Why we Code [email protected] The first time I had the pleasure of addressing a FOSS4G plenary session was as the chair of the 2007 conference, in my home town of Victoria. 2007.foss4g.org So, before I start, congratulations Michael, and the rest of the local committee on bringing together this 2017 edition. I remember the excitement and gratification of seeing the world show up in my town, and start talking about open source and software, it's pretty unreal. Since then, I've gotten a chance to keynote in 2007 : victoria Sydney, Denver, Nottingham, and Seoul. So, this is the 6th time I've been allowed 2009 : sydney to stand in front of a FOSS4G plenary and speak. 2011 : denver And, by accident, if not design, I seem to be on a biennial rotation. 2013 : nottingham I also seem to be stuck in a rut. 2015 : seoul After my turn as conference chair, 2007 : welcome I talked in 2009, 11, 13 and 15 about, <x> open source economics, 2009 : economics <x> open source economics, 2011 : economics <x> open source economics and also 2013 : economics <x> open source economics. 2015 : economics Today will be no exception. I have my reasons! 2017: economics Open source is a social system, and when you're embedded in a system it's good to know how that system works. open source is a system And I think it's worthwhile to talk about the systems because so many of the tales we tell ourselves about open source are rooted in cultural myths about systems vs. stories individual achievements and choices, and ignore the systems that individuals are working within. Let me put it in terms you all can understand: Is the problem with galactic governance the individual performance of Darth Vader as a particularly cruel and callous manager, or is the problem the strictly hierarchical nature of Imperial system? The Darth Vader theory certainly makes for better storytelling. But an appreciation for the systemic roots of harsh Imperial governance would probably lead to a more just Galactic republic, at least, in the long run. But anyways… anyway… I chose "Why we Code" as the title for this talk by way of reference to "Why we Fight", “why we code” which was a series of World War 2 films produced by the US Government and directed by Frank Capra. Obviously, created within the context of a mass war mobilization, the films were propaganda. But "Why we Fight" was an odd piece of propaganda. First, it was 7 hour-long films. Image that, in our era of 15 second attention spans. Second, the films spent a lot of time on background: the history, the geography, the context, and how those informed the goal. Which, to be fair, was total victory. But a great deal of efort was spent to build a rational argument, when a far simpler approach would have been an emotional 15 second ad. So ”Why we Fight" was propaganda, but nuanced propaganda. Which is why I chose "Why we Code" for today. Because there’s a 15 second sound-bite answer to that question… And then there’s what I’m going to subject you to this morning. I have some nuanced propaganda for you today. Nuanced because too many of our nuanced discussions of open source and other alternatives propaganda are simplified down to black and whites. Because too often we ignore the economic and cultural context open source is embedded in. "Why we code"? There's a lot of easy answers, which are variations of pure propaganda. They are mythic answers, emotional ones, they are easy to visualize. “why we code” "Freedom!" is a favourite. Software free to be read, free to modify, and free to redistribute with modifications. We code free software for idealism. “freedom!!” "For the glory of it!" is another. We code and release as open source for ego-gratification, to generate admiration in our peers. “glory!!” "Scratch an itch" is also a popular reason. We code for localized practical reasons, we code to problem solve. But.., “scratch an itch!!” All these easy answers depend on an unspoken assumption. They make a big guess about who "we" is. Who is this "we", doing all this coding, when we talk about "why we code"? “why we code” The Lone Ranger and Tonto are riding alone across the plains when over the hills in front of them there comes a war party of blood-thirsty Sioux warriors. "This looks like trouble, Tonto, we'd better run" says the Lone Ranger, and they double back fleeing the Sioux. Well, they haven't been riding 5 minutes when they crest a hill and see coming up towards them a whole army of Cree soldiers, carrying death-masks and armed with muskets. "Ride hard, Tonto, this is our last chance." the Lone Ranger cries, and they turn left and ride hard down the slope. They turn and gallop down through a small copse of trees, and coming out they run headlong into a party of Lakota, who whoop and bear down on them, their