hardware. In 1969, in the midst of several anti-trust suits,

IBM completely decoupled software from their hardware.19 Hardware became its own commodity, separate from software and service. This change opened the door for third party developers to create software for these platforms.

While this was going on at IBM, other general-purpose computer companies emerged, such as Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) that introduced a line of minicomputers called Programmed Data Processors (PDP) in 1960. The first generation

PDP1 was used for time-share experiments at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where it also supported the invention of the world’s first video game, Spacewar!

In 1969, at AT&T’s Bell Laboratory researcher Ken Thompson sought a platform to play Space Travel, a Spacewar! derivative that he had created. Thompson was an experienced programmer who had worked with MIT programmers to write a multiuser operating system called MULTICS. Thompson had composed Space Travel on

MULTICS, but when AT&T Bell Labs had decided to pull out of the MULTICS project in 1969, he elected to write his own operating system, which he named UNIX.20 Using a

18 Ibid., 144-145. 19 “History of IBM,” International Business Machines, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www- 03.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1969.html. 20 Dennis Ritchie, “Space Travel: Exploring the Solar System and the Pdp-7,” cs.bell-labs.com, 2001, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/spacetravel.html. 8 five-year-old PDP-7, Thompson composed the UNIX operating system in assembly language.21 Co-worker Dennis Ritchie assisted Thompson in writing a second iteration.22

Composed in the platform independent C language, the re-write required very little machine specific code, making the operating system easily portable between hardware architectures.

In October 1973, Thompson and Ritchie presented a paper on their project at the

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Symposium in Yorktown Heights, NY.23

Following the event, requests for the operating system flooded in to AT&T.24 Already the target of multiple anti-trust suits, AT&T elected to license the software “as-is,” with no royalties to or obligation of support from AT&T. Many organizations adopted the software. UNIX was particularly popular in university computer science departments where the low cost was appealing.25 Within a year of the symposium, there were over forty institutions in the United States using UNIX. At the University of California,

Berkeley, graduate student Bill Joy added to the operating system, revising existing packages, and adding new software such as the visual editor, VI.26 He released the

21 Assembly language is an architecture specific, low-level programming language for a computer that is ‘assembled’ directly into machine executable code. 22 Weber , The Success of Open Source, 26-27. 23 Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, “The Unix Time- Sharing System” (paper presented at the Fourth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., October 15–17, 1973), accessed May 13, 2015, http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~brewer/cs262/unix.pdf. 24 Weber , The Success of Open Source, 28. 25 Ibid., 29. 26 Vi stands for “Visual Editor.” This software was a visual interface for an existing packaged named “Ex,” a line editor designed for teletype interfaces. 9 package as Berkeley Software Design (BSD). Within several releases, BSD evolved as its own version of the UNIX operating system.27

Consumers shared UNIX-based software openly along with its source code.

Users of the software became accustomed to this schema, which encouraged contributions to the codebase and the re-sharing of code. This process allowed UNIX to develop rapidly, and the code base evolved as programs were freely added to, altered, and improved.28 As UNIX grew, the culture of open code thrived.

Meanwhile, following IBM’s 1969 commoditization of software, a nascent software industry had emerged. Given the considerable expense of computer hardware, the software industry focused initially on corporate customers. This changed during the summer of 1974, when Intel released the 8080 microprocessor. In December of that same year, the first personal minicomputer, the , graced the cover of Popular

Electronics. Now individuals who wanted their own computer could have one for less than $400.29

Inspired by the Altair feature in , Harvard undergraduates

Paul Allen and established the Micro-Soft Corporation in April 1975 to provide software to the emerging “hobbyist” computing market. By June, they were offering Micro-Soft Basic on punched tape, starting at $60.30 Gates objected to the prevalent schema of open software code sharing and admonished the hobbyist market in

27 Peter Salus, “The Daemon, the Gnu, and the Penguin - Ch. 7,” , May 5, 2005, accessed April 17, 2016, http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050505095249230. 28 Weber, The Success of Open Source, 34-35. 29 Ceruzzi, A History of Modern Computing, 226-227. 30 Ibid., 233. 10 his February 1976 “Open Letter to Hobbyists.”31 Gates’s letter was published in

Computer Notes, a periodical that shared hardware tips and provided hobbyists with programs. In the letter, Gates insisted that the computer users should perceive Micro-

Soft’s software as a tangible, physical product like the hardware, and not openly exchange it. Gates declared software a commodity and saw the open software culture as a threat to the market that he envisioned for it. In the process of rebuking the software community, Gates also documented the pervasiveness of the open software culture at that time. This open culture was about to change.

The next factor that led to the commoditization of the software industry was the inclusion of software in the Copyright Act of 1976. The law, which went into effect in

1978, was based on the findings of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU).32 The U.S. Congress established the CONTU commission to review new technologies such as computers, programs, and photocopying and to make recommendations on the application of copyright law to these new mediums.

The CONTU report recommended that computer programs be protected under copyright.

The report also stated that the government should avoid “unduly burdening users of programs” and recommended that the copyright law should not inhibit the rightful use, development, or the dissemination of the software.33

31 William Gates, “An Open Letter to Hobbyists,” Microsoft Archives, January, 1976, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQ FjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2Fabout%2Fcompanyinformation%2Ftimeline%2Ftim eline%2Fdocs%2Fdi_Hobbyists.doc&ei=D3LeVMGBIYSyggTi8YGQBg&. 32 “National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) Report,” Digital Law Online, September 28, 2003, accessed March 14, 2015, http://digital-law-online.info/CONTU/. 33 Ibid. 11

The CONTU report and the resultant Copyright Act defined the terms for the commoditization of software, including fair user and alteration protections for consumers.

Section 109 of the Copyright Act established the “First Sale Doctrine,” that gave the buyer of a copyrighted work a number of rights, including the right to re-sell it others.

To circumvent these consumer rights, software vendors created self-executing licenses, such as shrink-wrap licenses and End User License Agreements (EULA).34 Although the enforceability of these licenses was questionable, these instruments allowed for a key change. Instead of selling software to consumers who possessed legal rights, the companies now just sold licenses to use software. These licenses offered no rights and unbound their software code from any obligation to public disclosure.35 As Software developers no longer sold software, it was no longer necessary to provide the consumer with source code. Instead, the sellers distributed their licensed programs in machine- readable executable form.

Corporate interest in the nascent software market also closed the UNIX source code. The 1982 anti-trust decision in United States v. AT&T Co., divided AT&T into seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC). Under the Reagan Justice

Department, which took a relaxed approach to anti-trust enforcement, one of the RBOCs,

AT&T Technologies, Inc. was free to expand into the computer business. The company reconsidered the open licensing of UNIX and created a separate division for selling the

34 Duncan Davidson, “Symposium Common Law, Uncommon Software: The Future of Software Protection” (the University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Pittsburgh, Penn, Summer, 1986), accessed April 15, 2015, https://litigation- essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&do ctype=cite&docid=47+U.+Pitt.+L.+Rev.+1037&key=06ab427bb1746d681c01861a5adac1cc. 35 Ibid., 7-8. 12 operating system. By 1988, licenses for UNIX were $100,000, and access to the source code was no longer free.36

In less than a decade after the Altair heralded personal computing, software manufacturers had commoditized software and circumvented legal consumer rights by selling licenses and distributing binary copies37 of software. Corporations forcibly restricted the once open software schema. The source had closed.

GNU, the Free Software Movement and the Hacker Ethic

In 1971, while completing his BA at Harvard, programmer Richard M. Stallman began working in the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT.38 After completing his degree he continued on at MIT, both as an employee and as a graduate student.39 In the MIT AI lab, Stallman first encountered the software sharing community. One of his job responsibilities was to maintain the Incompatible Time Sharing System (ITS), an operating system designed and written by the AI Lab “hackers.” A hackers was not the security breaker portrayed in today’s mass media, but rather “someone who loves to program and enjoys being clever about it.”40

By 1981, Stallman was upset with what he perceived to be the collapse of the

MIT AI lab hacker community. Many of the lab’s hackers had left academia for positions in industry. These departures left the lab short-staffed and unable to maintain

36 Weber, The Success of Open Source, 28-29. 37 A binary copy of software is not human readable and can only be used when executed by a processor. This is the opposite of source code which is able to be read, modified, and complied. 38 Richard Stallman “A Serious Bio,” Stallman.org, accessed April 20, 2015, https://stallman.org/biographies.html. 39 Ibid. 40 Richard Stallman, “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement” in : Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Ed. Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone (Beijing: O’Reilly,1999), 53. 13 the current computing environment. To address these support issues, the AI lab administrators installed a new PDP-10 in 1982. This new computer came with closed software. The source code was not available, and the vendor required a non-disclosure agreement just to purchase an executable copy of the software. Not only were the software consumers unable to review, repair, or modify the software, but they were also legally restricted from even discussing the product.41

Frustrated with the restraint of non-disclosure agreements and licenses, Richard Stallman announced his intention to write a new UNIX- compatible system that would again have source code openly available. Stallman announced his project to the Usenet newsgroups, net.unix-wizards and net.usoft on

September 27, 1983.42 He explained his project as “a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (a recursive acronym: Gnu's Not Unix)” that would be able to run UNIX programs. Stallman explained his motivations in writing GNU stemmed from his aversion to restrictive user license agreements and un-alterable software. In the announcement, Stallman also appealed for contributors to aid his effort with donations of time, equipment, and money.43

Philosophically, Stallman had found himself faced with what he perceived as “a stark moral choice” forced by the dissolution of the MIT AI lab hacker community.44 He could comply with the restrictive changes that emerged within the commoditized software industry by signing the non-disclosure agreements that forbid him from helping

41 Stallman, “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement”, 53-54. 42 Richard Stallman “Initial Announcement (Gnu Project),” GNU, April 2, 2014, accessed March 14, 2015, https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html. 43 Ibid. 44 Richard Stallman, “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement”, 55. 14 other hackers. Alternatively, he could find a way to allow software to remain part of an open community. Stallman determined that he could not “sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement” in good conscience. “So that I can continue to use computers without violating my principles,” Stallman decided, “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.” 45 The GNU operating system was his answer to the moral quandary.

