Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Coming to an end

I tough about this lately, and I took the decision to stop writting on this blog. It was a really fun experience, though many aspects of it were really tedious. Writing in English on a regular basic was a real hindrance for me. I have the feeling that the quality of most of the posts are sub-par to what I can do because of this. The grammar and spelling mistakes make me ashamed of this blog. Many time, I wanted to point informants here, but I haven't done it because I didn't had the feeling that it was serious enough. Also, I had many great ideas that took too much time to translate properly, so I just skipped them.

Also, as a class blog, I tried (and failed!) to limit myself to content relevant to my project. I want to explore larger horizon, on a more open plateform. Therefore, I will soon start a new blog, in French, on a similar thematic, probably on Wordpress. I am just looking for a better name to continue. I will see this blog as a rite of passage into the cyberspace.

I will miss your small avatars' icons on the side of this blog, it was a good reminder that a least someone was reading. It was fun to share with you and to read about your project too. I can say that I have read the big majority of everyone's post and it was really interesting. I hope you will keep your blog alive.

Good luck in your future project!

Trusted Computing

Computing industry successfully control the use and access to a large part of the market software. But what if they extend their grip to the hardware? This is what Trusted Computing is about.

"Trusted Computing (TC) is a technology developed and promoted by the Trusted Computing Group.[1] The term is taken from the field of trusted systems and has a specialized meaning. With Trusted Computing, the computer will consistently behave in specific ways, and those behaviors will be enforced by hardware and software.[1] Enforcing this Trusted behavior is achieved by loading the hardware with a unique ID and unique master key and denying even the owner of a computer knowledge and control of their own master key. Trusted Computing is extremely controversial as the hardware is not only secured for the owner, but also secured against the owner as well." (Wikipedia)

Again, the industry's use of specific a term with a strong positive connotation to enforce their control over computer is quite clever. According to Stephan and Vogel, trust is:

"Trust
Trust is the personal believe of correctness of something.

It is the deep conviction of truth and rightness, and cannot be enforced.

If you gain someone's trust, you have established am interpersonal relationship, based on communication, shared values and experiences." (Stephan & Vorgel, 2006)
If you can trust a computer, then it is more secure. This is the idea that the industry try to promote. But more secure usually means less freedom. The industry want to "secure" the computer and technological gadget so they can monitor their activity and ensure that they are used in a manner that reflect their vision. As Stallman said "they do not mean what we normally mean by that word: protecting your machine from things you do not want. They mean protecting your copies of data on your machine from access by you in ways others do not want." (2002). This technology is likely to be use to enforce Digital Right Management and block interoperability with non "trusted" computer.

Again, the industry is investing people's private life, dictating what they can and cannot do with the available information. The more they "secure" the technologie, the more "freedom" we lose.

I invite you to check this quick video on trust computing:



1. “Trusted Computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#cite_note-anderson2-1.

2. Stephan, Benjamin and Lutz Vogel, Trusted Computing, 2006, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnXU7z2_6Jg.

3. Richard Stallman, “Can You Trust Your Computer?,” GNU Project - Free Software Foundation, 2002, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html.







Saturday, April 18, 2009

The Hacker Manifesto

I'll leave this here for future reference.



The Hacker Manifesto

by
+++The Mentor+++
Written January 8, 1986

Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"...

Damn kids. They're all alike.

But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him?

I am a hacker, enter my world...

Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...

Damn underachiever. They're all alike.

I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..."

Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.

I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened by me.. Or thinks I'm a smart ass.. Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...

Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike.

And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found. "This is it... this is where I belong..." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all...

Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike...

You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.

This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.

Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.

I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.

Friday, April 17, 2009

I am losing control of my Internet: net neutrality at stake.

I've realize that, more and more, old institutions and industry agents are trying to shape to way the Internet is use and perceive, and they are putting lots of energy in it. Changes will affect those that are actively using internet, and I think we will move slowly toward a web 2.1: A web "more secure" controlled by large corporation where the users is thrown back to the seat of the spectator, as in old media.

Internet did change our relationship to media and information. User and produced were for a time indistinguishable. People did build a chaotic but democratic sharing of information. Anyone could see and download anything, anytime. This is not true anymore. The traditional media enterprise, that at first neglect Internet as a marginal source of information and spectacle, is now claiming back the industry that is slipping through their hands. They want to secure over the Internet the power they have over traditional media channel. "The chaotic realm of the internet needs to be ordered. "

Lots of energy, and money, is put into this attempt to take back the power from the users. The recent Pirates Bay trial is only an example. Record and movie industry are in court everywhere in the world to claim back their place in the distribution process of cultural products. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are capping traffic, inspecting it with new deep packet inspection technology and assigning different speed depending of your activity. Bell Canada assigned capped speed to sharing protocol during peak hours. In order to achieve this, they need to inspect the traffic, which seems to me a major violation of privacy. Moreover, they are not only assigning those restrictions to their customers, but also to their resellers. Since Bell own the DSL network, if you are using a DSL modem chance are you traffic is inspected and capped.

Why are they capping the file-sharing protocol? Not only because it is the main channel of pirated file sharing, but also because it is a channel that they have no control over it. They rather you use their web service, and thus bring back home their customers. In a not so distant future, they will probably charge depending the services you will be using: youtube, itune, amazon, etc. like the cable TV. Content provider will need to be large corporation, or they will just disappear. Soon enough, producer of content and users will be two distinct categories. This issue has been known for several years as the net neutrality problematic.

