Artículo en PDF

How to cite

Complete issue

More information about this article

Journal's homepage in redalyc.org

Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal

Civitas

Porto Alegre

v. 9

n. 1

p. 65-76

jan.-abr. 2009

Panayiota Georgopoulou*

Abstract:

At a time when private companies are inventing methods of “locking

information” and when neo-liberal governments are imposing strict sanctions on

those who violate intellectual property rights, the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS)

movement has been countering neo-liberalism and general privatization: it defes

ownership regulations in a key area of growth in contemporary capitalistic societies,

namely, the construction and use of information. At the end of the ‘90s, FOSS seemed

to be a disruptive and destabilizing force in terms of intellectual property and neo-

liberalism, yet as open software, it has evolved into a singular economic phenomenon

indicating that commercialization and fnancial gain can now exist without being

based on the notion of ownership. This may not be detrimental to capitalistic logic, but

broaden its prospects. By negating the ownership regime imposed on information and

putting the historical potential of the “economy of abundance” of the new digital world

to good use, is FOSS then laying down a plan for political resistance or showing the

way towards a potential transformation of capitalism? Perhaps the new conditions of

politics can be found in the heart of economy and in its transition towards an “economy

of abundance” in the digital world.

Keywords:

Copyright; Free information; Community; Free/Open Source Software; Economy

of abundance

Resumo:

Num momento em que as empresas privadas estão inventando modos de

“bloqueio de informação” e em que governos neo-liberais estão impondo sanções

severas para aqueles que violam os direitos de propriedade intelectual, o Movimento

de Software Livre/Aberto foi contra o neo-liberalismo e a privatização generalizada:

o movimento desafa regulações de propriedade em uma área-chave de crescimento

das sociedades capitalistas contemporâneas, a saber, a construção e utilização de

inFormações. No fnal dos anos 1990, o Movimento de SoFtware Livre/Aberto parecia

ser uma força desestabilizadora e perturbadora da propriedade intelectual e do

neo-liberalismo, ainda como software aberto, ele se transformou em um fenômeno

econômico singular, indicando que a comercialização e ganhos fnanceiros já podem

existir sem que se baseie no conceito de propriedade. Isto pode não ser prejudicial para

* Lecturer, Panteion University, Greece; e-mail: pgeorgop@panteion.gr

66

Civitas

, Porto Alegre, v. 9, n. 1, p. 65-76, jan.-abr. 2009

a lógica capitalista, mas alargar as suas perspectivas. Ao negar o regime de propriedade

imposto sobre a informação e ao colocar o potencial da “economia de abundância” do

novo mundo digital à disposição da boa utilização, o Movimento de Software Livre/

Aberto está desistindo de um plano de resistência política ou mostrando o caminho para

uma potencial transformação do capitalismo? Talvez as novas condições da política

podem ser encontradas no coração da economia e na sua transição em direção a uma

“economia de abundância” no mundo digital.

Palavras-chave:

Direito de propriedade; Liberdade de informação; Software Livre/Aberto,

Economia de abundância

Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) is an alternative model of software

development and distribution that is founded on principles of free exchange of

information and open collaboration. In contrast to the commercial, proprietary

software that is sold as a commodity, this software is free to be copied and

distributed. For example, one can go on-line and download it from of±cial

Internet sites at minimal or no cost. And unlike the commercial software

products, the source code, the script written by engineers and developers in

programming languages, is not hidden, black-boxed or private, but is free to be

read, modi±ed and re-distributed. Therefore, giving away and sharing source

codes promote collaborative social relations that are not regulated by the

possession or exchange of money or commodities, but are based on gift-giving

practices (Mauss, 1950/1999) in the on-line world. So, you write a piece of

software and make it available to the community. FOSS has been enormously

successful on the Internet. In fact, much of the underlying technology of

the Internet has been developed using free/open source software, such as

networking infrastructure, web servers and browsers. In this respect, the

success and the widespread growth of this model of freely sharing information

and keeping the source code of FOSS open have been discussed not simply in

technical terms, but as a politics, a critique, a social movement, a revolution

or even a “way of life” (Kelty, 2004).