In order to facilitate the creation of the GNU system, Stallman established the free software Foundation in 1985. The organization developed code in the manner outlined in his original announcement. In the September 1985 issue of Dr. Dobb’s Journal,46

Stallman published “The GNU Manifesto.” The article laid out Stallman’s free software ideology. 47 It borrowed heavily from his earlier announcement but went deeper into his motivations and rationale.

Stallman’s manifesto reflected the perspective of a software consumer. He recounted his original role as a free user in the MIT AI lab and discussed the restrictions introduced by proprietary software. He suggested that this new schema’s restriction of access to information was divisive within the software consumer community and was designed to enrich the software manufacturers at the expense of the consumers.48

45 Richard Stallman, “Initial Announcement (Gnu Project)”. 46Dr. Dobb's Journal (Originally Dr. Dobb's journal of Tiny BASIC Calisthenics & Orthodontia) was a periodical focused on software for the personal microcomputer market. The magazine emerged from the Bay Area counter-culture group, the People's Computer Company. It focused on software and served as a method of sharing software code in print. 47 Richard Stallman, “The GNU Manifesto,” Dr. Dobbs Journal, September, 1985. 48 Ibid. 15

Stallman perceived the software manufacturers were forcing consumers to violate

Kantian ethics.

Kant had held the only inherently good thing was good will, and good will was only achievable when an individual dutifully acted consistent with moral law. Moral actions were ones that adhered to Kant’s categorical imperatives. Kant’s imperatives included the requirement that in order to act ethically, an individual must “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction”49 Any action done would only be moral if the action was acceptable if it was universally applied. Kant’s moral rules also required that individuals needed to treat humanity, “never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end.”50 Any action that manipulated individuals to achieve a goal was immoral.

Stallman saw sharing information to assist others as a moral duty consistent with

Kant’s moral laws. Software manufacturers curtailed good will by prohibiting consumers from sharing information and programmatic solutions with each other.51 This included modifications to existing code that could benefit the whole community by providing solutions to common problems. He felt the obligation to assist fellow community members to be able to understand how software works. In order to meet these obligations, the software consumers required access to the source code and the ability to discuss the software openly. In Stallman’s view, the software licenses and non-disclosure

49 Immanuel Kant, Ethical Philosophy: The Complete Texts of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, and Metaphysical Principles of Virtue, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1994), 32. 50 Ibid., 36. 51 Ibid. 16 agreements prohibited him from being able to perform his moral duties. These legal instruments also infringed upon Kant’s practical imperative, which holds that humanity and the individual should be treated as an end never as merely the means to an objective.

By ignoring the rights of consumers and treating them solely as a means to corporate profit, the organizations had violated Kantian ethics. For Stallman, communication and the sharing of information with other humans was an ethical imperative, and as such, he viewed the new restrictions placed on software and on consumers via non-disclosure agreements as greedy “information hoarding,” and unethical.52

In the document, Stallman presented the GNU project model as way to realize his free ideology and to provide an alternative to the closed schema of corporate software.

He espoused the idea of free and unlimited sharing of information and laid out the decentralized approach for developing the GNU software. He anticipated corporate criticism by refuting hypothetical points. For example, he anticipated a series of questions about the volunteer development of software. In his responses, he encouraged the recognition of programming as creative expression and outlined ways in which money can be made in software without selling restrictive licenses.53

A number of aspects of Stallman’s manifesto were problematic. In particular,

Stallman’s use of the word “free” which has several possible meanings. Free could mean without cost, gratis, or it could mean without restriction, libre. Stallman’s document outlined restrictions imposed on software consumers by software creators, so it is reasonable to assume that he intends libre. However, Stallman mixes use of the word

52 Richard Stallman, “The GNU Manifesto.” 53 Ibid. 17 within the document, such as when he explained that he plans to give GNU away free of cost “to everyone who can use it,” but then later he described the dissemination of the source code so users are unrestricted, free to make changes.54 The failure to distinguish between the different meanings of the word free doubtlessly contributed to the perception of free software as communist. Certainly, Stallman’s choice of title for the document, which echoes Karl Marx’s 1848 Communist Manifesto, did not help.55

Despite these concerns, Stallman’s declaration was not communist. He was not advocating for common ownership of the means of production or for the demise of capitalism. To the contrary, most of the document discusses potential revenue models for working with free software. Stallman was arguing against the perception that consumer restrictions are the only basis for businesses in the software industry. In fact, he introduced many other possible business models. Far from being merely conceptual suggestions, Stallman employed one of these business models for his own company, the free software Foundation, which used its income to pay for the creation of the GNU software.56

With his emphasis on consumer autonomy, Stallman was essentially arguing for a libertarian approach to software. He did not oppose capitalism and incorporated the free software Foundation as a vehicle to achieve his objectives. The foundation countered the new, restricted software schema by proposing an alternative that offered consumers the continuation of existing, open schema. The foundation supported the development of

54 Ibid. 55 Since its original publication in 1985, Stallman has annotated the document to acknowledge and address some of these issues. 56 Stallman, “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement,” 60-61. 18 unrestricted software and in the process created market competition for restrictive software companies.

In 1989, Richard Stallman created a form of End User License Agreement

(EULA) called the GNU Public License (GPL). The license reversed the restrictive intent of proprietary EULAs by containing a contract that actively preserved consumer rights. Stallman’s copyright agreement stipulated that the code must remain openly sharable and future developers could not close the program.57 Although its enforceability was equally as questionable as proprietary EULAs, the license provided a framework of legal protection for Stallman’s free software ideology. It also created a clear division between free software, which was intended to remain open, and public domain material that could be subsequently closed and resold. The GPL protected software by allowing its creator to retain private ownership with a license that also reserved the consumer freedoms that were at the heart of Stallman’s ideology: the ability to modify, share,58 study, and use the software without restraint.

In addition to being a reaction to the closing of source code and restriction of software consumers, Stallman’s manifesto (and the later GPL license) codified the unspoken tenets of the MIT hacking community. In his 1985 text, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, journalist Stephen Levy identifies the term “hacker” as

57 Ibid., 59-60. 58 Sharing specifically refers to the source code of the software, and not binary (pre-compiled) versions of the software. For example, Red Hat sells a binary version of Linux, along with many Free / open source packages. The GPL does not require that their product be given away free. It requires simply that their source code be available and modifiable. The source code can be found on Red Hat’s FTP site (For example, ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/). In theory, this code could be downloaded, extracted, compiled, and manually installed. This would be cumbersome and would require an advanced level of technical skill. Red Hat’s product is the software, in an easy to install, pre- compiled form, along with support and documentation. 19 emerging from the MIT Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC) in 1959. As the TMRC group moved into working with computers, the terminology transferred to the new electronic medium. Levy defined the unarticulated principles associated with hacking.

According to the author, this “hacker ethic” was founded on the following beliefs:

 Access to computers should be unlimited and total  All information should be free  Mistrust Authority – Promote Decentralization  Hackers should be judged by their hacking  You can create beauty and art on a computer  Computers can change your life for the better59

The text, written in the early 1980s, includes the introduction of pre-Free

Software Movement Richard Stallman, in a chapter entitled the “Last of the True

Hackers.”60 The author’s account ends where the Free Software Movement begins, with

Stallman departing MIT to start GNU, a project designed to “keep the ethic alive in the outside world.”61

Nearly all of the principles that Levy observed are identifiable within Stallman’s manifesto. The sentiment that computer information and access should be free is the thesis of his document. Stallman mistrusted the software establishment, and his proposed

GNU project’s development approach focused on decentralization. His arguments for programmer motivation and reward suggest that the intent should be to create a better life and express creativity. Stallman’s manifesto and GPL license codified the hacker ethic.62

59 Levy, Steven. Hackers. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2010. 29-34. 60 Ibid. 437. 61 Ibid., 450. 62 Stallman’s epiphany over the need for legal protection for the GNU software came from issues that he experienced with his EMACS software. Stallman’s guiding principles aligned with the hacker ethic and subsequently the GPL was an instrument to protect these values, regardless of the specific events leading to the development of the license. This episode is critical to understanding anthropologist Chris Kelty’s argument, with aspects of which this paper disagrees. Kelty admits that the GPL supports the 20

In addition to defining the hacker ethic, Levy’s text gave broader exposure to these ideas. The ideals expressed in Levy’s book resonated with counter-culture publisher Stewart Brand. In 1972, Brand had explored the culture of the nascent hacker community in an article about Spacewar! for Rolling Stone magazine, and the ethics expressed in Levy’s text could be seen in Brand’s article.63 Inspired by the book, Brand created an invitation-only hacker’s conference in Marin County, California, in 1984.

Many of the computer hackers discussed in Levy’s book, including Richard Stallman, attended the meeting. During a conference discussion with Apple co-founder Steve

Wozniak, Brand pondered the accessibility of information, stating, “Information wants to be free.”64 This succinct paraphrasing of hacker ideals would later serve as a slogan for technology activists who advocated for free65 access to information.

The origination of the hacker ethic at MIT was more than a coincidence. The process of creating free software, the active execution of the codified ethic, shows the application of the academic research model to free software. As in academic research, free software is predicated upon having an unrestrained exchange of knowledge (source code). It is protected in publication by licenses such as the GPL. This knowledge is built upon, or reinterpreted by, incremental contributions; free software is added to or recoded.

In both the academy and free software community, these efforts are distributed and peer reviewed for errors. The availability of information allows the body of work to grow

hacker ethic insofar as he feels that it supports his own thesis as the norms of his recursive public. Kelty dismisses the notion of a hacker ethic beyond its service to his thesis as it lacks a philosophical pedigree. See Kelty, Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of free software, 181. 63 Fred Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 133. 64 Ibid., 136. 65 Brand’s use of free was economic; his observation was that “the cost of getting it [information] out is getting lower and lower all the time.” See Ibid., 136. For use of the slogan by technology advocates, see page 54 of this document. 21 freely, based on the efforts of distributed contributors. Free software’s predecessor,

UNIX, had bridged these worlds. It was developed at AT&T Bell Labs, a research institution and was based on existing knowledge from the MULTICS project. The results of the research were shared with the community at a symposium, and the software was distributed. Berkeley graduate student Bill Joy built on the original operating system and developed additional software, which resulted in the creation of a new version of UNIX,

BSD. Some of Joy’s code contributions, such as his version of TCP/IP,66 the Internet network protocol, were subsequently added back in to the original AT&T UNIX.67 Bill

Joy’s TCP/IP software reveals another commonality between the academy and free software: both played a vital role in the creation and adoption of the Internet.

