000 10000001

10.1.ioobBfo I l
■■■Bnooi i

loilS OOO! i
J 101 LOK 1000 1000000
0000 1000 -->011011010
OOOTI 0 LMoOO 10 0 1 100
’OIJOM p i I ! 0 0 ! 00’
r I0L11QI iMMUDIGiO
3oo r i oo i o
i i ioi.jjdoAdiqio
00 1
! oc i laoeri T'iwiq

CYBERSECURITY
HACKER
Linux With
Little Trouble
These corporate efforts are largely welcomed by the open source world, but the
w elcome does not come with open arms or a great deal of warmth.

Source code with some restrictions is generally better than no source at ah, but
there is still a great deal of suspicion. Theo de Raadt, the leader of the OpenBSD
project, says, "Is that free? We will not look at Apple source code because we ll
have contaminated ourselves." De Raadt is probably overreacting, but he may
have reason to worry. AT&T's USE tied up the BSD project for more than a year
with a lawsuit that it eventually lost. Who knows what Apple could do to the
folks at OpenBSD if there were a some debate over whether some code should
be constrained by the Apple license? It’s just easier for everyone at OpenBSD to
avoid looking at the Apple code so they can be sure that the Apple license won’t
give some lawyers a toehold on OpenBSD’s code base.

Richard Stallman says, "Sun wants to be thought of as having joined our club,
without paying tire dues or complying with die public service requirements*
They want the users to settle for the fragments of freedom Sun will let them
have*"

He continues, "Sun has intentionally rejected the free software community by

without paying the dues or complying with the public service requirements.
They want the users to settle for the fragments of freedom Sun w i l l let them
have/'

Me continues, rl Sun has intentionally rejected the free software community by

using a license that is much too restrictive. You are not allowed to redistribute
modified versions of Sun’s Java software. I t is nor free software.”

16.1 FAT CATS A N D A L L E Y CATS

The corporations could also sow discord and grief by creating two different
classes: the haves and die have-nots. The people who work at the company and
draw a salary would gel paid for working on the software while others would get
a cheeiy grin and some thanks. Everyone's code would still be free, but some of
the contributors might get much more than others. In die past, everyone was just
hanging out on the Net and adding their contributions because it was fun.

This split is already growing. Red Hat software employs some of the major
Linux contributors like Alan Cox. They get a salary while the rest of the
contributors get nothing. Sun, Apple, and I B M employees get salaries, but folks
who work on Apache or the open versions of BSD get nothing but the
opportunity to hack cool code.
10.5 THE E V O L U T I O N OF B S D

The B S D license evolved along a strange legal path that was more like the
meandering of a drunken cow than the laser-like devotion of Stallman.

Many professors and students cut their teeth experimenting with U N I X on DEC
Vaxes that communicated w i t h old teletypes and dumb terminals. AT&T gave
Berkeley the source code to U N I X , and this allowed the students and professors
to add their instructions and features to die software. M u c h o f their insight into
operating system design and many o f their bug fixes made their way back to
AT&T, where they were incorporated in the next versions of UNIX. N o one
really thought twice about the source code being available because the shrink-
wrapped software market was still i n its infancy. The personal computer market
wasn't even born until the latter half o f the 1970s, and it took some time for
people to believe that source code was something for a company to withhold and
protect. In fact, many of the programs still weren’t being written i n higher-level
languages. The programmers would write instructions directly for the computer,
and while these often would include some instructions for humans, there was
wasn't even born until the latter half of the 1970s, and it took some time for
people to believe that source code was something f or a company to withhold and
protect. I n fact, many of the programs still weren't being written i n higher- 1eveI
languages. The programmers would write Instructions directly for the computer,
and while these often would include some instructions for humans, there was
little difference between what the humans wrote and the machine read.

After B i l l Joy and others at Berkeley started coming up with several good pieces
of software, other universities started asking for copies. A t the time, Joy
remembers, i t was considered a bit shabby for computer science researchers to
actually write software and share it with others. The academic departments were
filled with many professors who received their formal training in mathematics,
and they held the attitude that rigorous formal proofs and analysis were the ideal
form of research. Joy and several other students began rebelling by arguing that
creating working operating systems was essential experimental research. The
physics departments supported experimentalists and theorists,

So Joy began to "publish 11his code by sending out copies to other researchers
who wanted it. Although many professors and students at Berkeley added bits
and pieces to the software running on the DEC Vaxes, Joy was the one who
bundled it all together and gave it the name. Kirk McKusick says i n his history
of Berkeley UNIX, . interest i n the error recovery work i n the Pascal compiler
brought in requests for copies of the system. Early in 1977, Joy put together the
"Berkeley Software Distribution/ This first distribution included the Pascal
extra time and make donations to a free software project i f you want to make
sure that the final product fits your specs.