What option is left for the user? They can’t really turn to government. Recent events showed that they will take the side of their traditional allied. CRTC already reject injunction against Bell’s traffic throttling. Sweden court applied American copyrights law to the Pirate Bay’s case, despite a really clever defense on their part, one that shown a better understanding of new technology.

Government doesn’t want the citizen to be in control of those new technologies. They are letting corporation take this control out of our hand, and soon we will be charged more and more to use it.

Pirate Bay guilty

I don't know if you were aware of the trial surrounding the larger torrent tracker, the Pirate Bay. You might like to know that they just got fined and jailed. This news will bring an important shift in the way copyright and intellectual property will apply to the digital world. The court just enforce old law to new phenomenon, forcing their categories to brand new concept. Quite the radical opposite of Trent Reznor view of the problem.

Old institutions can't really evolve, can they?

Court jails Pirate Bay founders

A court in Sweden has jailed four men behind The Pirate Bay (TPB), the world's most high-profile file-sharing website, in a landmark case.

Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde were found guilty of breaking copyright law and were sentenced to a year in jail.

They were also ordered to pay $4.5m (£3m) in damages.

Record companies welcomed the verdict but the men are to appeal and Sunde said they would refuse to pay the fine.

Speaking at an online press conference, he described the verdict as "bizarre.

"It's serious to actually be found guilty and get jail time. It's really serious. And that's a bit weird," Sunde said.

"It's so bizarre that we were convicted at all and it's even more bizarre that we were [convicted] as a team. The court said we were organised. I can't get Gottfrid out of bed in the morning. If you're going to convict us, convict us of disorganised crime.

"We can't pay and we wouldn't pay. Even if I had the money I would rather burn everything I owned, and I wouldn't even give them the ashes."

It is almost certain that The Pirate Bay will keep on sailing, long after today's court judgement

The damages were awarded to a number of entertainment companies, including Warner Bros, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, and Columbia Pictures.

However, the total awarded fell short of the $17.5m in damages and interest the firms were seeking.

Speaking to the BBC, the chairman of industry body the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) John Kennedy said the verdict sent out a clear message.

"These guys weren't making a principled stand, they were out to line their own pockets. There was nothing meritorious about their behaviour, it was reprehensible.

"The Pirate Bay did immense harm and the damages awarded doesn't even get close to compensation, but we never claimed it did.

"There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that," he said.

The four men denied the charges throughout the trial, saying that because they did not actually host any files, they were not doing anything wrong.

A lawyer for Carl Lundstrom, Per Samuelson told journalists he was shocked by the guilty verdict and the severity of the sentence.

"That's outrageous, in my point of view. Of course we will appeal," he was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency. "This is the first word, not the last. The last word will be ours."

Political issue

Rickard Falkvinge, leader of The Pirate Party - which is trying to reform laws around copyright and patents in the digital age - told the BBC that the verdict was "a gross injustice".

"This wasn't a criminal trial, it was a political trial. It is just gross beyond description that you can jail four people for providing infrastructure.

"There is a lot of anger in Sweden right now. File-sharing is an institution here and while I can't encourage people to break copyright law, I'm not following it and I don't agree with it.

"Today's events make file-sharing a hot political issue and we're going to take this to the European Parliament."

The Pirate Bay is the world's most high profile file-sharing website and was set up in 2003 by anti-copyright organisation Piratbyran, but for the last five years it has been run by individuals.

Millions of files are exchanged using the service every day.

No copyright content is hosted on The Pirate Bay's web servers; instead the site hosts "torrent" links to TV, film and music files held on its users' computers.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/8003799.stm

Published: 2009/04/17 12:32:07 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Wikipedia licensed under GPL

I just notice that the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is licensed under the General Public License (GPL). This is the same license used for Free Software (free as in freedom, libre). This license made a schism in Free/Open Source Software movement. Both Free license (GPL) and the Open Source license (the most known is the BSD license) permit modification and distribution, BUT the GPL required that every re-distribution be published under the same license.

For example, if you want to take a part of code from a GPL licensed program to include it in closed-source software, you will need to publish it under the GPL license and make it open. That's the reason that the GPL license is called "viral license" (Weber, 2005: 53).

In sum, if you take citation from Wikipedia, you should make your paper available under the GPL license.

Weber, Steven. 2005. The Success of Open Source. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Open Source Economic Model

One may wonder why would someone invest time and money into software that is going to be given away. Profitability of the Open Source model always has been a major source of questions. In a recent study, about 38% of the programmers involve in open source were paid for collaborating in those projects (Lakhani and Wolf, 2007: 9). Who's paying those developers to build new software? Ubuntu server host thousands of gigabytes of data that all the users can access freely. All this has a cost, and someone need to pay for it.

The open source economic model can be divided in two aspects: why does company pay for developing open source software, and how corporation like Canonical, the corporation behind the Ubuntu project, intend to profits on building such a project.

First of all, to understand why a company would invest in open source development, we need to take the point of view of the client. With proprietary software, large enterprises are paying large amount of money for licenses, so they get involve in open source project for their own benefits. Software only have a marginal cost for distribution, so all the money made through the selling is profit once the development has been paid for. Large companies, exploiting thousands of workstation are paying a large share for the development of a product. And they can't influence the final product.

That's the reason that many of them, instead of paying for license, are paying developers to help improve Open Source project. The final product of Open Source project doesn't have a licensing cost, so all they have to do is to pay for the developer. Moreover, having their own developer on the project give them the opportunity to influence and control the final product through their participation, a power that they would not have through proprietary software.