Free Software and the Internet

At the time of his GNU announcement, Richard Stallman was already on the

ARPAnet, the forerunner to the Internet. The ARPAnet had begun in 1969 as a method of linking together institutions involved with the Defense Department’s Defense

Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA).68 The ARPA network was built around an open development model using Requests for Comments (RFCs). This model mirrored the open schema that later informed UNIX and free software. RFCs discussed and documented the interoperability specifications for the network. The resultant code was created in an open, distributed manner. The RFC process used “rough consensus and

66 The Defense Advanced Research Project’s (DARPA) Information Processing and Techniques Office (IPTO) granted a contract to Bolt, Beranek, and Newman (BBN) to write the TCP/IP software. Scientists Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn designed the TCP/IP protocol specifications. When Bill Joy received a copy of the software, he found that it transmitted at 56K/second while consuming 100 percent of the computer’s processing time, he modified the code significantly and achieved 700K/second with minimal CPU utilization. See Kelty Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of free software, 138-141. 67 Ibid., 140. 68 Ceruzzi, A History of Modern Computing, 296-297. 22 running code” as a method to determine what standards were approved.69 By the time that Stallman made his announcement, the ARPAnet was connected to many of the major research schools including MIT and Stanford.70 At the time that Stallman was writing his proposal, the National Science Foundation was in the process of commercializing the

ARPAnet, introducing a modern, publically available form in the Internet.71

Despite being publically available since the early 1980s, the Internet was not widely adopted by the general public until the introduction of graphical-based navigation via the World Wide Web (WWW).72 The web was also the product of the open schema.

Contractor Tim Berners-Lee developed the World Wide Web in 1989 at the Conseil

Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (CERN). Berners-Lee sought to create a text platform with links that researchers around the world could use for distributed research and to provide common reference methods for information. As with the Internet, academic researchers were originally the primary users of the web.73 By 1993, the Web had grown in popularity, and CERN released the code for the Web Browser, Web Server, and hypertext format (HTML) into the public domain.74 CERN’s release documents their adherence to the open schema. The organization quickly realized that the public domain was insufficient to guarantee the continual openness of their software.

Understanding the risks of appropriation, the organization embraced the free software

69 Kelty, Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of free software, 57-58. 70 Ceruzzi, A History of Modern Computing, 296. 71 Ibid., 295-296. 72 Ibid., 300-302. 73 Ibid. 74 “Public Domain Document of 30 April 1993: Page 1.,” CERN, April 30, 1993, accessed March 14, 2015, https://tenyears-www.web.cern.ch/tenyears-www/Declaration/Page1.html. 23 ideology and re-released the World Wide Web code the following year under a customized free software license.75

The openness of these web technologies created issues for companies such as

Microsoft, which sought to commoditize the web through proprietary technology.

Echoing his 1976 drive to commoditize software, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates produced an internal memo, The Internet Tidal Wave, in which he detailed his intent to create a proprietary Internet. In the May 1995 memo, Gates observed the public adoption and growth of the Internet.76 He also deconstructed the actions of competitors, such as

Novell, noting how they were creating markets on the nascent Internet.77 Gates encouraged his workers to take a more aggressive approach to finding ways for Microsoft to commoditize the Internet. Gates offered a number of recommendations, many of which sought to further the adoption of Microsoft’s proprietary Internet interface, MSN.78

Gates’s memo reveals his intent to expand Microsoft’s dominance into the

Internet space. It is for this reason that the document became public; the memo was an exhibit in the government’s anti-trust suit against Microsoft. Gates’s concerns over web server dominance also show the role of UNIX and free software in the development of the early Internet. As Gates mentions in the memo, the majority of the Internet servers were Berkeley Standard Design (BSD) UNIX.79 By 1989, BSD rewrote their UNIX

75 Tim Smith and François Flückiger, “Licensing the Web,” CERN, March 12, 2014, accessed March 14, 2015, http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/birth-web/licensing-web. 76 William Gates, “The Internet Title Wave Memo,” May 1995, Department of Justice, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/20.pdf., 1-3. 77 Ibid., 3. 78 Ibid., 4-7. 79 Ibid., 5. 24 version to remove all of the proprietary AT&T code.80 The BSD software license permitted the software to be used by anyone, in a manner similar to Stallman’s GPL, but without the guaranteed sharing of source code.81 Gates’s memo even includes him praising the Internet’s use of the open schema. He lauds the Internet Engineering Task

Force (IETF), the maintainers of the Internet standards (RFC)82 for defining “an evolutionary path that will avoid running into future problems as everyone connects up.”83 Microsoft’s CEO was not as fond of open evolutionary models when free software later began to challenge Microsoft’s market dominance.

Gates’s account of the role of BSD and the open NCSA / Apache web server is corroborated by statistics gathered and maintained by the Netcraft Company. Netcraft, an

Internet services company from Bath England, has collected Internet market share data since 1995. The organization’s web server survey supports the seminal role of the free software Apache web server in supporting the early World Wide Web.84

The Netcraft data shows that at the time of Gates’s memo, the primary server was the UNIX based NCSA server. Although the web server was created at the National

Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign, its developer abandoned the software to the public domain. A group of

NCSA users took over maintenance of the package and from it created the free software

80 Weber, The Success of Open Source, 40. 81 Russell C. Pavlicek, Embracing Insanity: open source Software Development (Indianapolis: SAMS, 2000), 25. 82 RFC is an acronym for Request for Comments. The name reflects the informal participatory development methods used in the creation of the ARPAnet. The process closely resembles the free software development model that later emerged. 83 Gates, “The Internet Title Wave Memo,” 1. 84 “April 2014 Web Server Survey,” Netcraft, April 2, 2014, accessed March 14, 2015, http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2014/04/02/april-2014-web-server-survey.html. 25

Apache project. In April 1996, the Apache project emerged as the primary Internet web server. The Netcraft data also supports Gates’s concerns with Microsoft’s lack of purchase in serving web content. The data shows that Microsoft products had no market share until March 1996, when they finally achieved 1 percent.85 This statistical data shows the progression of the Internet’s web infrastructure and the tremendous role that free software had in the growth of the Internet. Had there not been free, high performance web services, the Internet may not have expanded as quickly. In fact, even

Microsoft originally utilized a free webserver to run its website.86

Figure 1. Web Server Market Share by Year 80

70

60

50 Apache 40 Microsoft Axis Axis Title 30 NCSA 20 Other

10

0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Axis Title

Source: Adapted from Netcraft. “April 2014 Web Server Survey.” April 2, 2014. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2014/04/02/april- 2014-web-server-survey.html. Graph 2.

85 April 2014 Web Server Survey”. 86 Dave Kramer, “A Brief On the Web,” Microsoft, December 24, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.microsoft.com/misc/features/features_flshbk.htm. 26

The relationship between free software and the Internet was symbiotic. The

Internet evolved using the open schema. The most common interface to the Internet, the

World Wide Web, was free software and as a result, all web users are consumers of free software. The dominant web server, Apache, was also free software. At the same time,

Internet provided free software with an easy path for dissemination. Where the early sharing of UNIX and the GNU software required physical copies of the software to be mailed via the postal service, the Internet allowed the software to be downloaded. The network also made it easier for contributors to become involved with projects.

Programmers from all over the world could use the Internet to submit code contributions effortlessly.

This ability to distribute software was particularly important for large software projects, such as operating systems. Stallman’s GNU project intended to create its own operating system, but it had elected to start with the smaller programs that would run on the operating system. In 1992, despite the GNU project being in motion for a decade, the kernel, the core of the operating system, had not been completed. GNU software was open, but it still required the closed UNIX platform to run.

A student at the University of Helsinki changed this situation. In August 1991,

Linus Torvalds announced his intention to write “a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT87 clones.”88 By the time that

Torvalds made this announcement, he had already ported a number of the GNU programs

87 When Torvalds wrote “386(486) AT clones”, he was specifying the type of computer that he intended to write an operating system for. 386/486 refers to the Intel processor types (Chipsets 80386 & 80486). The second generation IBM PC’s were IBM PC/AT, so AT clones can be interpreted to mean personal computers (as opposed to mainframes or minicomputers.) 88 , “Linux's History,” Carnegie Mellon University, July 31, 1992, accessed March 14, 2015, https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html. 27 to his new OS, and they were working. Within a year, programmers from across the globe were starting to use and contribute to the fledgling operating system now known as

Linux. In 1992, Torvalds released Linux under the Stallman’s GPL license. By 1993, multiple Linux variants emerged, and companies such as Red Hat formed to package and distribute the software.89

With Linux, it was now possible for free software activists to run their computers without closed software. With the Internet, it was now possible to distribute free software easily. The prevalence of the Apache software showed that free software was up to the task of commercial workloads and its popularity showed that free software was accepted on the Internet. However, this acceptance did not necessarily translate to non-

Internet applications. In a computing market dominated by closed, commercially licensed software, how would free software fit in?

Open Source & the Commercialization of the Free Software Movement

By 1997, the Free Software Movement had existed for almost a decade and a half.

Linus Torvalds’ Linux operating system allowed users to run systems without proprietary software and projects like GNU generated hundreds of programs to run on it. GNU software even ran on Windows operating system. Companies such as Red Hat were thriving. Free software was gaining acceptance from a wider consumer community.