The good news is that most people don't have much incentive to break o f f and
fork their own project. I f you stay on the same team, then you can easily use all
the results produced by the other members. Cooperating is so much easier than
fighting that people have a big incentive to stay together. I f i t weren't so selfish,
i t would be heartwarming.

1. CORE

Projects i n corporations have managers who report to other managers who report
to the CEO who reports to the board. It's all very simple i n theory, although it
never really works that way i n practice. The lines o f control get crossed as
people form alliances and struggle to keep their bosses happy.

Projects i n the world o f open source software, on the other hand, give everyone a
copy of the source code and let them be the master of the code running on [heir
machine. Everyone gets to be the Board of Directors, the CEO, and the cubicle
people form alliances and struggle to keep their bosses happy.

Projects in the world of open source software, on the other band* give everyone a
copy of the source code and let them be the master of the code running on their
machine. Everyone gets to be the Board of Directors, the CEO, and the cubicle
serfs rolled into one. I f a free software user doesn't like something, then he has
the power to change it. You don't like that icon? Boom, it's gone. You don't want
KDE on your desktop? Whoosh, it's out of there. N o vice president in charge of
MSN marketing in Redmond is going to force you to have an icon for easy
connection to the Microsoft Network on your desktop, No graphic designer at
Apple is going to force you to look at that two-faced Picasso-esque MacOS logo
every morning of your life just because their marketing studies show that they
need to build a strong brand identity. You're the captain of your free software
ship and you decide the menu, the course, the arrangement of the deck chairs,
the placement of lookouts from which to watch for icebergs, the type of soap,
and the number of toothpicks per passenger to order. I n theory, you're the Lord
High Master and Most Exalted Ruler of all Software Big and Small, Wiki and
Wonderful, and Interpreted and Compiled on your machine.

I n practice, no one has the time to use all of that power. It's downright boring to
worry about soap and toothpicks. It’s exhausting to rebuild window systems
when they fail to meet your caviar-grade tastes in software.

No one has the disk space to maintain an Imelda Marcos-like collection of

That morning, Peter Jeremy’s message went out to everyone who subscribed to
the FreeBSD mailing list. Some users who cared about the Y2K bug could take
Jeremy's patch and use it to fix their software directly. They didn't need to wait
for some central bureaucracy to pass judgment o n the information. They didn't
need to wait for the Y 2 K guy at FreeBSD to get around to vetting the change.
Everyone could just insert die fix because they had all o f the source code
available to them,

Of course, most people never use all their freedoms. In this case, most people
didn't have to bother dealing w i t h Jeremy's patch because they waited for the
official version. The FreeBSD infrastructure absorbed the changes into its source
code vaults, and the changes appeared i n the next fully updated version. This
new complete version is where most people first started using the f i x . Jeremy is
a programmer who created a solution that was easy for other programmers to
use. Most people, however, aren't programmers, and they want their software to
be easy to use. Most programmers aren't even interested i n poking around inside
their machines. Everyone wants the solution to either fix itself or come as close
to that as possible.

Jeremv's messase was iust one of the hundreds percolating through the FreeBSD
be easy to use. Most programmers aren't even interested in poking around inside
their machines. Everyone wants the solution to either fix itself or come as close
to that as possible.

Jeremy's message was just one of the hundreds percolating through the FreeBSD
community that day. Some fell on deaf ears, some drew snotty comments, and a
few gathered some real attention. The mailing lists were fairly complex
ecologies where ideas blossomed and grew before they faded away and died.

Of course, it's not fair to categorize the FreeBSD world as a totally decentralized
anarchy. There is one central team led by one man, Jordan Hubbard, who
organizes the leadership of a core group of devoted programmers. The group
runs the website, maintains an up-to-date version of FreeBSD, and sponsors
dozens of lists devoted to different corners or features. One list focuses on
hooking up the fast high-performance SCSI hard disks that are popular with
people who demand high-performance systems. Another concentrates on
building in enough security to keep out attackers who might try to sneak in
through the Internet.

