Biella Coleman: The Cultural Significance of Free Software
When it comes to research and writing, anthropologists are notorious for being slow as molasses. It takes, on average, 9 years to finish grad school and then another 3-6 years before you write and publish your first book. Such is the sometimes frustrating pace of academia. But sometimes it is worth the wait as this new book, Two Bits, the Cultural Significance of Free Software by the anthropologist of science and technology Chris Kelty, makes clear.
I am pretty intimate with the details of the book as ck was one of my dissertation committee members. I have read earlier versions and was fortunate enough to teach the final version to a small group of graduate students last spring. While there have been previous books on the subject of open source or peer-to-peer production more generally, this is the first book to delve deep, analytically and historically, into the cultural significance of free software. And the best part is that ck managed (I am not sure how but he did) to convince Duke University Press to release the whole book under a CC license. So download it to your heart’s delight and if you find it useful, do order a treeware copy (as you can’t beat that for easy and comfortable reading).
For the developers out there, I would suggest starting with the introduction, which provides an initial overview of some of the main themes he develops and then I would dig into part two where the historical chapters reside and then loop back to the theoretical chapters in part one or continue to part three.
Trust me, these will fascinate and surprise even those geeks with a relatively deep historical sense of this world. In fact, my very favorite academic piece on free software exists in these pages: and is the chapter on the history of the actual conflict between James Gosling and Richard Stallman that led to the creation of the GNU General Public License. Here is a small excerpt to whet your appetite:
In brief the controversy was this: in 1983 James Gosling decided to sell his version of EMACS a version written in C for UNIX called GOSMACS to a commercial software vendor called Unipress. GOSMACS, the second most famous implementation of EMACS (after Stallman s itself ), was written when Gosling was a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University. For years, Gosling had distributed GOSMACS by himself and had run a mailing list on Usenet, on which he answered queries and discussed extensions. Gosling had explicitly asked people not to redistribute the program, but to come back to him (or send interested parties to him directly) for new versions, making GOSMACS more of a benevolent dictatorship than a commune. Gosling maintained his authority, but graciously accepted revisions and bug-fixes and extensions from users, incorporating them into new releases. Stallman s system, by contrast, allowed users to distribute their extensions themselves, as well as have them included in the official EMACS. By 1983, Gosling had decided he was unable to effectively maintain and support GOSMACS a task he considered the proper role of a corporation.The story is a lively one, punctuated with some great e-mail “moments,” and gives you a play-by-play sense of how it is that free software become so entangled with the law and how the unwritten norms that guided sharing were violated to then become transformed, explicit, and written. The other chapter that will also fascinate those who want a deeper sense of this history is on UNIX and its role in creating the technical and collaborative conditions necessary to secure the explosion of free software years later. The story of the norms of sharing source code is, not by accident, writes Kelty, also the history of the UNIX operating system. This connection has been made by others but not shown in any historical detail as it is done in this book. For those interested in more anthropological issues, the first few chapters is where this type of more conceptual theorizing is at. Chris Kelty introduces the master trope of his book: the recursive public which is an idea that feeds into a longer academic debate, inaugurated by Jurgen Habermas, on the role of publicity, dialogue, and circulation of ideas and texts in cementing a democratic sphere. Many others, such as Charles Taylor, Michael Warner, and Nancy Fraser have since refigured and rehashed the meaning publics and public debate but there have been few ethnographies on the topic. It is here where Chris Kelty intervenes most forcefully to conceptualize publics in explicitly ethnographic terms and in an arena technology and the Internet which is often left undertheorized by cultural theorists. There is a lot more in the book (the third section examines some of the various political modulations of free software, such as Connexions and Creative Commons) but instead of saying any more, I will just leave you with his definition of a recursive public and again urge you to check out the book for yourself!
[ . . .]
Indeed, the general irony of this complicated situation was certainly not as evident as it might have been given the emotional tone of the debates: Stallman was using code from Gosling based on permission Gosling had given to Labalme, but Labalme had written code for Gosling which Gosling had commercialized without telling Labalme conceivably, but not likely, the same code. Furthermore, all of them were creating software that had been originally conceived in large part by Stallman (but based on ideas and work on TECO, an editor written twenty years before EMACS), who was now busy rewriting the very software Gosling had rewritten for UNIX. The once proud hacker ethic that Labalme mentions would thus amount not so much to an explicit belief in sharing so much as a fast-and-loose practice of making contributions and fixes without documenting them, giving oral permission to use and reuse, and losing records that may or may not have existed hardly a noble enterprise.
[. . .]
A recursive public is a public that is vitally concerned with the material and practical maintenance and modification of the technical, legal, practical, and conceptual means of its own existence as a public; it is a collective independent of other forms of constituted power and is capable of speaking to existing forms of power through the production of actually existing alternatives.