Despite the movement’s success, free software community member Eric

Raymond was dissatisfied. Raymond had been familiar with the free software since its conception. According to Raymond, he had been friends with Stallman since 1979, and

89 Ibid. 28 he had spoken with Stallman about the GNU project before its launch. 90 This relationship is interesting because Stallman and Raymond are, in many ways, polar opposites: Stallman was highly educated, a product of Harvard and MIT and held over a dozen honorary doctorates.91 Raymond attended the University of Pennsylvania briefly but dropped out without completing a degree.92 Stallman was extremely liberal, supporting the Green Party and many environmental causes. He was highly critical of

President George W. Bush’s War on Terror.93 Raymond, on the other hand was extremely conservative, an avowed libertarian who not only supported Bush but also wrote a “Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto,” a pseudo-legislative petition suggesting that the nation had a duty to support Bush’s crusade with the neologism ‘Idiotarian” applicable to anyone who would criticize the war on terror.94 Even beyond his support for the war,

Raymond’s blog, aptly named “Armed and Dangerous,” detailed his fetishism with firearms and violent hobbies – martial arts and sword fighting. Both Stallman and

Raymond were programmers, but where Stallman was responsible for the GNU projects and some of the most commonly used free software programs, Raymond had written considerably less and chiefly has been a co-contributor or maintainer of existing software. Stallman was the “last of the true hackers,” featured as the climax of Stephen

Levy’s book on the hacker community.95 It did not matter that Levy neglected to include

Raymond in his pantheon of hackers. Raymond’s self-identity as a hacker was so strong

90 Eric Raymond, emailed to Chris Campbell, March 1, 2015. 91 Richard Stallman, “A Serious Bio,” Stallman.org, accessed April 20, 2015, https://stallman.org/biographies.html. 92 Eric Raymond, “Resume of Eric Steven Raymond,” catb.org, last modified January 29, 2003, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.catb.org/esr/resume.html. 93 Richard Stallman “Richard Stallman's Personal Site,” Stallman.org, accessed April 20, 2015, https://stallman.org/. 94 Eric Raymond, “Why We Fight — an Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto (2.0),” catb.org, December 29, 2003, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.catb.org/esr/aim/. 95 Levy, Hackers, 437. 29 that asserted himself as the authority for hackerdom itself by writing articles such as

“How To Learn Hacking,”96 “A Brief History of Hackerdom,”97 and the “Revenge of the

Hackers.”98 Raymond even took over the , a compendium of MIT-AI lab slang, and published it as The New Hacker’s Dictionary.99

Where the men differ most was in their interpretation of free software. Whereas

Stallman introduced the movement as a form of consumer activism, Raymond rejected

Stallman’s ethical rhetoric and was weary of the movement’s “ideological conformity” with Stallman.100 For Raymond, the movement was not about ideological freedoms or morals, but rather a solution to a problem. Raymond found that the “management of programming” had become “separated from the art of programming” and in the process created work environments that were “intolerable” for true hackers such as Raymond.101

In his view, free software was a development model that alleviated this issue by giving programmers complete control of their craft.102 Raymond felt that the “mainstream corporate world” would adopt this model that gave software workers control of the system of production if he were able to separate Stallman’s ideology from the movement.103

96 Eric Raymond, “How to Learn Hacking,” catb.org, November 21, 2014, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacking-howto.html. 97 Eric Raymond, “A Brief History of Hackerdom,” catb.org, May 5, 2000, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/hacker-history/hacker-history.html. 98 Eric Raymond, “Revenge of the Hackers,” catb.org, August 31, 1999, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/hacker-revenge/. 99 Eric Raymond, “The New Hacker's Dictionary, Third Edition,” October 1996, MIT Press, accessed April 20, 2015, http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/new-hackers-dictionary. 100 Eric Raymond, emailed to Chris Campbell, March 1, 2015. 101 Eric Raymond, “Why I Hate Proprietary Software,” http://esr.ibiblio.org, October 1, 2008, accessed May 13, 2015, http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=556. 102 Ibid. 103 Eric Raymond, “Goodbye, 'Free Software'; Hello, 'Open Source',” Catb.org, June 16, 2007, accessed May 4, 2016, http://www.catb.org/esr/open-source.html. 30

In February 1997, Eric Raymond contacted , a employee who also led the coding efforts for the Debian104 distribution of Linux. Raymond proposed the idea of using the term “open source” to make free software more appealing to business. According to Perens, Raymond was concerned that “conservative business people were put off by Stallman's freedom pitch.” Raymond felt that they needed to re- brand this in order to market free software to large businesses.105 His idea did not leave the conception phase at this point. Instead, Raymond used his talent for prodigious writing and cultural rumination to build a business case for the free software development model.

In his text, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Raymond laid out his vision of free software as a development model. He detailed the differences between traditional software development process and the free software approach. Raymond documented the distributed method that had evolved in free software.106 Raymond provided a pseudo- ethnographic assessment of the free software community and their software development model. Through the lens of projects such as Linux, the author discerned the difference between software development models. He detailed the traditional monolithic programming model, “the cathedral,” where one organization tightly controlled the development of software in contrast to the free software community’s new distributed

104 is a introduced by the late . The team that produced the software strongly identified with Stallman’s ideological ambitions and designed their efforts after the GNU project. Stallman’s free software Foundation provided support for the project during its inaugural year. See: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ch-detailed.en.html 105 Bruce Perens, “The Open Source Definition” in Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Ed.Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone. (Beijing: O’Reilly, 1999), 173. 106 Eric Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, catb.org, May 21, 1997, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/. 31 model, “the bazaar.”107 Despite Stallman’s thorough description of distributed coding in the GNU manifesto, Raymond maintained that the free software Foundation was largely monolithic, and it was not until the development of Linux, that this changed. Where

Linus Torvalds started the operating system project, many contributors soon emerged to assist, and alternate forms (distributions) of the project evolved quickly.

Raymond’s text was remarkable in that it provided a simple, easy to understand account of how software development worked within the free software community. It provided a blueprint of the free software process, the distributed approach, which later projects and organizations followed. The document had its faults: it was largely editorial, factually inaccurate at times, and redolent of self-promotion, but its significance within the free software community transcended these issues.108 Raymond’s pseudo- ethnographic approach gave the distributed free software community a unified sense of self-identity, and the document reduced Stallman’s ideological movement to a software development model.

The popularity of The Cathedral and the Bazaar also escalated Raymond’s cachet within the community and influenced the Netscape Corporation to release the source code for the popular Netscape browser.109 They released the code on January 22, 1998. A few weeks later, in February, Eric Raymond participated in a strategy session in Palo Alto,

California. The group discussed the recent Netscape source code release, which they perceived as an opportunity to gain momentum for the Free Software Movement.

107 Ibid. 108 Weber, The Success of open source, 11. 109 Louis Suárez-Potts, “Interview: Frank Hecker,” Open Office, May 1, 2001, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/ec1May.html. 32

Raymond used the occasion to reintroduce his idea of rebranding free software as open source.110

Beyond his interest in corporate acceptance of free software, Raymond’s focus came down to the word ‘free.’ The Free Software Movement intended that software be free, as in libre, with the occasional result that the software be free, as in gratis as well.

In English, the same word applies to both libre and gratis, making it difficult to distinguish between the concepts. Despite the fact that Richard Stallman’s GPL license explicitly states that software creators may charge any price for their free software, opponents of free software often evoked the tired rhetoric of the Cold War in suggesting that free software was communist. Raymond was not interested in Stallman’s “free” ideology. By rebranding free software, the confusion over the word “free” would go away and with it the implicit link to Stallman’s ideology. The group settled on his proposed term, “open source.”111

With the re-branding, Raymond emerged as a key advocate for open source in the corporate sense, emphasizing how corporations could create and use open source

Software and still make money. Raymond paired with Bruce Perens to create the (OSI). The OSI sought to standardize the newly rebranded movement by producing set criteria for open source software. To this end, Bruce Perens composed the open source Definition. To address concerns over what software could be included within the Debian project, Perens had previously created the Debian Free Software

110 “History of the OSI,” The Open Source Initiative, September, 2012, accessed March 14, 2015, http://opensource.org/history. 111 Ibid. 33

Guidelines.112 Perens used this earlier document as the model for the open source

Definition. The very first criteria of the new definition addressed potential corporate concerns by making it clear that open source licenses did not restrict the sale of the software.113 By 1999, under the guidance of organization President Eric Raymond, the

OSI published a list of licenses deemed officially in compliance with the open source

Definition.114

The open source Initiative standards for what licenses were permissible did not accord with the free software ideology. A number of the OSI-approved licenses were restrictive. For example, the OSI-approved Sybase Open Watcom Public License

Version limited consumer modification and redistribution.115 Within the free software ideology, the ability to modify software and share the modifications was critical to consumer freedom. Within the OSI’s interpretation of open source, this freedom did not matter.

The open source Definition showed the motivations behind the open source rebranding: commercial adoption. As Raymond did later with his volumes on , the OSI defined open source in order to establish itself as a standards authority.

The document was intended for consumption by the corporate world in an effort to foster corporate adoption of the Free / open source software by providing an official seal of approval. From its inception, the free software community was a group of private consumers, computer enthusiasts who developed software as a pastime. The OSI’s

112 Perens, “The Open Source Definition,” 171-174. 113 Ibid. 114 “History of the OSI,” The Open Source Initiative, September, 2012, accessed March 14, 2015, http://opensource.org/history. 115 “Sybase Open Watcom Public License Version 1.0,” Openwartchom, March 25. 2016, accessed May 4, 2016, http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Open_Watcom_Public_License. 34 setting of standards marked the beginning of professionalization of the Free / Open

Source Software community; following the OSI’s software standards, professional certifications for Linux administrators emerged. In 1999, the Linux Professional Institute

(LPI) formed to provide a general certification program for Linux professionals and Red

Hat introduced an advanced certification, the Red Hat Certified Engineer. 116 Free software was no longer just a hobby – it was now a profession.

Standards for software distribution also emerged in this period. The SourceForge website, founded by VA Linux, was created to provide a centralized code repository from which programmers could distribute their software.117 Instead of hearing about free software projects via word of mouth, SourceForge allowed interested parties to search for the programs they needed. SourceForge provided the nascent commercialization effort a centralized advertising and distribution system.

The Fracturing of the Movement

The open source reinterpretation stripped the ideological interest in freedom out of free software and created a product that would be appealing to corporations. While this approach succeeded in increasing corporate investments in open source, it served to divide the free software community.118 A number of community members were concerned with endorsing the open source rebranding because it was bereft of the ideology that had informed the movement.