Often many corporations have developers involved in a project. In those cases, we can affirm that open source development is mutually funded. Since most corporation involved aren't selling the software, but using it to improve their productivity, there is no reason not to cooperate (Moreira de Sa Coutinho, 2006).

The second reason a corporation will get involve in funding of open source projects is the derived service they intend to sell. For example, Canonical Corporation have been funding the Ubuntu project since the beginning and has yet to see profitability, but they expect to meet it soon (Shankland 2008). How? By selling support service to corporation. As Krishnamurthy put it:

"Enterprises are willing to pay for accountability. When they have a problem, they do not want to send a message to mailing list and wait for support that may or may not be of the highest quality. They have no interest in sifting through technical FAQs to find the answer. Therefore, there is money to be made in services such as support for installation, answering technical questions and training employees to use the product."(2007: 283)


Enterprises are also willing to pay for long-term agreements with distributors to ensure that their products get updated regularly. This is what Canonical Corporation is exploiting. Selling desktop software isn't an option anymore, as Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu and Canonical note it:

"I don't think it will possible to make a lot of money, or maybe any money, selling the desktop. We're not going to try to make money selling the desktop. We force ourselves to look to services-oriented business models. I remain confident this is the right business model for the industry. Linux is the forcing function that (means) the broader software industry will shift in business models away from licensing the bits and to services." (Cited in Shankland 2008)


So far, this has been a viable economic model that is growing and getting more and more success. Open source software is not only for hobbyist anymore and business can be build around those models.

Krishnamurthy, Sandeep. 2007. An Analysis of Open Soure Business Models. In Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, ed. Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A. Hissam, and Karim R. Lakhani, 267-278. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.


Lakhani, Karim R., and Robert G. Wolf. 2007. Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects. In Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, ed. Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A. Hissam, and Karim R. Lakhani, 3-21. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.


Moreira de Sa Coutinho, Joao. 2006. Le logiciel libre (1) Aboutissement du Capitalisme. March 4. http://www.domainepublic.org/capitalisme.html.


Shankland, Stephen. 2008. Ubuntu 8.10 due Thursday. Profits? Not so fast. Business Tech - CNET News. October 27. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10075890-92.html.

The making of closed source software

The history of free and open source software isn't one where closes source software were liberated and became free and open. Actually, it is quite the opposite. There was a time, when there's was no distinction between hardware and software, between users and programmers that hobbyists shared freely their knowledge. No one wanted to reinvented the wheels each time they used a computer. so they collaborated and share their lines of code.

This early history of computing came to an abrupt end when Bill Gates from Micro-soft send an open letter to the Homebrew Computer Club.




AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS

By William Henry Gates III

To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?

Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.

The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.

What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.

I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.


Bill Gates

General Partner, Micro-Soft



This letter is a major schism in the discursive formation of copyright (to embrace some Foucault's notion). This letter bring a fundamental change in the discursive field where hardware and software aren't one anymore, and if you pay for the former, you have to pay for the later too. Programmers and users aren't one either. The first one is working and the later use the product, therefore he needs to pay for it. Those notion seems like self-going today, but they are made out, and the root can be trace back to this very letter, where Bill Gates accused hobbyists of stealing software.


DigiBarn Newsletters: Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists in Homebrew Club Newsletter Vol 2, Issue 1 (Feb 3, 1976). http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html.


Foucault, Michel. 1969. L'archéologie Du Savoir. Bibliothèque des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.


Gates, Bill. 1976. An Open Letter to Hobbyists. Homebrew Computer Club newsletter 2, no. 1 (February 3): 2.



Monday, April 13, 2009

FACIL: actively promoting Open Source in Québec

I found a not-for-profit organization actively promoting free software in Québec: FACIL. They filed a motion against the government for not considering open source software for their workstation. They state that the migration to open source software would produce significant saving for the government and will also help Québec IT sectors to develop. Currently the government is sending millions to multinational corporation (mainly Microsoft) for products license. Those contracts are attributed without any invitation to tender, which is not in accordance to the regulation. FACIL intend to force the government into a more open and transparent procedure for contract attribution.

This is a really interesting case of F/OSS community actively contesting closed source monopoly. I did join up as a member, it cost 20$ and it helps to finance the lawsuit against the government.

You can read all about it here:


Montreal, August 28th 2008 - FACIL, a non-profit association, which promotes the collective appropriation of Free Software, contests the Quebec government purchasing methods for software used within public administrations. FACIL has filed a motion before the Quebec Superior Court in order to bring an end to these methods which the association believes not to be in the best interest of the Quebec government, but more importantly, not in accordance with the regulation for supply contracts, construction contracts and service contracts of government departments and public bodies (R.Q. c. A-6.01, r.0.03).

In Quebec, access to public markets is the rule while contracts attribution without invitation to tender is the exception. A public market should be transparent, fair and most importantly, open to all. The solutions as well as the propositions must be evaluated objectively on known and accepted criteria. Furthermore, the regulation implies that public markets have to enhance the local economic development as well as the Quebec technologies.

From February to June 2008, FACIL has noticed sales of proprietary software for more than 25 million dollars. These purchases were made for products offered by large multinational enterprises, with no regard to suppliers in Quebec. These purchases hurt the Free Software suppliers throughout Quebec and are an obstacle to the development of Quebec IT enterprises. FACIL contests these methods as the association believes they are illegal and unacceptable.