This passage
has been marked friends-only and you will not be able to view it
without logging in.
Moving hurriedly away from there, I headed upward. After a couple of
turns, I ran into Catholics. First there were dead Catholics. Then there
were Catholics pre-occupied with dead Catholics. Then there were
Catholics waiting to die. Then there were seminarians. Then there were
teens with prayer books. When I reached the next pinnacle, there were
more teens with prayer books. There were benches, and there were no
teens on them, for the teens were standing or sitting on the ground,
quietly contemplating the Word. Unfortunately, they had decided that
the benches were more suitable for holding all their bags, so there
was nowhere for me to sit.
I considered interrupting their reverie, but decided it wouldn't be very
Christian of me to disturb them, so I just placed an ancient Drasnian
curse on them and plodded down the hill toward a small beach. I really
didn't need any more sun, but at least there probably wouldn't be
anyone praying there.
The water was tempting, but I'm always paranoid about my belongings when
swimming alone, and if my phone were taken I wouldn't be able to call
anybody to come rescue me at the next crisis point, sure to come. So I
skirted the coastline and arrived at a much larger beach, one with
facilities and services.
Opting to save money but complicate things by using the public changing
rooms and showers, I made a discovery.
I knew this since quite a while, actually—most of the firefox
developers seem to developing for something else than what I use; but,
well, using something else isn't very appealing to me. Anyway, yesterday
the Iceweasel 3.0 update came on my laptop, and I couldn't help but
sigh. I hadn't tried anything, hadn't read any reviews, didn't know what
would happen; but given their track record, I expected only problems. I
wasn't disappointed. Or, well, I was, depending on how you look at
it.


I find it particularly annoying, when I write a mail to a list, like say, the
One of the traditional problems with power management has been balancing power savings against reduced functionality. The two traditional approaches to this have been to have sane defaults or to let the user tweak them, with a hybrid approach being to have sane defaults and an "advanced" box that lets users set their own parameters.
Yesterday, I again got a stupid thing like:
One thing that interested me was that part of the sign-up process requests that you select up to 10 words from the list above to describe yourself. Some of the words seem almost mandatory for anyone who is interested in what TED has to offer (I find it difficult to imagine someone declaring that they are not an “activist” or a “change agent” while wanting to be involved with TED in any way). The range of words also seems quite strange, there are some professions mixed with educational status, marital status, and religion. The way it is laid out would tend to encourage people to make a decision as to which aspects of their life are more important, is career, marital status, or religion more important?
Given the nature of TED I’m wondering whether the intentionally did a bad job of that part of the site design to encourage people to think about these issues.
It seems to me that a better way of doing this would be to provide a few suggestions and allow people to fill in text fields with their own values. Even defining marital status can require many choices and there is no limit to the number of religions and careers. If you try to make a comprehensive list then you will end up doing what
I spent Saturday at BarCamp Belfast. There were more people than I expected; I'm no good at judging exact numbers but the wiki lists 62. As it turned out not everyone ended up talking; this worked out well for me because I don't think I'm Web2.0 enough (is that a bit ironic given I'm writing this on a blog?). I don't really do user interfaces or website stuff and that seemed to be the primary focus of a lot of the attendees. Nice to know there's a fairly active crowd in

I didn't spot this when I wrote my last post,
but it seems there's a security alert for FF3
already -