116 “About LPI Global,” Linux Professional Institute accessed March 14, 2015, https://www.lpi.org/about/. 117 “VA Linux Systems Unveils Sourceforge, an Application Service Provider for open source Projects,” January 4, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/va-linux- systems-unveils-sourceforgetm-an-application-service-provider-for-open-source-projects-71926707.html. 118 Stephen Shankland, “'Open Source' Infighting Grows,” c|net, February 19, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, http://news.cnet.com/Open-source-infighting-grows/2100-1001_3-221918.html. 35

Alarmed by Eric Raymond’s drift away from the free ideology, OSI co-founder

Bruce Perens became critical of the manner in which the open source rebranding was progressing. By February 1999, Perens had voiced concerns to Eric Raymond about open source being ideologically bankrupt. Finding Raymond unresponsive, Perens began to express publically his concerns that “the open source Initiative is drifting away from the free software values with which we originally created it.”119 In February 1999, the

OSI co-founder voiced his concerns in a post to the Debian development mailing list where he signaled his intention to resign from the OSI and refocus on free software.120

The response from the Debian developers showed community concern over Raymond’s dominance over the open source brand, as well as his “publicity stunts…and tasteless anti-Microsoft agenda.” 121

A month later, in March 1999, Perens publically questioned the OSI’s endorsement of an Apple Computer software license that was not compliant with the open source Definition.122 Eric Raymond responded to the questioning by threatening

Perens:

Damn straight I took it personally. And if you ever again behave like that kind of disruptive asshole in public, insult me, and jeopardize the interests of our entire tribe, I'll take it just as personally -- and I will find a way to make you regret it. Watch your step. -Eric Raymond, emailed to Bruce Perens, April 5, 1999.

119 Bruce Perens, “It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again,” lists.debian.org, February 17, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html. 120 Ibid. 121 Tor Slettnes, “Re: It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again,” lists.debian.org, February 17, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01661.html. 122 Bruce Perens, “The Apple Public Source License - Our Concerns,” Linux Today, May 17, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/1999031700205NWLF. 36

Perens shared the threatening email with the Debian developers list, “because I know that

Eric is a firearms enthusiast,” Perens wrote, “for my own protection, I feel the best strategy is for me to publicize the threat widely.”123

The rift between the two founders of the open source Initiative was an exemplar of the division within the community as a whole. A schism had emerged as the free software adherents community sought to maintain the free software ideology and the open schema that guided the creation of UNIX, free software, and the Internet. Their opposition, the open source adherents, disavowed the consumer rights ideology within the free software schema and instead sought commercial acceptance.

The late 1990s saw incredible growth in the technical sector. Fueled by commercial adoption of the PC and Internet, information technology companies were highly profitable. Stock market investors sought any new technology company that might make them rich with the next big thing. Investor interest in the tech-driven economy paid off handsomely for some free software companies. Eric Raymond was well rewarded for his efforts in fostering corporate interest in Free / open source software. On the board of directors of VA Linux, Raymond, the day after the company’s record-setting IPO, published an article, “Surprised by Wealth,” where he presented an ostentatious display of humility in reaction to his fortune. In the very same article, he justified his theoretical $36 million windfall and promised that he would be parsimonious with his newfound riches.124 Raymond also announced that he intended to start charging

123 Bruce Perens, “Email Threat,” lists.debian.org, April 5, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/04/msg00623.html. 124 Eric Raymond, “Surprised by Wealth,” Linux Today, December 10, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999121000105NWLF. 37 for speaking engagements, as this would “separate the expensive conferences that attract powerful people from the marginal events where the hacker community would get less leverage from my presence.”125 Raymond made it clear that he would not entertain proposals to share his wealth with the community.126

Raymond’s comments further polarized the Free / open source community, which was already divided by the open source rebranding. For those who sought corporate adoption, the VA Linux IPO suggested that the rebranding tactic was working.

For those who supported free software on ideological grounds, these companies were profiting off the fruits of the labor of countless volunteers. Since Free meant libre, not gratis, would there be remuneration for the efforts of the community? Richard Stallman had formed the non-profit free software Foundation in order to pay programmers to write the GNU software. Eric Raymond’s mercenary approach to his new found wealth formed a sharp contrast to Stallman’s community support.

The community division is visible in the responses to Raymond’s article. While many commenters congratulated Raymond or agreed with his approach to wealth, the conflict within the community was clear in many of the postings.127

It is a real pity that the person who toiled to give us our most important free software, and wrote probably the very development tools used by Eric Raymond, has received little to nothing from the Linux boom ….I have no doubt the reason Mr. Stallman is being left out of the commercial success of Linux is because of his uncompromising beliefs in free software… These vultures much prefer supporting Mr. Raymond's ideology because he does not speak out on crazy software patents and commercial software that traps people. -AC in comment posted to Linux Today, December 10, 1999

125 Ibid. 126 Ibid. 127 “Surprised by Wealth Comments,” Linux Today, December 10, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999121000105NWLF#comment_container. 38

Did any of the public Linux companies remember to give a few ten million dollars’ worth of shares to the free software Foundation? …After all, we can only thank the best utilities, compilers, glibc128 and keeping the Free Software Movement alive for so long to them. -Akos Szalkai in comment posted to Linux Today, December 10, 1999

The free software community emerged from resistance to the corporate closing of source code and consumers’ restrictions through non-disclosure agreements. Eric

Raymond’s ideology embraced the corporatization of free software without reconciling these fundamental issues. At the same time, he never fully explained why a consumer activist movement would require the approval of corporations. Free software, was, by definition, free; anyone could create it or consume it, including corporations. This being the case, why would a consumer activist community need to go out of their way to appease corporations?

Raymond discussed some of his motivations in his 1998 public announcement about the open source renaming, “Goodbye, 'free software'; hello, 'open source',”

Raymond opened by introducing the problem: “free software” is ambiguous and makes

“a lot of corporate types nervous.”129 He justified his interest in ameliorating free software for business as pragmatic, and points out that the corporate nervousness “does not intrinsically bother me in the least.”130 Raymond appealed to authority by invoking

Linus Torvalds, who Raymond reports as urging the free software culture to “take the

128 Glibc is the GNU C compiler library. This is the standard C library and an important community project. For example, within Linux the operating system kernel and many of the applications are compiled from C. The explicit mention of the software emphasizes the criticality of the free software Foundation to the community. 129 Eric Raymond, “Goodbye, 'Free Software'; hello, 'Open Source'.” 130 Ibid. 39 desktop” and “engage the corporate mainstream.”131 Raymond’s source for his Torvalds’s reference is an un-documented speech in which Torvalds jokingly refers to Linux’s growth akin to a plan for world domination. The phrase is intended to be humorous, and even Torvalds has addressed this jest when discussing Linux’s growth. “I’d like to say that I knew this would happen, that it’s all part of the plan for world domination. But honestly, this has all taken me a bit by surprise.”132 For Raymond, quoting Torvalds gave justification to Raymond’s call for the movement to “to work with and co-opt the market for our own purposes.”133 Raymond never clarifies what those purposes are, or why, a movement designed to foster freedom, would be interested in co-opting anything. In his document, Raymond anticipates resistance by simultaneously introducing and dismissing

Stallman’s concerns with the change, suggesting “Richard Stallman, who initially flirted with the idea but now thinks the term "open source" isn't pure enough.” Here, Stallman’s concerns are evoked, but not detailed, and dismissed simply as a question of ideological purity.

The open source reinterpretation sought to remove Stallman’s freedom ideology. In his grumblings about ideological conformity, Raymond failed to see that he was not eliminating Stallman’s ideology, but rather supplanting it with his own. Where

Stallman was interested in acting in the interest of consumers, Raymond was interested in developing an open source brand that corporations would adopt.

Free Software Consumers

131 Ibid. 132 Linus Torvalds, “The Linux Edge” in Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution Ed. Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone. (Beijing: O’Reilly,1999), 100. 133 Eric Raymond, “Goodbye, 'Free Software'; hello, 'Open Source'.” 40

Most inquiries into Free / open source software have been focused on the developers of the software and their motivations.134 This is why ideology has often been dismissed. Once the open source reinterpretation emerged and brought corporations into the community, developers could be anyone from an ideological adherent, to a corporate programmer paid to develop an open source project. Since open source resulted in corporate co-optation of the movement, inquiries into open source development will doubtlessly lead to corporatist motivations. When looking at the free software community, the development of free software was just only one part of the equation.

Since free software was a consumer movement and its measure of success is adoption, attention must be paid to the users of free software.

The corporate interest in open source software resulted in broad public exposure to free software. The consumer base changed as a result. No longer were free software consumers just the programmers who wrote it. There was now widespread awareness of the products and large-scale adoption by non-programming consumers. Popular programs such as Open Office, an alternative to Microsoft Office, have reported over 100 million downloads.135 In some situations, entire city governments, such as Munich,

Germany, migrated to entirely free software-based solutions.136 The availability of free

/open source repositories like SourceForge and FreshMeat, allowed the new non- programmer consumers centralized locations where they could search for and find free software projects to use. This exposure and the availability of free software projects

134 Weber, 224-225. 135 “Major Openoffice.org Deployments,” Open Office, last modified July 2, 2014, accessed March 14, 2015, https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments. 136 Ibid. 41 combined with open source schism to create four classes of consumers of Free / open source software:

The first group of consumers were the traditional free software community members. These users believed in the philosophy of free software and were actively involved in advancing the free software community and occasionally wrote software projects.

The second group were not programmers, but instead individuals who agreed with some or all aspects of the free software philosophy. They made a conscious choice to use free software products, but they did not program or contribute to them. These are ideological activists.

The third group were individuals who regularly used free software products and had little agency or awareness that they were consumers for free software products. Free software technologies ran the websites the consumer accessed, their Internet connection, their cell phone, and were present on their Windows or Apple computers.137 For these consumers, the use has nothing to do with ideological adoption and was instead is a result of the ubiquitous free software.