A strategic Free Software utilization in public administration could create thousands of jobs as well as a significant decrease in software licensing costs. However, Quebec's public administration refuses to even consider and evaluate these options.

While most of the developed countries have started, a few years back, migrating their technological infrastructures to Free Software, Quebec's public administration is far behind. In France, hundreds of thousands of desktops used by civil servants have been migrated. In the Netherlands, the public administration, one of the most modern in the world, has made open formats mandatory within the public administration, as well as a set of mesures to consider Free Software alongside proprietary software, and where possible to prefer Free Software.

But here in Quebec, despite numerous initiatives, the public administration refuses to communicate and to cooperate. FACIL has decided to bring the matter to court in order for the public market law to be respected.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

More of Zotero

I've talked about Zotero before, but I can't stress enough on how this is really a good open source alternative to Endnote, you all should be considering it. Here are 10 reasons why you should switch:

1) Easy-To-Use Means Easy-To-Support
Users overwhelmingly report that Zotero is easy to use and intuitive. After watching a five-minute introductory video on Zotero, many users have more than enough knowledge to accomplish basic research tasks.

2) Save Money With Free Open Source Software
Say goodbye to expensive escalating licensing fees. Adopt Zotero and pay nothing. Not only can you use Zotero for free, but all the documentation at Zotero.org is yours to reuse and repurpose. The support community at Zotero.org provides an experienced responsive community to support the software and assist you in your efforts.

3) Hundreds of Institutions Recommend Zotero to Their Faculty and Students
Zotero is already recommended by more than a hundred institutions from around the world, including MIT, Stanford, and Yale. Zotero’s track record of success at these leading institutions underscores its ease of use and elegance as a research management tool.

4) A Single Research Management Solution For Every User, Everywhere
Whether your users run Windows, MacOS or Linux, Zotero is available to them. By syncing their data with the Zotero server, users can move between computers at home and at school with ease, even if the operating systems are different. Users don’t even need their own computers, because they can run Zotero off a small flash drive, which they can purchase for only a few dollars. With Zotero’s web interface, users can browse their collections online, even with mobile devices. Simply put, Zotero is wherever your users are.

5) Did We Mention It’s Award Winning?
Zotero was selected as the best reference management tool at CiteFest 2008 by Northwestern University’s Library and Academic Technologies group. That’s right, better than other, more costly, software alternatives. Zotero is among the “Best Free Software” available, as voted by PC Magazine in both 2007 and 2008. Zotero was also named Best Instructional Software of 2007 by the Information Technology and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association.

6) An Opportunity For Your Institution to Leave Its Mark
Zotero’s open and extensible nature means that, beyond offering a powerful resource to your students at a no cost, Zotero also offers a potential avenue for your institution to make lasting contributions to the open-source community. For example, the University of Michigan’s School of Information recently won funding from the Institute for Museum and Library Services to launch a new million-dollar information literacy game, Bibliobouts, on top of Zotero. Similarly, Concordia University’s digital history lab was granted funds from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to develop Vertov, a video annotation tool for Zotero. Both instances demonstrate how institutions can make Zotero more than a piece of software used on their campus; it can also provide a means to contribute and make your mark on the scholarly cyberinfrastructure.

7) Your Users’ Data is Theirs, Now and Forever
Everything your users do with Zotero is theirs in perpetuity. As a project developed by scholars with a commitment to openness and with a focus on the end-user, Zotero makes no claim of ownership or control over any of your users’ work with Zotero, and invites users to share and collaborate without fear of their work being co-opted.

8 ) Give Your Users Something They Can Take With Them
Licensed research management platforms may provide your users with functional services, but, chances are, your software license ends when your students graduate. Shouldn’t your users have access to their research after graduation? Zotero is free to everyone; that means your students will always have access to their collections.

9) Adherence to Open Standards Offers Flexibility
Zotero is committed to data portability and interoperability through adherence to existing open standards. Software makers which employ site-licensing fees have a vested interest in locking users into their own proprietary formats. Zotero makes it as easy as possible to migrate data to and from other applications.

10) Give Your Users The Freedom To Work In Their Native Language
Zotero runs in more than thirty languages, so chances are good that most of the languages spoken on your campus are available. This sort of linguistic agnosticism means that Zotero runs smoothly for people all around the world. Any languages not already supported can easily be added through the BabelZilla project.


taken from this blog post on Zotero website.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Trent Reznor on music industry

I found this recent interview with Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nail talking about his decision to publish his latest album under Creative Commons licenses.

This interview is from the Digg Dialogg show, where the digg community is asked to submit and vote question to be ask.

Reznor's answer to the first question is quite insightful on the way internet may change copyright and intellectual property in the future:

"Trent - you've embraced Creative Commons and file sharing, but your business model (aside from touring) still primarily involves selling music either digitally or physically. Why haven't you embraced advertising as a business model, e.g. placing ads on your torrent tracker? Why let Pirate Bay take all the ad revenue you deserve? Furthermore, why aren't you building a brand new record label based on a modern business model?"

Check out the video for his answer.





You can check the whole list of questions here.

EDIT: video doesn't fit well on the blog, visit digg dialogg web page to see it all.

Crisis: defining itself

Wow, lots went on in the last few days. The list that had a one or two messages per day went to more than a dozen everyday.

A political debate got really hot and personal between certain persons. The moderator had to step in, and it didn't really help the problem. Few persons left the list, new forums emerged and all this fuzz lead to a redefinition of the role of the list. Should it be used only for general discussion? Should the support aspect be moved elsewhere? Should there be new list for different type of discussion? Those are questions that are still debate. The increase of participant lately made the administrator request new moderators to join in, and the community is asking for more clarity.