intentions clear. As the circle of Native warriors closes in on them, the Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, "Well Tonto, it looks like we're done for." To which Tonto replies: "What do you mean, 'we', white man?" “what do you mean, ‘we’, white man?” Tonto’s right, we “we” is a very contextual word, and we inhabit a lot of diferent “we”s simultaneously you me even within narrow fields like we working with computers and writing software. Who are "we", anyways, when "we" code? you me them we The mythic, easy answer, the simple propaganda answer, is the lone hacker. We answer "why we code" by lone hacker ginning up a crude cultural caricature. And so the canonical open source creator is Linus Torvalds, writing an operating system in his bedroom as an undergraduate student in Finland. linus torvalds Or it's Guido van Rossum guido building Python as a Christmas project to "keep himself occupied", von rossum because what else would you do over Christmas? Or it's Richard Stallman richard building GNU Emacs here in Cambridge, Massachusetts, stallman creating the first brick in the GNU free software edifice. But, the easy, mythic answer is wrong. Or, very incomplete. At best it starts right, mythic then tends over time towards gross wrongness. Linus started the Linux kernel, alone, hackers in his bedroom, 26 years ago, this is true. But today Linux is maintained mostly by corporations. who is linux? intel : 13% Intel, Red Hat, Linaro, red hat : 8% Samsung, SUSE, and IBM account for linaro : 4% a third of kernel development. So rather than talk about grand heroes, samsung : 4% I'm going to talk about generic agents, suse : 3% who each play a role in the interlocking ibm : 3% economies of open source. The agents are: software The software itself. Individuals, who use the software, individual user and who create the software. individual creator And finally institutions: corporations, governments, NGOs, universities, institutional user and so on, institutional creator who use the software and who create the software. All these agents interact, but within diferent economies. Diferent pieces of software compete attention economy within an attention economy. Diferent participants in an gift economy open source software community exchange value within a gift economy. And of course individuals and institutions cash economy interact within our all-consuming cash economy. Let's start with the software itself, software and the "attention economy" it lives in. individual user individual creator institutional user institutional creator The idea behind an "attention economy" is that in a post-scarcity world, cash attention economy economy in a world where people's basic needs are already met, people will not compete for physical resources or wealth. What they will compete for, is attention. money attention We already have a basic human attention economy in place, and we have a name for people who are "attention rich", millionaire celebrity they are called "celebrities". As in the cash economy, the rich often get richer, <x> as attention begets more attention. And attention is surprisingly fungible, <x> attention earned in one field can often be converted into attention in another. However, a true attention economy requires a post-scarcity world, where or day-to-day physical needs met by default, and we don't yet live in a post-scarcity world. So we humans have a hybrid cash-and-attention economy. This can lead to some odd scenarios cash attention economy economy where our cash economy and attention economy confer very diferent amounts of wealth to the same person. money attention millionaire celebrity For example, the case of the YouTube celebrity, who amassed millions of followers, but who had to shoo away her fans so she could do the waitressing job that actually paid her rent. She was attention rich, but cash poor. Now, keep an attention economy in mind, but replace humans with software. Open source software lives in a software attention economy, in which software trades utility with humans in exchange for attention. Open source software has very few needs. <x> It doesn't need food or sleep or clothing. food n/a It can reproduce perfectly at zero cost via copying. sleep n/a It's almost immortal. clothing n/a The only thing software needs to stay alive attention attention is at least one person that cares about it, <x> a little bit of attention. Because operating systems change, new formats are developed, small bugs are found. Unmaintained, software will die: the original Emacs text editor ran on the PDP-10 minicomputer, emacs is dead that code is dead; Richard Stallman's GNU Emacs, which has been maintained continuously since 1984, + long live GNU emacs will run on your Android phone, if you wish.