The fourth group were corporate consumers. This group was where the open source reinterpretation paid off, albeit in an unexpected way. open source never “took the desktop” or “co-opted the market” as Raymond sought.138 To take the desktop would

137 “Open at the Source,” Apple Computer, 2012, accessed March 14, 2015, https://www.apple.com/opensource/. 138 Eric Raymond, “Goodbye, 'Free Software'; Hello, 'Open Source'”. 42 require supplanting Microsoft’s Windows monopoly.139 This never happened, even with the intervention of the U.S. Department of Justice.140 Instead, corporations became consumers of Free/open source software and sold the software embedded within other product offerings. For example, Apple Computer adopted Free/open source software for the operating system and applications on their phones, servers, and personal computers.141 The company profits by the gratis nature of many free software projects; they did not have to pay licensing fees to other companies to use their software. At the same time, they take advantage of the libre nature of the software, heavily modifying the products to provide the polished interface, the aesthetic, which Apple excels at selling.

It was within the fourth group that the difference between open source and free software became most evident. Software that was considered open source by the OSI is not necessarily free software. For example, the advent of embedded devices such as

Smart TV’s, Internet routers, and smart phones resulted in open source dominance in consumer platforms. From iPhones to the Linux-based Android phones, open source software has dominated the smartphone market.142 This outward success for free software is a pyrrhic victory. These open source phones are not free according to free software ideology. Consumers who purchased these open source-based phones were

139 The community never supported projects that sought to supplant Microsoft’s Windows functionality. One project, ReactOS, was to be a drop in placement for , but to date has not made it out of the Alpha release phase. Likewise, Andrew Tridgell’s Samba project, which provides interoperability with Microsoft networks forked in 2000. A variant called Samba-TNG emerged with the intention of fully emulating Microsoft’s SMB/CIFS/RPC calls on Linux. This Microsoft replacement also never made it out of the development phase. The lack of movement on these efforts suggests a lack of strategic interest toward eliminating Microsoft. 140 Sharon Chan, “Long Antitrust Saga Ends for Microsoft,” Seattle Times, May 11, 2011. 141 “Apple open source,” Apple Computer, 2012. accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.opensource.apple.com/. 142 “Android and iOS Squeeze the Competition, Swelling to 96.3% of the Smartphone Operating System Market,” IDC, Inc., February 24, 2015, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25450615. 43 restricted by the interface with the phone and components of proprietary software. They were not free to alter their software to add functionality or fix issues that they experienced. With Apple’s iOS, for example, access to modify the operating system was limited by the device’s EULA.143 These devices used open source software, but they restricted consumer access to view or modify the programs on the computer. The software was open source, but it was anything but free. Here, open source benefited the corporate user of the software, but restricted the freedom of the end consumer.

The difference between free software and open source is also seen in the movement of the free software schema to other fields. For example, the free software schema was transposed from computer programs to other forms of creative media. In

1998, David Wiley, a doctoral candidate at Brigham Young University sought to apply the free software approach to written materials. He wanted to develop teaching materials that could be circulated freely while allowing for retention of copyright protections.

After consultation with free software community members including Richard Stallman,

Wiley produced the Open Content License.144 This license, based on the Stallman’s

GPL, allowed for the extension to other forms of created media. The Creative Commons, founded in 2001, advanced Wiley’s idea by creating licenses that were flexible enough to allow authors the ability to customize the rights that they wished to reserve. They offered several different license types that content creators can chose to use.145 In 2001, Internet

143 David Martin, “iPhone 3G S Jailbreaking Prohibited by Apple Terms of Service,” C|net, June 8, 2009, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-3g-s-jailbreaking-prohibited-by-apple- terms-of-service/. 144 Lev Grossman, “New Free License to Cover Content Online,” Time Digital, September 8, 1998, 1, accessed March 14, 2015, http://web.archive.org/web/20000619122406/http://www.time.com/time/digital/daily/0,2822,621,00.html. 145 “History of the Creative Commons,” Creative Commons, n.d., accessed March 14, 2015, http://creativecommons.org/about/history. 44 entrepreneurs and Larry Sanger created the Wikimedia Commons, which extended the software code repository approach to other forms of media. Instead of source code, the project provides finding free images, music, and written content.146

Their effort grew from Wikipedia, a free-content Internet Encyclopedia that the duo also started in 2001.147 These types of schema transpositions were not possible with open source. As a programmer-centric software development model, open source is not applicable to the free sharing of other forms of media. In the afterward to The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric Raymond even warned against such ideas, stating, “Music and most books are not like software, because they don't generally need to be debugged or maintained … rational incentives for some equivalent of open-sourcing therefore nearly vanish.”148

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Rise of Internet Activism

The transposition of the free software schema to other forms of content was natural considering free software’s roots in academic discourse and the ideological interpretation of computers as instruments for creating beauty and art. Within the free software ideology, it did not matter if the product of creativity is written text, artwork, or code. One of the less obvious descendants of the Free / open source software movement was Internet activism or “hacktivism,” where computer crackers149 used computers to attack systems for politically motivated reasons. Just as the Copyright Act of 1976

146 “Reusing Content,” Wikimedia, last modified March 14, 2015, accessed March 14, 2015, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia. 147 “Wikipedia,” March 14, 2015, accessed March 14, 2015, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia. 148 Eric Raymond, “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”. 149 Hackers are a computer sub-culture that is interested in ‘hacking’ at programming challenges. Individuals who aim to deface, destroy, or compromise remote systems are Crackers. The public uses these terms interchangeably, but this will cause confusion in this paper. Richard Stallman is a hacker. Eric Raymond celebrates hacker culture. Neither are crackers. 45 started a chain of events that led to the formation of the Free Software Movement, the

1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) led to the creation of hacktivism.

Superficially, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act sought to update the

United States’ copyright law to make it compatible with international intellectual property agreements. In practice, the law significantly changed the copyright handling of digital media. For example, under traditional copyright laws, once a consumer purchased a DVD, the individual owned a copy of the movie and they could do what they liked with it short of illegally disseminating the content. The DMCA changed this, restricting the consumer’s personal use of the DVD itself and limiting the mechanisms by which the consumer could access the copyrighted content. This allowed DVD manufacturers to introduce limitations that restricted the DVD to play only on certain types of players or in certain regions. In addition to increasing the scope of the copyright, the law also significantly restricted existing consumer rights. The DMCA curtailed the Fair Use

Doctrine; it was no longer legal to digitally record cassettes and music for personal use if digital copies of the same were available. The law also fundamentally changed the jurisdiction of copyright cases to favor complainants.150

The DMCA evoked the ire of the free software community when the DVD Copy

Control Association (DVDCCA) used the law to file suit against a website that served free software (GPL) code that played DVDs. DVD manufacturers scrambled the DVD content via 40-bit encryption software called the Content-Scrambling System (CSS). The

CSS allowed regional coding that restricted where and how consumers could retrieve the content on the disk that they purchased. In October 1999, Norwegian programmer John

150 Marcia Wilbur, A Decade of the DMCA (Middletown, Del: lulu.com, 2009), 31-33. 46

Lech Johansen developed the first DVD player for the Linux operating system. This software, DeCSS, decrypted the CSS protection on DVDs and allowed consumers access to the film regardless of player or location. The DVDCAA and the Motion Picture

Association of America (MPAA) complained to the Norwegian government. In 2003,

Johansen was tried under Norwegian law for creating the software but was acquitted.151

The DVDCAA and MPAA also brought a DMCA suit against a website that had mirrored the code for the DVD player, 2600.org. The defendants lost the suit, but the case served to highlight the free speech aspect of free software.152 Here, the DMCA was used to suppress the publication of code, the intellectual product of Johansen.

Underscoring the creative aspect of the code, the code was reproduced in various forms that would be regularly recognized as works of art. The code was integrated into everything from movies to haiku to prints on ties and tee shirts.153 The case showed that the freedom of expression did not matter under the DMCA, and if the corporations could censor code using the law, what else could they restrict? No longer was free software merely a matter of consumer rights; this law allowed corporations to launch criminal suits against individuals whose work conflicted with corporate interests. By March of 2000, the law brought the free software advocates out of the Internet Relay Chat rooms and onto the streets in protest.

The case also brought together the free software community with the cracker community. 2600.org was the online presence for a cracker periodical, 2600. The

151 Ibid., 47-49. 152 Ibid. 153 David Touretzky, “Gallery of CSS Descramblers,” last modified February 13, 2008, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/. 47 magazine name referenced the 2600-hertz tone that 1960s phone phreakers154 discovered gave full access to operator mode of the AT&T phone system. Since this use of 2600 Hz tones no longer worked after AT&T’s 1976 adoption of the Common Channel Signaling

System 7, the periodical refocused on computers and often provided detailed technical information that could be used to compromise computer systems.155 This case brought the free software community into direct dialog with the cracking community, uniting them in opposition to the perception of corporate and governmental over-reach against the individual.

Even as the cases against Johansen and 2600 unfolded, the DMCA was leveraged against other free software developers. For example, in June 2001, the FBI arrested

Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov while he attended a security convention in Las

Vegas, Nevada. Following the arrest, the FBI held the Russian nationalist incommunicado. His treatment sparked global protests to free Sklyarov. The detention increased activism against the DMCA. The programmer had developed an e-book reader for Linux, and for this he faced charges of violating section 1201 of the DMCA. The case, United States v. ElcomSoft and Dmitry Sklyarov, ended in an acquittal the following year.156

The charges against Sklyarov and Johansen also brought the Electronic Frontier

Foundation (EFF) in to the role of providing legal support for free software. The EFF emerged in 1990 to address civil liberty issues brought to the fore by advancements in

154 Phreaker is phone equivalent of a cracker. 155 Julie K. Petersen, Fiber Optics Illustrated Dictionary, Advanced and Emerging Communications Technologies Series (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, ©2003), 197. 156 Wilbur, A Decade of the DMCA, 60-63. 48 technology.157 Founded by members of the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (WELL), the original members were technologists from several early Silicon Valley corporations, including Sun Microsystems and Lotus. One of the group’s founders, John Gilmore, was a fervent free software ideologue who did a great deal of the original programming on

Stallman’s GNU project. The nexus of technology and digital rights made the EFF a perfect extension of the free software community.

Beyond the cases filed based on the DMCA, the law was also leveraged as a threat. In particular, the Scientology organization favored the use of DMCA takedown notices as a convenient instrument for controlling opposition to their activities. The

Scientologists have an ecclesiastical structure and espouse beliefs based on books by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Leveraging Hubbard’s characters as intellectual property assets, the organization issued DMCA notices to sites, such as .org and

Google, over anti-scientology material. These sites all complied with the organization’s wishes and censored their content.158 However, Scientology’s luck ran out when it began to pursue the anonymous members of a number of on-line messaging boards.