What I've learn about this is that the place of the political discussion on my discussion list is taking new proportion lately and it is now requesting its own space.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Politicizing technical question

Ubuntu developers community has been describe as a community of practice before (see older post). I think this concept could also apply to the users of the discussion list I am following. They gather for enhancing their practice of Ubuntu. They use the discussion list to ask how to perform a really specific task, (lately it was about installing Ubuntu on a third drive), and everyone is trying to find a way to perform the task. Sometimes, it does look like a game: someone comes up with a problem, and then everyone is trying to get the better solution. It is the same pattern as describe in The Charms of Wikipedia (2008). That’s what makes the list so attractive to the users.

Almost every conversation on the list begins with a support question. But the support question often leads to larger discussion about open source philosophy and/or how to convince more people to join in. Not all support question that lead to open sources philosophy. Unsolved technical problems related to closed source driver, or closed source software are more subject to lead to broader discussion. Situations where corporation force open source user into closed source software give ways to heated debate on the discussion list. This restriction of liberty and choice encourage the users to consider political action, and some of the discussions did lead to concrete action.

Baker, Nicholson. 2008. The Charms of Wikipedia. The New York Review of Books 55, no. 4 (March 20).

Monday, April 6, 2009

Ethical concern

As you may have notice, the posting cadency hasn’t really improved since last time, while the handwritten scrapbook is filling. 

Even if I did participate a little on translation, the support discussion lists were better suited to get a glance at the discourse of the users and programmers. I decided to follow a French support list based in Quebec.

I informed the “administrator” of my intention to conduct a research on his list though the IRC channel associate to the list.

The discussion went like this:

me> I want to confirm, you are in charge of the discussion list, aren’t you?
admin> yes
me> I sent you an email Monday about a research project. Have you check it out? [the email was about getting permission for conducting research]
admin> I see
admin> the list don’t belong to me.
admin> The data that you could find on it is public
admin> the content is only owned by each authors
admin> so no need for my authorization – but “ be kind “ :)

As you can see, as a manager of the list, admin isn’t claiming any ownership. He’s simply using his role as a moderator as I have seen on the list. Now and then, he will only ask people to avoid crude language and that sums it.
Since I didn’t want to interrupt every user of the list for getting consent, I informed the whole list of my intention. Sadly, I never had feedback on this.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Translating Ubuntu

Sorry for the long period without post. I’ve been collecting lots of data for a long time, but I didn’t take the time to write it here. At least, I took note in a scrapbook, so I can trace back what have been done so far. I'll try to catch up with the lost time.

At the begining, I tried to engage myself in production of software development via a notorious developer’s platform based on a web site. From that site, you can upload code, comment on it, post bugs, translate part of programs, and so on.

Joining this the site web is quite simple: give out an email address and a password, and then sign-up you are done. But everything submitted goes through pair review, and in order to get accepted in what you do isn’t as simple.

A user profile page is where you can find much information about someone’s participations. You have information written by the owner of the profile, but also statistics of the participations, the number of bug report, code line uploaded, translation done. It is possible to go back and look at what the person have done before. There’s also a scoring ladder that reflect your participation. You accumulated point for your participation and it decrease over time. So even if you largely participate at some time, you’ll be out of point after one year if you’ve done nothing. This prevent power user to game the system, and new one to get a chance to get into it. There’s also a list of membership the person is in.

There’s also title, for example, Ubunteros. To become an Ubunteros, you need to accept to comply with the Ubuntu Code of Conduct (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct), and sign the document. The easiest way to sign the document is to use GnuPG (http://linsec.ca/Using_GnuPG), a tool to encrypt and digitally sign your document. GnuPG is a program that generates two keys: the first one is private, to be kept one your computer, and it is used to decrypt message that are addressed to you, or to sign document. The second one is public and hosted on web server and everyone can use it to encrypt message that are addressed to you (decryptable only with the private key) and it can be used to verify a signature you made using the private key. In sum, it is a tool to certified that that the message come and goes to a specific email address.

So far, I’ve only participated in some translation. The first thing you need to do is to accept to put your work under the BSD license (open source copyright). It implies that anyone can use it and modify it without retribution. You cannot participate in translation if you don’t comply with this license.

After getting most of my work rejected, I discovered some web site where people organized themselves prior to work on the platform. The number of contributors in French translation is very large, and there’s little room for participation for newcomer. Also, next Ubuntu version is well advance in the process (1 month till it goes out) so most of the work has already been done.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

And here goes anonymity...

Taken from: Raymond, Eric S. 2001. How To Become A Hacker. http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html.

Finally, a few things not to do.

  • Don't use a silly, grandiose user ID or screen name. 
[...]

The only reputation you'll make doing any of these things is as a twit. Hackers have long memories — it could take you years to live your early blunders down enough to be accepted.

The problem with screen names or handles deserves some amplification. Concealing your identity behind a handle is a juvenile and silly behavior characteristic of crackers, warez d00dz, and other lower life forms. Hackers don't do this; they're proud of what they do and want it associated with their real names. So if you have a handle, drop it. In the hacker culture it will only mark you as a loser.