At a time when information is treated as a commodity – books, music,

±lms, games, software are sold as such – and when governments are imposing

strict sanctions on those who violate intellectual property rights, the practices

of FOSS seem to be going in the opposite direction: they defy intellectual

property laws and regulations, challenge privatization and support community

activities and values in a key area of growth in contemporary capitalistic

societies, namely, the construction and use of digital information (Castells,

1989). My argument here is that in the age of transition from the industrial to

the Information Age (Castells, 1996), this model of free exchange and open

67

P. Georgopoulou – The free/open source software movement

collaboration via FOSS constitutes a political intervention in our society:

we are at pivotal point concerning the political struggle between contesting

political visions and interests over the digital world’s future. To understand the

logic of the political intervention of the FOSS movement, I will focus on two

questions. Firstly, where does the political signi±cance of this FOSS model

stem from? Secondly, what kinds of politics are inscribed in FOSS practices?

For our purposes, it will be instructive to refer to one of the most famous

Free/Open Source Software called GNU/Linux operating system, initiated by

Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds respectively.

The historical development of GNU/Linux

In the early 1980s, as a member of a group of programmers/researchers

in the Arti±cial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT (AI Lab) – one of the most

important hacker communities

1

–

Richard Stallman decided to go against

(Williams, 2002) the attempt of software companies to privatize the outcomes

of their research. What’s signi±cant here is the manner in which he legally

protected the GNU project (the initials stand for GNU Not Unix) and under

whose legal framework Linux was brought in the 1990s.

Continuing the tradition of considering knowledge a common good and

advocating its free circulation, Stallman supported that software, like any other

form of knowledge, constitutes a collective/common good that should be freely

shared by all humanity.

2

He thus decided to secure the legal rights of his project

in an unusual manner. With the help of a legal consultant, he composed what is

called the “General Public License (GPL)

3

for GNU. Any software published

under the legal license to use GPL Stallman named “free software”. While

protecting the intellectual rights of the software author, this license denies him

or her the right to ownership. In this way, GPL protects the user from any

technical or legal restrictions in using, distributing and modifying the software.

This also means that the programmers do not have any rights to ownership of

any modi±cations or improvements they may make on the already existing free

product.

On the contrary, they are obliged to submit the product to the “free

regime” of free software.

1

These communities sought not only to create computer programs but also to improve

them. These improvements were called hacks and their members hackers. One of the most

representative ones was MIT’s Al Lab, where Richard Stallman, an exemplary hacker, started

his struggle for the free use and distribution of software.

2

See the of±cial site of the Free Software Foundation GNU Project. R. Stallman, Freedom or

Copyright? (consulted November 2006) http//:gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html

3

See the of±cial site of the Free Software Foundation GNU Project. URL (consulted December

2008): www.gnu.org/licences/translations.html

68

Civitas

, Porto Alegre, v. 9, n. 1, p. 65-76, jan.-abr. 2009

In addition, the “General Public License” (GNU GPL) becomes even

more interesting under the following condition: it obliges anyone using a part

of the code published under the GPL license in his or her own program to

submit the whole program to the GPL, even if other parts of the program

fall under laws regarding intellectual rights. This means on the whole that

from the moment that GNU/Linux, as free/open software, is combined with

private software, it “infects” (Ceruzzi, 2006, p. 381) the proprietary regime

and the “closed” nature of the latter, transforming it into “free” software.

As opposed to what occurred in the software industry, where the advance of

capitalist logic imposed the privatization of knowledge and information, the

distribution and use of GNU/Linux under GPL has proved to this day to be

particularly “dangerous”: the aggressor here has switched sides and instead

of free software becoming privatized, it, in fact, turns against the world of

capitalist software production companies, incorporating the latter’s products

in the rationale of free software.

Given this hard-line policy, Stallman, along with other supporters,

founded a non-proFt organization in 1983 called ±ree Software ±oundation

(FSF), which undertook the promotion of free software, independent of GNU

and the GPL. From the very start, this organization broadened the terms

4

–

beyond the speciFc GPL license – according to which a program could acquire a

free software license. These terms focus on the software users and not the author,

allowing them the freedom to redistribute, modify or improve the software, and

became known as a legal system called copyleft, as opposed to copyright, which

promotes the rationale of privatizing knowledge or information, alluding to a

conservative political outlook (right-wing), with copyleft, Stallman reverses the

rationale regarding intellectual rights to the beneFt of the common good:

5

instead

of the software author or producer being legally protected, it is the rights and

liberties of the user that are safeguarded (Wark, 2004, p. [070]).

Information

now belongs to everyone. In this way, the principle of the availability and free

distribution of knowledge or information acquires legal and real validity; it

4

A program is free software if users are free to do all of the following:

• run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

• study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source

code is a precondition for this.

• redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2).

• improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole

community beneFts (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

See the ofFcial site of ±ree Software ±oundation for the text

The free software deFnition

, URL

(consulted December 2008) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

5

Stallman typically paraphrases “Copyright – All rights reserved” as “Copyleft – All rights

reversed”.

69

P. Georgopoulou – The free/open source software movement

becomes social practice through the use of free software and does not remain

at a mere utopian declaration.

Taking advantage of the potential of the Internet, in the early ‘90s, a

22-year-old Finnish programmer named Linus Torvalds created the Linux

program by means of collective teamwork. After writing the initial version

of Linux, he made his program freely available through the Internet without

any ±nancial or technical restrictions and urged users to contribute to its

improvement and development.

There was an immediate response to this

call and over the course of the decade Linux was developed and enhanced

by enthusiastic and dedicated groups of volunteer programmer/users all over

the world.

Thus, a program, which does not necessarily operate effectively, is

distributed and users are called upon to participate in its development. Now

having free access to the Linux source code, the users are transformed from

simple consumers into co-producers of the program, pinpointing the problems

and sometimes correcting them or adding new functions. In this way, the free

access to the source code allows for a decentralized and collective method

of developing software that is not directly dictated by criteria concerning its

potential ±nancial returns, but is based on the participants taking personal

pleasure in creating, openly collaborating and enjoying the team spirit

(Raymond, 1999).

The GNU and Linux programs are closely related. When Torvalds started

writing Linux, he based his work on Stallman’s and on GNU software tools.

From a technical standpoint, Stallman’s contribution was so signi±cant in the

creation of Linux that Stallman never ceases to point out that Linux should

be called GNU/Linux. Torvalds, in turn, was the one who placed Linux under

the legal protection of GNU GPL, something which de±ned its special and

radical nature in comparison to private companies’ closed operating systems,

which are legally bound by intellectual property rights. Since then Linux

has not stopped being enhanced with new functions and applications added

by thousands of anonymous user/programmers, who are connected through

cyberspace and labour creatively with no direct view to ±nancial gains.

The decentralized and collective organization of production (Raymond:

1999), which encourages collaborative solidarity and the willingness to give

and which became possible via the free/open access to the software source

code, makes Linux not only a successful technological achievement, but also

a signi±cant social phenomenon.

What renders it particularly interesting is

not only the promotion of a division of labour that overturns a centralized

organization of production, but also the fact the mobilization and participation

70

Civitas

, Porto Alegre, v. 9, n. 1, p. 65-76, jan.-abr. 2009

of the programmers worldwide has been motivated by the revival of

gift-giving practices and not direct Fnancial proFt.

These two signiFcant initiatives taken by Stallman and Torvalds, in tandem

with the communication possibilities of the Internet and the mobilization of

thousands of supporters worldwide, shaped the proFle of GNU/Linux as an

open source/free software and set the example for an alternative approach to

producing and distributing knowledge. The remarkable thing here is that the

product of this alternative approach – GNU/Linux – has become a threat to

Microsoft’s monopoly (Kerstetter et al., 2003, p. 78-84).

Τhe political signifcance oF the ±OSS Model:

the “economy of abundance”

What, however, are the reasons for the success of this model of free

exchange of information and open collaboration? And where does the political

signiFcance of this ±OSS model stem from? In my view, the real conditions

of FOSS alternative methods can be found in the “economy of abundance”,

a state that is an integral part of the production of information or knowledge.

In contrast to the principles of the classic economy of the scarcity of material

goods, where the material goods are limited and run out, when I give

information away, I don’t lose it and if I use it, I don’t destroy it (Lévy, 1999,

p. 73, GoldFnger, 1994).

By deFnition, information is incessantly reproductive

and inFnite. Therefore, if the scarcity of material goods creates an economy of

scarcity, the inFnite nature of information creates an economy of abundance.

In an economy of abundance that shapes information, the scarcity or lack

of information imposed by the intellectual property regime is entirely artiFcial.

If we can share information without losing it, the restrictions on access, use and

circulation imposed by privatization are no longer legally sound and become

provocatively artiFcial. ±or Stallman, the monopoly on information enjoyed

by software companies creates an artiFcial scarcity that is unethical (Williams,

2002).