The concept of anonymous posting predates the Internet. There were anonymous chatrooms and posting groups back on the pre-Internet online community, USENET. On the Internet, anonymous communities emerged on sites, such as 2chan, 711Chan, and later, in 2003 4Chan. The latter was an image channel that emerged as a meeting place for anti-scientologists banned from other sites. In 2008, a video of Tom Cruise gushing over Scientology was leaked to the Internet. Scientologists moved to have the video

157 “A History of Protecting Freedom Where Law and Technology Collide,” n.d., accessed April 20, 2015, https://www.eff.org/about/history. 158 Wilbur, A Decade of the DMCA, 156-159. 49 taken down and attacked the anonymous anti-scientologist Internet commenters as being paid shills employed by the “psychiatry industry.” They also accused them of being racist and anti-gay. The Scientologists issued DMCA takedown notices to remove the

Tom Cruise video. In response, the anti-scientologists styled themselves “Anonymous” and launched into what they considered a “cyber-sit in,” a distributed denial of service attack in protest of the Scientologist’s exploitation of the DMCA as censorship mechanism.159 These attacks took down Scientology websites with the use of freely distributed attack software such as Havij, H.O.I.C., and PyLoris. This experience with

Scientology established Anonymous as a hacktivist group and inaugurated their approach of combining real-world protests with collaborative, distributed cyber-attacks. Since these initial attacks, the Anonymous group has protested against many corporate targets including Sony, Amazon, and PayPal, as well as geopolitical foils such as to the governments of Israel, Libya, and Spain. The decisions to protest targets were made democratically via web voting software.160

Since the group is anonymous, there is not sufficient data to support a conclusion about the group’s ideology. The group is voluntary and choses its targets democratically, so in substance, it is the methods and actions that define the group. Specific targets aside, the group’s methods closely resemble the distributed open schema. The group also employs similar freely exchanged software such as attack tools and port scanners.161

However, where the Anonymous hacktivist group adopted the methodologies of the free software schema, another hacktivist group, WikiLeaks, adopted the Free Software

159 Ibid., 250-253. 160 Rohit Shaw, “Weapon of Anonymous,” Infosec Institute, August 29, 2013, accessed April 20, 2015, http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/weapon-of-anonymous/. 161 Rohit Shaw, “Weapon of Anonymous”. 50

Movement’s ideology and extended it to new, potent form. The group’s co-founder,

Julian Assange, was also a free software programmer who had contributed to a number of free software projects, including strobe.c, the first stealth port scanner.162

The WikiLeaks organization was based on the anti-authoritarian philosophies of the Cypherpunk movement. The Cypherpunks sought social and political changes through technology. Free software ideologue and EFF co-founder John Gilmore founded the movement.163 Gilmore was an enthusiastic free software adherent who had formed

Cygnus Solutions, a free software support company, where the Cypherpunks originally met. In 1993, the group published “A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto,” which spelled out its goals for “an open society in the electronic age.”164 It perceived privacy as the key to this and saw several critical factors in protecting their privacy. These included strong cryptography, anonymity, and the transparency of free software. With source code available for all to review, any secret “back doors” installed for the monitoring of activity would be visible. The manifesto clearly shows the role of free software ideology and methods in this early movement, both in the document’s emphasis on creating and sharing free software and its ideological premise that “Information does not just want to

162 In TCP/IP, the Internet protocol, each service that a computer runs uses a specified port. This standardization allows remote systems running different types of software to be able to communicate. For example, email is sent via port 25. Port scanners like strobe.c try to connect to every TCP/IP port on a computer to determine which ports are active, thus revealing what services the computer is running. 163 Robert Manne, “The Cypherpunk Revolutionary,” The Monthly, March, 2011, accessed May 5, 2015, http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/march/1324265093/robert-manne/cypherpunk- revolutionary. 164 Eric Hughes, “A Cypherpunk's Manifesto,” Activism.Net, March 9, 1993, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html. 51 be free, it longs to be free.”165 In WikiLeaks, Assange coalesced this perspective into a potent, viable form.166

WikiLeaks extended the belief in the freedom of information to include state secrets. In their book, Freedom and the Future of the Internet, Julian Assange and his cohorts at WikiLeaks review their ideology and discuss free software at length, stating,

“We need free software for a free world.”167 They detail the use of free software and describe closed software as a form of societal control. Even the name of the organization, WikiLeaks, reveals the group’s free software origins by referencing the free wiki content management software.168

As Assange’s text and the Cypherpunk manifesto suggest, WikiLeaks exclusively uses free software. As with Anonymous, WikiLeaks has adopted a distributed model. In

WikiLeaks, informants can submit information via encrypted transmissions using The

Onion Router (TOR), a free software project.169 The WikiLeaks website distributes secrets freely. Additional encrypted files are available for public download as a form of insurance for the activist group. Anyone can download the data. Should WikiLeaks be put in a situation where they deem it necessary, they can release the encryption keys and

165 Ibid. 166 Although outside the scope of this article, it is important to note that WikiLeaks is a synthesis of the Cypherpunk philosophies and the hosted digital library approach originated by John Young and his counter-cultural activists at http://cryptome.org/. Young was a cofounder of WikiLeaks, but later became estranged from the effort. 167 Julian Assange, Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet (New York: OR Books, 2012), 152. 168 WikiLeaks is unrelated to Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and does not actually use the Wiki software; instead, the name references the Free / open source methodologies that the software has come to represent. 169 “WikiLeaks: Tor,” WikiLeaks, accessed March 14, 2015, https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:Tor. 52 the additional data will be made public.170 WikiLeaks’s’ security plan is dependent on a reinterpretation of the distributed, online, public participation found in the free software community.171 WikiLeaks is descended from free software both ideologically and methodologically. Their beliefs extended free software ideology to politics and their methods transpose the free software schema to support their political goals.

Conclusion

The history of free software is long and complex, and ideology is a key component. Originating in academic research and transposed to technology via the MIT hacker ethic, the ideology was codified by Richard Stallman in the Free Software

Movement. The Internet and World Wide Web were developed based on the same open schema that the free software ideology strove to maintain. The open source reinterpretation of free software jettisoned this ideology in favor of corporate acceptance and in the process created a schism in the community.

In the end, the open source pivot toward business was effective. Corporations co- opted open source software and the software become ubiquitous on computers, phones, and routers. Even Microsoft, which went as far as dismissing the movement as communism began to advertise their own contributions to the open source Community and has even integrated the Linux command line shell172 on to Windows 10.173

170 The model suggests that the insurance files contain information so sensitive that potential enemies (e.g. the U.S. government) would fear the release. It could also very well just be a bluff. 171 Paul Szoldra, “WikiLeaks Just Released a Massive 'insurance' File That No One Can Open Read More//www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-insurance-file-2013-8: Http,” Business Insider, August 17, 2013, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-insurance-file-2013-8. 172 Microsoft has included a Linux-based sub-system that uses the GNU BASH (Bourne-Again Shell) command line shell. This functionality allows Windows users to natively use Linux software in Windows. 53

The free software schema has been employed for many distributed projects beyond just software. Digital commons such as Wikipedia have become common, as has open design, and crowdsourcing.174 These have led to a bevy of other projects designed to use these ideas to address non-technical problems, for example the One Laptop Per

Child project, which aims to produce low power, low cost, open designed laptops running open source software for distribution in underdeveloped nations.175

The ideology of the Free Software Movement evolved into other areas. Most recently, the movement’s “information should be free” ideology was adapted by the

Cypherpunks & WikiLeaks as a cornerstone of their philosophy. In the case of these activists, it is not possible to comprehend their motives or perspectives without understanding the intellectual origins of their ideology.

The history of free and open source software is long and complex. Closer examination of the ideological origins of the movement reveals how the ideas that informed free software drove change and fueled transposition into other forms, including shared media content, crowdsourcing, and hacktivism.

173 “Open Source, Open Cloud, and Azure Solutions from Microsoft Openness,” Microsoft.com, April 4, 2016, accessed May 3, 2016, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/openness/default.aspx#home. 174 The Crowdsourcing model is an example of a distributed production effort similar to open source Projects, but often with a contest-like element to them. With the corporate co-option of open source, some critics now perceive both crowdsourcing and open source to mere marketing ploys. See Dan Woods, “The Myth of Crowdsourcing,” Forbes Magazine, September 9, 2009, accessed May 3, 2016, http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/28/crowdsourcing-enterprise-innovation-technology-cio-network- jargonspy.html. 175 “One Laptop Per Child,” Laptop.org, n.d., accessed May 3, 2016, http://one.laptop.org/about/mission. 54

Bibliography:

Apple Computer. “Open at the Source.” Accessed March 14, 2015. https://www.apple.com/opensource/.

Assange, Julian. Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet. New York: OR Books, 2012.

BBC. “Key Reaction to WikiLeaks Cables Revelations,” BBC News, November 29, 2010, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada- 11866220.

C2. “Wikiwikiweb FAQ.” March 7, 2014. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWebFaq.

CERN. “Public Domain Document of 30 April 1993: Page 1.” April 30, 1993. Accessed March 14, 2015. https://tenyears-www.web.cern.ch/tenyears- www/Declaration/Page1.html.

Ceruzzi, Paul E. A History of Modern Computing. 2nd ed. History of Computing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.

Chan, Sharon. “Long Antitrust Saga Ends for Microsoft,” Seattle Times, May 11, 2011.

Creative Commons “History of the Creative Commons.” Accessed March 14, 2015. http://creativecommons.org/about/history.

Davidson, Duncan “Symposium Common Law, Uncommon Software: The Future of Software Protection.” The University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Pittsburgh, Penn, Summer, 1986. Accessed April 15, 2015. https://litigation- essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctyp e=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=47+U.+Pitt.+L.+Rev.+1037&key=06ab 427bb1746d681c01861a5adac1cc.

Digital Law Online. “National Commission On New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) Report.” September 28, 2003. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://digital-law-online.info/CONTU/.