Hacker and Community, part 2/2: Defining Community

Writing about community reveals to be far more complicate than I firstly anticipated, maybe because I am trying to bit off more than what I can chew. I tried so far to enlace too many people in what I considered to be the F/OSS community. On one side, you have multiple “hackers’” community revolving around various projects, and on the other, you have users taking the most out of the system. They do share common goals: adapt the system to fit their needs. On the other hand, their practices to do so are completely different.

There is also the question of “space”. Do they share the same locus? Yes and no. Some platform and website are dedicated to development, while other are oriented for support and community chat. It is not rare to see “hacker” engaging himself on support and community forum and discussion list. After all, “hackers” are also users. On the other side, the open source nature of the various project make it easy for users to participate in various development task, e.g. doing translation. Hence the borders between those spaces are blurred by the flow of individual that goes from one to the other. Thus, “locus” can hardly be taken as criteria to delimit communities boundaries.

One of the interesting reading I made refer to Ubuntu hackers as a community of practice. Andreas Lloyd’s approach is very relevant. Here’s a big chunk of his thesis:

“In examining the Ubuntu hackers' day­to­day practices, I argue that the Ubuntu hackers’ shared use and development of the Ubuntu system constitutes a community of practice around their collaborative work and commitment to the project. By positing the Ubuntu community as a community of practice, I explore how the Ubuntu hackers are using new technical and social means to manage and share knowledge and skills on­line, and how these means of learning and sharing are reflected in the system itself. 

I argue that though the Ubuntu community offers complete access to every technical detail of the transparent system they develop, the social boundaries of this on­line community are defined through the active use and development of the system itself. Because of this, membership and participation in this community is gained through a shared history of learning the specialized knowledge and social norms this use and development requires, making the group of developers a meritocratic group joined only through dedicated collaborative work. Thus, despite the Ubuntu system solely consisting of free software, the freedom it offers can only be fully appreciated by hackers capable of developing it. For this group of hackers, the Ubuntu system is the all­encompassing means offering them the freedom to fulfil their diverse personal, social motivations for contributing to the system. By building a system that works for each of them individually, the Ubuntu hackers come to construct a system which reflects their practices. But they also seek to ensure that the Ubuntu system, as well as the community of practice through which it is built, is open to all, depending on the users’ willingness to invest the time and effort to scale the steep curve of learning necessary to adopt, learn, configure, and even build the system according to their own needs, and master the core practices and social norms required for membership. 

I argue that this shared practice and history of learning to collaboratively build and maintain the Ubuntu system results in a careful mutual trust in the hackers’ complementary abilities through which the integrity and solidity of the intricately complex Ubuntu system is guaranteed, and which the many users of the Ubuntu system come to rely on. And similarly, it is through this reciprocal trust that the diversity of motivations and conflicting interests within the community of practice is managed under the reciprocal big­man leadership and ethos of a few prominent and respected core Ubuntu developers.” (Lloyd, 2007 : 10-11)

While it covers well the hackers’ uses of Ubuntu, I feel it won’t suffice for my needs. In order to look at software as contestation tools against copyright, authorship and intellectual property, the concept of community of practice might be short of use. Some authors (Szczepanska et al., 2007) approach the community identity's question using a foucaultian analyze of discourse. They argue that discours provide understanding on how collective identity is created and communicated. 

“Developing discourses is vital for providing the members of the [open source] movement with a meaningful context that enables creative software development activities across organizational and geographical boundaries. People feel a bond with others not because they share the same interest, but because they need that bond in order to make sense of what they are doing. Discourses […] enable members of a community to affirm themselves as subjects of their action and parts of a collective action.” (Szczepanska et al., 2007: 433)


Contestation discourse might reveal lots of information on the community’s nature and the bonds that tie them. I expect contestation to be a pivotal element to define open source movement as a whole. In this sense, it might also tie together different members, users and hackers, in the same community.



References
  • Andreas, Lloyd. 2007. A System that Works for me: an anthropological analysis of computer hacker' shared use and development of the Ubuntu Linux system. Master's thesis, University of Copenhagen. Available here.
  • Szczepanska, Anna Maria, Magnus Bergquist, and Jan Ljungberg. 2007. High Noon at OS Corral: Duels and Shoot-Outs in Open Source Discourse. In Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, ed. Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A. Hissam, and Karim R. Lakhani. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Hacker and Community, part 1/2: Hacker vs Cracker

Before unpacking the information I have already collected (it seems I have more material to posts than time to write), it is essential to defined two key concepts. The first one is the concept of hacker, the main agents of free/open software development, and the second one, to answer rsrcher, the concept of community, how does it defined itself in a virtual context. This post is the first in a series of two: it will try to outline the hacker concept. The second post will concern the community part.

The “hackers” concept has been abusively over abuse by media over time, as noted in Cybermethods by Hellen Megens and Brian Martin:

“The meaning of the word "hacking" has changed over time. Originally it meant building hardware and software and was considered admirable. Media coverage has increased public awareness of hacking but changed the meaning in a negative way.” (Megens and Martin, 2003)


However, many maintain the original definition, explicitly the Free / Open Source Software developers. Many still call themselves hackers. According to the The Jargon File, also known as The New Hacker's Dictionary, hacker can be define as this:

“A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.” (Jargon File 4.4.3, 2003)


Also, the term hacker implies a person who follows the hacker's ethic code, describe in the Jargon File as followed:

“hacker ethic: n.

1. The belief that information-sharing is a powerful positive good, and that it is an ethical duty of hackers to share their expertise by writing open-source code and facilitating access to information and to computing resources wherever possible.