SpeciFcally, in his text,

Freedom or Copyright?,

he claims that the

world has changed with digital technology. The new mode of distributing

information allows for the limitless and easy copying and processing of all

types of information and at the same time, the networked organization offers

limitless access to all types of information. The economy of abundance offered

by the digital world renders the sharing and free dissemination of knowledge

as objective, natural and beneFcial activities. In this way, the abolition of

the principle of intellectual property obeys the “natural” commands of the

new digital conditions and tenaciously hanging onto the proprietary model

71

P. Georgopoulou – The free/open source software movement

has become out-dated and reactionary, depriving the individual and society

as a whole of the beneFts of computer technology. In this respect, instead of

publishers, companies and governments following the natural demands of the

times, they artiFcially impose the intellectual property regime and penalize

the natural and socially beneFcial practice of freely sharing information. ±or

Stallman, the widespread use of digital technology by citizens will unavoidably

create the need to resist this now artiFcial (and not “natural”) intellectual

property regime. As he notes in the above-mentioned work

,

“Humanity will

not accept this yoke forever.” The potential vehicle of revolutionary change is

now the very use of digital technology.

6

Moreover, the imposition of the proprietary model in this Feld sti²es

creativity and the innovative character of information. Contrary to the economy

of scarcity of material goods, the use of information cannot be taken as the

destruction or loss of ideas, but as a gift of thoughts, whose free circulation

ensures the creative use of information. In other words, consumption is

productive (Lévy, 1999, p. 90-91). Using it activates an act of interpretation,

combining it with other knowledge and data or inventive solutions to problems.

Every time this happens, it is a small creation (Lévy, 1999, p. 77).

After all, the scientiFc community has long been functioning under the

conditions of the economy of abundance. Research results are published in

scientiFc journals, reviews and conferences, thus assisting the free dissemination

and circulation of knowledge, which has been proven to be the most efFcient

method of advancing knowledge (Hagstrom, 1982). In the same way, the free

and open character of software development plays a decisive role in advancing

the science of software. As Raymond notes, “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs

are shallow”

(1999). The locking of information that the proprietary regime

wants to impose goes against the improvement of software quality, essentially

sacriFcing the possibilities for creating or advancing knowledge. In other

words, we Fnd ourselves before a scarcity of innovation.

Finally, since the use of knowledge does not create phenomena of

deprivation or destruction, but instead promotes the creation of new knowledge,

social bonds and collaborations are created based on mutual interests and needs.

Desiring to broaden their horizons or solve speciFc problems, the information

6

From this point of view, the economy of scarcity that is produced by the intellectual proprietary

regime cannot compete with the abundance of the gift, which digital technology includes as

a potential condition (Barbrook, 2000, p. 21). Indeed, as it has become apparent from Internet

users, this practise speaks for a utopia of common free information, where information is

shared without one being deprived of it. As R. Barbrook (2000, p. 25) tellingly mentions,

regardless of Internet users’ political ideologies, they can participate in the activation of a

cyber-communism, seeking the digital overthrow of capitalism.

72

Civitas

, Porto Alegre, v. 9, n. 1, p. 65-76, jan.-abr. 2009

users can freely participate in the dissemination, processing and modiFcation

of information; essentially, they have nothing to lose and only knowledge

to gain. This possibility of gain without loss promotes the free exchange of

“knowledge gifts” and creates peer networks, encouraging a collaborative

mentality, sharing and solidarity amongst the participants.

The possibilities, therefore, of transcending intellectual property and

well as the emergence of a gift-giving culture can be found in the digital

world’s economy of abundance. Where the proprietary model insists on not

taking advantage of the potentialities of the economy of abundance, FOSS has

proceeded to make them a reality. Contrary, therefore, to the policy of Microsoft

or many other software Frms and governments which insist on subjecting

information to proprietary schemes, FOSS takes advantage of the historic

potentialities – and not the necessities – of the new digital world, creating a

scheme of political intervention. In other words, the political signiFcance of

the FOSS model can be found in activating the possibilities of the “economy

of abundance”.

What kinds of politics are inscribed in FOSS practices?

If the politics are rooted in the activation of the economy of abundance,

what kinds of politics are inscribed in practices of Free/Open Source Software?

Regarded as political intervention, the model of free information and

open, self-organized collaboration of FOSS indicates two plausible political

alternatives for the future of the Information Áge: a politics of resistance and

a politics of change or transformation of capitalism. Indeed, in the late 90’s,

after the remarkable boom in the number of FOSS users and developers, a

con±ict broke out between the “²ree Software” radical politics represented by

Stallman and the “Open Source Approach” as an alternative business model

for the economic development of digital capitalism. In fact, in 1998, the Open

Source Initiative (OSI) non-proFt organization was founded with the aim of

promoting “open source” software.