Earls, Alan . By Alan R. Earls Digital Equipment Corporation (Mass) (Images of America): Mount Pleasant, SC.: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.

EFF. “A History of Protecting Freedom Where Law and Technology Collide,”, accessed April 20, 2015, https://www.eff.org/about/history.

55

Gates, William. “An Open Letter to Hobbyists.” Microsoft Archives. January, 1976. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja &uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2Fabo ut%2Fcompanyinformation%2Ftimeline%2Ftimeline%2Fdocs%2Fdi_Hobbyists.do c&ei=D3LeVMGBIYSyggTi8YGQBg&.

Gates, William. “The Internet Title Wave Memo.” Department of Justice. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/20.pdf.

Gimein, Mark. “Dissecting the Va Linux IPO.” Salon. December 10, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.salon.com/1999/12/10/va_linux/.

Gimein, Mark. “Dissecting the Va Linux IPO.” Salon. December 10, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.salon.com/1999/12/10/va_linux/.

GNU.org. “The Gnu Emacs FAQ: Where Does the Name “Emacs” Come From?.” Accessed October 28, 2015. https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/efaq.html#Origin-of-the- term-Emacs.

Grossman, Lev. “New Free License to Cover Content Online.” Time Digital, September 8, 1998. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://web.archive.org/web/20000619122406/http://www.time.com/time/digital/dail y/0,2822,621,00.html.

Hughes, Eric. “A Cypherpunk's Manifesto,” Activism.Net, March 9, 1993, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html.

IDC, Inc. “Android and iOS Squeeze the Competition, Swelling to 96.3% of the Smartphone Operating System Market.” February 24, 2015. Accessed May 13, 2015. http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25450615.

International Business Machines. “History of IBM.” Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1969.html.

Kelty, Christopher M. Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Experimental Futures. Durham: Duke University Press, 2008.

Kramer, Dave. “A Brief History of Microsoft On the Web.” Microsoft. December 24, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.microsoft.com/misc/features/features_flshbk.htm.

Laptop.org. “One Laptop Per Child.” n.d. Accessed May 3, 2016. http://one.laptop.org/about/mission. 56

Lea, Graham. “MS' Ballmer: Linux Is Communism.” the Register. July 31, 2000. Accessed March 23, 2015. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_communism/.

Levy, Steven. Hackers. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2010.

Linux Professional Institute. “About LPI Global.” Accessed March 14, 2015. https://www.lpi.org/about/.

Manne, Robert. “The Cypherpunk Revolutionary.” The Monthly. March, 2011. Accessed May 5, 2015. http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/march/1324265093/robert- manne/cypherpunk-revolutionary.

Martin, David “iPhone 3G S Jailbreaking Prohibited by Apple Terms of Service,” Cnet, June 8, 2009, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-3g-s- jailbreaking-prohibited-by-apple-terms-of-service/.

Microsoft.com. “Open Source, Open Cloud, and Azure Solutions from Microsoft Openness.” April 4, 2016. Accessed May 3, 2016. https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/openness/default.aspx#home.

Netcraft. “April 2014 Web Server Survey.” April 2, 2014. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2014/04/02/april-2014-web-server-survey.html.

Open Office. “Major Openoffice.org Deployments.” Last modified July 2, 2014. Accessed March 14, 2015. https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments.

Openwatcom. “Sybase Open Watcom Public License Version 1.0.” Accessed May 13, 2015. http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Open_Watcom_Public_License.

Pavlicek, Russell C. Embracing Insanity: Open Source Software Development. Indianapolis, IN: SAMS, 2000.

Perens, Bruce, “The Open Source Definition” in Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Ed. DiBona, Chris, Ockman, Sam and Stone, Mark. Beijing: O’Reilly. 1999.

Perens, Bruce. “Email Threat.” lists.debian.org. April 5, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/04/msg00623.html.

Perens, Bruce. “It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again.” lists.debian.org. February 17, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. https://lists.debian.org/debian- devel/1999/02/msg01641.html.

57

Perens, Bruce. “The Apple Public Source License - Our Concerns.” Linux Today. May 17, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/1999031700205NWLF.

Perens, Bruce. “The Open Source Definition.” The Open Source Initiative. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://opensource.org/osd..

Petersen, Julie. Fiber Optics Illustrated Dictionary, Advanced and Emerging Communications Technologies Series (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2003).

Raymond, Eric “Goodbye, 'Free Software'; hello, 'Open Source',” catb.org, November 22, 1998, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.catb.org/esr/open-source.html.

Raymond, Eric “Why I Hate Proprietary Software,” http://esr.ibiblio.org, October 1, 2008, accessed May 13, 2015, http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=556.

Raymond, Eric. “A Brief History of Hackerdom.” catb.org. May 5, 2000. Accessed May 13, 2015. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/hacker-history/hacker-history.html.

Raymond, Eric. “How to Learn Hacking.” catb.org. November 30, 2014. Accessed May 13, 2015. http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacking-howto.html.

Raymond, Eric. “Resume of Eric Steven Raymond.” catb.org. January 29, 2003. Accessed May 13, 2015. http://www.catb.org/esr/resume.html.

Raymond, Eric. “Revenge of the Hackers,” catb.org, August 31, 1999, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/hacker-revenge/.

Raymond, Eric. “Surprised by Wealth.” Linux Today. December 10, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999121000105NWLF.

Raymond, Eric. “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” catb.org. May 21, 1997. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/.

Raymond, Eric. “The New Hacker's Dictionary, Third Edition,” MIT Press, accessed April 20, 2015, http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/new-hackers-dictionary.

Raymond, Eric. “Why We Fight — an Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto.” catb.org. December 26, 2003. Accessed May 13, 2015. http://www.catb.org/esr/aim/.

Red Hat. “Red Hat Training and Certification through the Years.” 2014. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.redhat.com/promo/cert15years/history/?intcmp=70160000000ciHuAAI.

Ritchie, Dennis, and Ken Thompson. “The Unix Time- Sharing System.” Paper presented at the Fourth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, IBM Thomas J.

58

Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, October 15–17, 1973. Accessed May 13, 2015. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~brewer/cs262/unix.pdf.

Ritchie, Dennis. “Space Travel: Exploring the Solar System and the Pdp-7.” cs.bell- labs.com. 2001. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.cs.bell- labs.com/who/dmr/spacetravel.html.

Salus, Peter. “The Daemon, the Gnu, and the Penguin - Ch. 7.” Groklaw. May 5, 2005. Accessed April 17, 2016. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050505095249230.

Sewell, William Hamilton. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago Studies in Practices of Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Shankland, Stephen. “'Open Source' Infighting Grows.” c|net. February 19, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://news.cnet.com/Open-source-infighting- grows/2100-1001_3-221918.html.

Shaw, Rohit.“Weapon of Anonymous,” Infosec Institute, August 29, 2013, accessed April 20, 2015, http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/weapon-of-anonymous/.

Slettnes, Tor. “Re: It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again.” lists.debian.org. February 17, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. https://lists.debian.org/debian- devel/1999/02/msg01661.html.

Smith, Tim, and François Flückiger. “Licensing the Web.” CERN. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/birth-web/licensing-web.

Stallman, Richard, “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement” in Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Ed. DiBona, Chris, Ockman, Sam and Stone, Mark. Beijing: O’Reilly. 1999.

Stallman, Richard. “A Serious Bio.” Stallman.org.. Accessed March 14, 2015. https://stallman.org/biographies.html.

Stallman, Richard. “Initial Announcement (GNU Project).” GNU. April 2, 2014. Accessed March 14, 2015. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html.

Stallman, Richard. “Richard Stallman's Personal Site.” stallman.org. Accessed May 13, 2015. https://stallman.org/.

Stallman, Richard. “The Gnu Manifesto.” Dr. Dobbs Journal, September, 1985.

59

Suárez-Potts, Louis .“Interview: Frank Hecker,” Open Office, May 1, 2001, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/ec1May.html.

“Surprised by Wealth Comments,” Linux Today, December 10, 1999, accessed March 14, 2015, http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999121000105NWLF#comment_contai ner.

Szoldra, Paul. “Wikileaks Just Released a Massive 'insurance' File That No One Can Open Read More//www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-insurance-file-2013-8: Http.” Business Insider. August 17, 2013. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-insurance-file-2013-8.

The Open Source Initiative. “History of the OSI.” September, 2012. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://opensource.org/history.

Torvalds, Linus. “Linux's History.” Carnegie Mellon University. July 31, 1992. Accessed March 14, 2015. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html.

Torvalds, Linus. “The Linux Edge” in Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Ed. Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone. (Beijing: O’Reilly, 1999),

Touretzky, David. “Gallery of CSS Descramblers,” last modified February 13, 2008, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/.

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

“VA Linux Systems Unveils Sourceforge, an Application Service Provider for Open Source Projects.” January 4, 1999. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/va-linux-systems-unveils- sourceforgetm-an-application-service-provider-for-open-source-projects- 71926707.html.

Weber, Steve. The Success of Open Source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

“Wikipedia.” March 14, 2015. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia.

Wikileaks. “Wikileaks: Tor.” Accessed March 14, 2015. https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:Tor.

60

Wikimedia. “Reusing Content.” Last modified March 14, 2015. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedi a.

Wilbur, Marcia. A Decade of the DMCA. Middletown, DE: lulu.com, 2009.

Woods, Dan. “The Myth of Crowdsourcing.” Fortune Magazine. September 9, 2009. Accessed May 3, 2016. http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/28/crowdsourcing- enterprise-innovation-technology-cio-network-jargonspy.html.

Wordpress.com. “Wikileaks.” Accessed April 18, 2016. https://mywikikileaks.wordpress.com/.

61

VITA

Christopher Campbell is from Delaware County, Pennsylvania. He received his

Bachelor of Arts degree from West Chester University, and his Master of Arts degree from Lehigh University. As an undergraduate, he studied Business and History. His

Master’s degree is in History with a concentration in Technology. Christopher enjoys researching environmental, technology, and public history. He has also worked in

Information Technologies for the past several decades, most recently as the Chief

Information Officer of a midsized private healthcare firm in Philadelphia. He has been using UNIX since 1983 and has technical certifications on multiple platforms, including

Linux, where he is a Red Hat Certified Engineer.

62