2. The belief that system-cracking for fun and exploration is ethically OK as long as the cracker commits no theft, vandalism, or breach of confidentiality.

Both of these normative ethical principles are widely, but by no means universally, accepted among hackers. Most hackers subscribe to the hacker ethic in sense 1, and many act on it by writing and giving away open-source software. A few go further and assert that all information should be free and any proprietary control of it is bad [...].

Sense 2 is more controversial: some people consider the act of cracking itself to be unethical, like breaking and entering. But the belief that ‘ethical’ cracking excludes destruction at least moderates the behavior of people who see themselves as ‘benign’ crackers [...]. On this view, it may be one of the highest forms of hackerly courtesy to (a) break into a system, and then (b) explain to the sysop, preferably by email from a superuser account, exactly how it was done and how the hole can be plugged — acting as an unpaid (and unsolicited) tiger team.

The most reliable manifestation of either version of the hacker ethic is that almost all hackers are actively willing to share technical tricks, software, and (where possible) computing resources with other hackers. Huge cooperative networks such as Usenet, FidoNet and the Internet itself can function without central control because of this trait; they both rely on and reinforce a sense of community that may be hackerdom's most valuable intangible asset.” (Jargon File 4.4.3, 2003)


Therefore, it is possible to understand the distinction between “hackers” and “crackers”. Eric S. Raymond, a notorious hacker, sums it simply:

“[H]ackers build things, crackers break them.” (Raymond, 2001)


In this definition hackers have little in common with what Raymond calls “cracker”. Media has mis-associate both together, but for the purpose of this project, I will use the hacker's term as F/OSS community understand it, i.e. as programmer who are drive by their desire to understand computer system and to share that knowledge to their community.


Reference:

Megens, Hellen, and Brian Martin. 2003. Cybermethods. First Monday. February 3. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1035/956.

Raymond, Eric S. 2001. How To Become A Hacker. http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html.

Raymond, Eric S. 2003, (Ed). The Jargon File, version 4.4.7. http://www.catb.org/jargon/.

Participant observation as a method

After some scouting on the Ubuntu forums, I've come to the point were participant observation need to kick in. I've located a working team that I will try to join as a regular member, and I will participate as much as I can in the free / open source projects. For ethical reason, I'll notify the group leader of my researcher's status. On another part, I will comply with their norm and behavior as much as it is possible for me. There are various requirements to join the team that I'll try to fill out. The inclusion process in itself will probably provide lots of information on what defined this group. This part will be my main objective for now and once inside the group, I'll see how I can contribute, and at the same time I hope to get a better understanding of the community..

On a different note, language is a key component in understanding how a community think and work. So last weekend, in a spontaneous excess of motivation, I've started learning a programming language. This experience is completely new to me, but already, I've learned many things about the community through this learning process. 

For someone who has never programs before, learning a code language involve more than reading a manual. You need to choose out a language to learn (oh yes, there's more than one!), why this one is relevant for the F / OSS community, you need to look for advice, for new module to include in your program and so on. When I made this decision, I hadn't realized how relevant this might be. Even if the main focus on this project will not be on programming language, I think the process of learning a language may provide insightful information. 

In sums, I start my investigation with those two paths: 

1- Getting accepted in a working group.
2- Learning coding language

The objectives in themselves are not relevant, the process is.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

List of questions

Back to the main purpose of this blog, I’ll list here the key questions and the focus I want to give to this project. Don’t expect those questions to be static and decisive. For now, they are simple milestone to guide this investigation.

The main objective of this research consists of understanding the free / open source community’s perception and use of software as a contestation tools against copyright, authorship and intellectual property. This question contain multiple parts:

1- Do the community perceives the F/OSS as contestation tools? By contestation tools, I mean a way to criticize and to pressurize the traditional software corporation and their ideology.

1.1- To achieve this task, I’ll need to understand and summarize what is the ideology behind proprietary software, and what about it pose problem to the F/OSS community.

2- If they do perceive the F/OSS as a contestation tools, how can they act accordingly? What action can they make to challenge the ideology that they stand up against? How do they use those tools?

2.1- What is the place of software as a mean of contestation?

2.2- What is the role of the community versus of the role of individual in this contestation?

This small collection of questions will guide my first step in the community. New questions may arise as I progress, while other may be left out. Nonetheless, it feel like a good base to start on.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

About Apple's DRM

I stumble upon this, which might clarified the question raised yesterday on the new DRM-free itune's song:
Does the lack of DRM mean that it’s okay to give copies of the songs I buy to my friends?

No, copyright law is still in effect—passing songs around is music piracy. However, the lack of DRM allows you as the consumer to be the judge of what’s right and what’s wrong, giving you a flexibility that DRM couldn’t. For example, imagine parents and kids co-mingling their music libraries. That seems absolutely fair to us, although in many cases quite unlikely. And if you opt to share your iTunes library on your local network, others can stream the songs you’ve purchased from the iTunes Store (currently people can see them, but if they double-click on a song to play it, they’re prompted to authorize their computers to be able to listen). But putting a song up on a file-sharing service and letting 20 of your friends download it? That’s now possible, but not exactly ethical. (And it’s fair to note that iTunes does embed your iTunes ID in every iTunes plus file you download, so it’s easy to see who bought the file originally.)

It is effectively easier to share song, but your name is tagged to the file so you cannot upload the song with impunity. You can check out the whole FAQ on 

On another note, I guess Apple remove the DRM because it was hard/impossible for legitimates customers to use their file the way they want while users of pirated version could use their material without restriction. In my opinion, DRM was encouraging piracy rather than hinder it. Buying music felt like a real rip off (it may still does though...)