As a politics of resistance, for Stallman and the Free Software Foundation

(FSF) free information involves a democratic politics of promoting individual

freedom and community solidarity at the same time. While emphasizing the

political value of the free access to information, Stallman does not fail to point

out that the concept of the freedom of information should be understood in

the same way one understands freedom of speech, that is, as a cultural and

social value and one should not take it as having to do merely with economics

or technology. Stallman (1999) notes, “The GNU Project continues to use the

73

P. Georgopoulou – The free/open source software movement

term ‘free software’ to express the idea that freedom, not just technology, is

important.”

More speciFcally, the freedom of information can be equated with the

freedom of speech and individual expression, that is, “free” as in “free speech”

and not as in “free beer” (Stallman, “±ree Software DeFnition”). As in the

context of liberal political thought, censorship and excessive interventions

by the powers-that-be silence free speech and free expression. This results

in impoverishing individuality both intellectually and ethically, limiting the

range of options and lifestyles. In the same way, monopolizing information by

means of the proprietary regime deprives the individual of creativity, pleasure

and satisfaction; it limits the range of options and adopts the form of passive

compliance, leading to the smothering of free thought and expression. ±encing

information within the boundaries of ownership is what poses a threat to

individual freedom and self-realization. ±rom this viewpoint, copyleft ratiFes

the conditions that will allow freedom of speech and personal expression.

In addition, free information reinforces the community model as a

democratic alternative for the development of our society. In²uenced by the

liberalist, leftist leanings of the hippies in the late ‘60s, for Stallman, free

information is a political issue because it strengthens the bond between

individual freedom and a self-regulated and collaborative society that rules

out and considers the concentration of power and social control in the hands

of the few as hostile.

In contrast, the proprietary regime deprives society of

the potential of re-establishing social bonds based on solidarity and mutual

collaboration. More speciFcally, Stallman (1999) writes, “Computer users

should be free to modify programs to Ft their needs, and free to share software,

because helping other people is the basis of society.”

He also concedes that he

could have done nothing and just remained a mere programmer. “[But] I knew

that at the end of my career I would look back on years of building walls to

divide people and feel I had spent my life making the world a worse place.”

As a politics of change, Open Source Software points the way towards

a potential transformation of capitalism. For the supporters of open software,

the principle of free or open information is a more effective method of

developing innovations and improving the quality of programs in the face

of the conventional software industry (Perens, 2005). “The locking of ideas”

imposed by privately-owned software companies goes against improving the

quality of programs. Locking knowledge or information through ownership

essentially deprives one of the potential to create new knowledge or improve

the quality of existing programs. In the context of the economy of abundance

of information, the principle of free information and the open source business

74

Civitas

, Porto Alegre, v. 9, n. 1, p. 65-76, jan.-abr. 2009

mentality of extroversion and collaboration serves quality itself and innovation

in the construction of software (Raymond, 1999). In this way, the market

demands and the overall efFciency of the economy are served in the best

way. Contrary to the industrial age, a new logic emerges in the Information

Age: undermining the principle of ownership in the Feld of information is

not connected to the de-stabilization of the capitalist market as one might

simplistically surmise. It is, in fact, an unconventional means of promoting a

rationale of development (Mackenzie, 2001). In the same way, the revitalization

of a collaborative mentality and the gift-giving process does not contest proFt-

making logic; instead, it can become a signiFcant means for promoting it.

Today, web communities have become big business.

In this strain, the supporters of open sources software endeavour to

change the rules of the IT industry, seeking to win over the software market.

Thus, at the end of the ‘90s, open source software became a singular economic

phenomenon suggesting that commercialization and economic proFt can exist

without the proprietary regime.

More speciFcally, while the software itself

is free and can be freely downloaded from the corresponding websites, the

support and maintenance services as well as the distribution of informational

material on the use and installation of the program are not free or openly

accessible. This outlines a new Feld of commercial exploitation that generates

great proFts. Open source software companies, such as Redhat, VALinux

Systems and Mandrake are involved in this sort of economic activity and,

in fact, pay hackers to develop their software, which they subsequently

make freely available. In addition, major companies such as IBM, Apple, Sun

and Oracle, which in the past clung to operating systems that were locked

and bound by intellectual property rights, are now not only incorporating

open source software in their products but are also providing some of their

own software products as open source software. A resounding exception

in this change of course in large-scale software companies is Microsoft,

which continues to publicly renounce the phenomenon of free/open source

software.