The Anthropologist in mined fields


I think this is the "Table Ronde" Max Forte spoke of during last class. I just received the invitation, here it is for those interesed by the subject:




Altérités presents
ANTHROPOLOGISTS IN MINED FIELDS

Roundtable organized by Yara El-Ghadban and Kiven Strohm

Friday February 6, 2009 from 12h30 to 3h30 pm
Salle Marius Barbeau (C-3061), Département d’Anthropologie,
Université de Montréal

Moderator: Yara El-Ghadban, doctorante en anthropologie, Université de Montréal

INVITED SPEAKERS

Marie-Joëlle Zahar
Professeure agrégée, Science politique, Université de Montréal
Omar Dewachi
Post-doctorant en anthropologie, Université de Montréal
Abdel-Hamid Afana
President of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT)
Research Associate, Trauma and Global Health Program, Douglas Hospital Research Institute, McGill University
Kiven Strohm, doctorant en anthropologie, Université de Montréal
Maximilian Forte
Associate Professor, Sociology and Anthropology, Concordia University

DISCUSSANTS

Mariella Pandolfi
Professeure titulaire, Anthropologie, Université de Montréal
Nadia Proulx
Doctorante en anthropologie, Université de Montréal

A buffet will be offered during the event

FREE ENTRY

(please see poster below)


SUMMARY

L’intellectuel est peut-être une sorte de contre-mémoire possédant son propre contre-discours qui défend à la conscience de porter son regard ailleurs ou de s’endormir
– Edward Said 2005

Qu’est-ce que l’intellectuel, sinon celui qui travaille à ce que les autres n’aient pas tellement bonne conscience?
– Michel Foucault 1976


In many of Saïd and Foucault’s writings, the intellectual is called upon to keep a critical perspective by staying deliberately out-of-step with current events, in essence by offering a constant counterpoint to the immediacy of the present and its short-sightedness in order to think beyond the surface of things. However, those who undertake research in areas of conflict are often confronted with situations that expose the limits of such a position. In the middle of a conflict zone, the ethnographic text and critical reflection come face to face with the dictatorship of the present, the brutality of finitude, the fragility of human life and the imperative to respond to what seems inhumane, if only to survive.

In such a context, is critical thinking even possible? Being a form of sustained but non-reactive engagement that often occurs at a distance in time and space from the conflict zone, is critical thinking compatible with the acts of engagement that take place in areas of conflict? These are but some of the questions that we wish to discuss in the context of this roundtable, which brings together a range of researchers working in areas of conflict. The discussion will focus on the role of intellectuals in conflict zones with speakers invited to talk about their experiences and their reflections on the risks, challenges and different forms of commitment that working in such conditions inevitably implies. Finally, they are invited to share with the audience the dilemmas and second-thoughts (if there are any) that have shaped their experiences.

Issues covered in this event include :

- How is academic research practiced in areas of conflict?
- What are the risks and challenges of such a practice?
- What to do, as researchers, in the face of experiences that are unspeakable?
- Where do critical thinking and acts of engagement meet and at what point do they come apart?
- What are the traces left by the researchers when they leave these places?



Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Choice - F/OSS Community

Finally, I am fixed on one subject. Sadly, to choose one, is to let go many others. I guess I can't help it. If anyone of you is desperate to find an idea, I could provide a few ones. Maybe a dozen...

* * *

I will focus my ethnography on the free/open source community. Briefly stated, free/open source community is a grouping of developers and users of free/open source software (F/OSS). The particularity of such software is that they are distributed under terms that allow a user to use freely (as in free speech) his software.

The concept of freedom with computer software can be hard to grasp at first. To illustrate it, here's what I can read at the back of my Ubuntu CD, an open source operating system based on Linux:
"You are encouraged and legally entitled to copy, reinstall, modify, and redistribute this CD for yourself and your friends."
The focus point here is the community behind those software. These people, situated everywhere in the "meat world" regroup themselves on internet to work over project that they share with the rest of the world. This ideology contrasted with the mainstream business model of large software corporation such as Microsoft. Moreover, many members of this community see more in this movement than software development. Many see a way of life, a fight against propriety software, copyright holder and such. I want those members of the open source community to be at the center of my ethnographic project.

Open Source Ad on Youtube



The F/OSS community may be reach in a vast array of locations. For the purpose of this ethnography, I will start with the community section of the Ubuntu forums. Those forums were set up by community members that wanted to support fellow ubuntu users, and help each other improving their ubuntu experience. I chose this forum in particular for three reasons. I will then extend the research to the IRC chat room associate with this part of the forum.

1- As an ubuntu user, I am already familiar with other part of the forum (mainly the support part) where I asked for help and shared my little knowledge on the matter. I can't say that I am a very active member, I made a little over 100 posts over the past 3 years and my friend list is still empty.

2- The ubuntu forums in general are well regarded in the open source community. The members take pride in their openness and are really helpful. Harsh response to question such as "RTFM" (Read the Fucking Manuel) or "Google it" are frown upon, and most of the time, author of such comment get moderated.

3- I am not a programmer, nor a developer, let alone a hacker. I have absolutely no knowledge in the matter. On the other hand, I know that I will still have a place to participate in this community because of their respect for others and for their openness.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

FIRST!

I found this video lately. I think it is relevant to what we talked about in class yesterday. That's all for my first post.