In this context, the political question arises: Should the emerging

information capitalism be built in the image of the old industrial capitalist

economy? Or should it be built on the alternative business model of commodity/

gift hybrids? In the Frst case, intellectual property regimes are retained, thus

perpetuating the existing social order. Of course, this may endanger the

development of capitalism. In the second case, with the practice of gift-giving

as a new business model, existing social order is very possibly destabilized,

but the development of capitalism is preserved.

75

P. Georgopoulou – The free/open source software movement

Conclusion

By refusing to regard information as private property, FOSS takes

advantage of and puts into practice the historic potentialities of economy

of abundance. From this non-deterministic standpoint, FOSS makes a

political intervention in our society, in which information is the key area

of growth. With regard to the digital world’s future, which is not Fxed or

deterministic, we are at pivotal point concerning the political struggle between

the dominant and powerful commercial interests that advocate privatization

and commercialization on the one hand, and the FOSS movement that

supports a plan for political resistance or showing the way towards a potential

transformation of capitalism on the other hand. Perhaps the new conditions of

politics can be found in the heart of economy and in its transition towards an

economy of abundance in the digital world.

References

BARBROOK, Richard. Cyber-communism: how the Americans are superseding

capitalism in cyberspace.

Science as Culture.

v. 9, n. 1, p. 5-40, 2000

CASTELLS, Manuel.

The information city

, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989.

_____.

The information age: economy, society and culture

. v. 1: The rise of the network

society. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.

CERUZZI, Paul.

Ιστορία της Υπολογιστικής Τεχνολογίας.

Athens: Katoptro (Greek

translation), 2006. In the original,

A history of modern computing

(2

nd

edition),

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003.

GOLD±INGER, Charles.

L’utile et le futile

: l’économie de l’immatériel. Paris: Odile

Jacob, 1994.

±ree Software ±oundation GNU Project. Licenses, URL (consulted December 2008):

www.gnu.org/licences/translations.html

±ree Software ±oundation GNU Project. The ±ree Software

DeFnition, URL (consulted

December 2008)

HAGSTROM, Warren. Gift-giving as an organizing principle in science.

Science in

Context.

Barnes, Β. & Edge, D. (eds.). Stony Stanford: The Open University Press,

1982.

KELTY, Christofer. Culture’s open sources: software, copyright and cultural critique.

Anthropological Quarterly,

v.77, n. 3, p. 499-506, 2004.

KERSTETTER, Jim et al. The Linux uprising.

Business Week

, 3 Mar, p. 78-84, 2003.

LEVY, Pierre.

Δυνητική Πραγματικότητα: Η Φιλοσοφία του Πολιτισμού και του

Κυβερνοχώρου,

Athens: Kritiki, (Greek translation), 1999. In the original,

Qu’est-ce

que le virtuel?

Paris: Editions La Découverte, 1995.

76

Civitas

, Porto Alegre, v. 9, n. 1, p. 65-76, jan.-abr. 2009

MACKENZIE, Adrian. Open source software: when is it a tool? What is a commodity?

Science as Culture,

v. 10, n. 4, p. 541-552, 2001.

MAUSS, Marcel.

The gift

: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies.

London: Routedge, 1950/1999.

PERENS, Bruce. The emerging economic paradigm of open source.

First Monday

’s

Special Issue 2 Open Source: October 2005. URL (consulted December 2008), http://

Frstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1470/1385

RAYMOND, Eric.

The cathedral and the bazaar

: musings on Linux and open source

by an accidental revolutionary

.

Sebastopol: O’Reilly and Associates, 1999. URL

(consulted December 2008) www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar

STALLMAN, Richard. The GNU operating system and the Free Software Movement.

Open sources

: voices from the open source revolution, 1. ed. Jan. 1999. URL (consulted

December 2008) www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html

_____. Freedom or Copyright? URL (consulted November 2006) www.gnu.org/

philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html

WARK, McKenzie.

A hacker manifesto.

President and fellows of Harvard College,

2004.

WILLIAMS, Sam.

Free as in freedom

: Richard Stallman’s crusade for free software.

Sebastopol: O’Reilly, 2002. URL (consulted November 2008): www.oreilly.com/

openbook/freedom

Received

Jan. 06, 2009

Approved

Apr. 29, 2009