That January 14, a man i n Great Britain, Roger Hardiman, was helping a man in
Switzerland, Reto Trachsel, hook up a Hauppauge video card to his system.
They were communicating on the Multimedia mailing list devoted to finding
ways to add audio and video functions to FreeBSD systems, Trachsel posted a
note to the list asking for information on how to find the driver software that
requirement. The G N U Public License is much stricter, but only if you want to
change, modify, and distribute the code. In that case, you're only prevented from
keeping these changes a secret. That's not a b i g problem for most o f us.

Other licenses are even more stricter One Microsoft license prevents the
programmer from trying to figure out how the software works inside by saying
"LICENSEE may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble Microsoft
Agent," These clauses are popular and found i n many software licenses. The
company lawyers argue that they ostensibly prevent people from stealing the
secrets that are bound up i n the software.

These licenses have been interpreted i n different ways. The video game maker
Accolade, for instance, won its case against the manufacturer Sega by arguing
that reverse engineering was the only way to create a clone. I f companies
couldn't done, there would be n o free market. On the other hand, Connectix lost
some of the early court battles when Sony sued them for creating a software
clone o f the PlayStation. The judge decided that Connectix had violated Sony's
copyright when they made a copy to study for reverse engineering. I n February
2000, an appeals court struck down this ruling, freeing Connectix to sell the
emulator asain. B v the time vou read this, the legal landscape w i l l orobablv have
some of the early court battles when Sony sued them for creating a software
clone of the PlayStation. The judge decided that Connectix had violated Sony's
copyright when they made a copy to study for reverse engineering. In February
2000, an appeals court struck down this ruling, freeing Connectix to sell the
emulator again. By the time you read this, the legal landscape w i l l probably have
changed again.

In practice, license clauses like this only hurt the honest programmers who are
trying to deal with a nasty bug. Most people don't want to steal secrets, they just
want to be able to make their software work correctly. Decompiling or
disassembling the code is a good way to figure out exactly what is going on
inside the software. I t can save hours and plenty of grief.

The license even borders on the absurd because the phrase "reverse engineer" is
so ambiguous, i t may be possible to argue that just learning to use a piece of
software is reverse engineering it. Learning how a feature works means learning
to predict what it w i l l do. i n many cases, the bugs and the glitches i n software
mean that the features are often a bit unpredictable and only a bit of black-box
reverse engineering can teach us how they work. That's not much different from
learning the steps that happen inside. Fiddling with shrink-wrapped software is
like fiddling with a black box.

Imagine that General Motors or Ford sold their cars with such a donot- reverse-
engineer license. They would either weld the hood shut or add on a special lock
7,3 AT&T NOTICES THE D A M A G E

Soon after Network Release 2 hit the world, the real problems began for BSD.
While AT&T didn't really notice 386BSD, NetBSD, o r FreeBSD, they did notice
a company called Berkeley Software Design Incorporated, This corporation
created their own OS by taking Network Release 2 and adding their o w n
versions of the missing six files, but they didn't release this for free on the Net.
They started putting advertisements in the trade press offering the source code
for $995, a price they claimed was a huge discount over AT&T's charge.

The modem, post-internet reader should find this hilarious, Two to three groups
and countless splinter factions were distributing the B S D software over the
Internet for free and this didn’t seem to catch AT&T's attention, but the
emergence o f BSD1 selling the same product for almost $1,000 rang alarm bells.
That was the time, though, before the Internet infrastructure became ubiquitous.
In the early 1990s, people only halfjoked that FedEx was the most efficient
internet Service Provider around. I t was much faster to copy hundreds of
megabytes of data onto a magnetic tape and drop it i n FedEx than to actually try
emei ence of ESDI selling the same product for almost $1,000 rang alarm bells.
That was the time, though, before the Internet infrastructure became ubiquitous.
I n the early 1990s. people only halfjoked that FedEx was the most efficient
internet Service Provider around. K was much faster to copy hundreds of
megabytes of data onto a magnetic tape and drop it in FedEx than to actually try
to copy it over the Internet. Back then only real nerds were on the Internet.
Managers and lawyers wore suits and got their news from the trade press and
advertisements.

BSD Rs cost-cutting was a major headache for AT&T. This small company was
selling a product that AT&T felt it had shepherded, organized, and coordinated
over time.

AT&T started off by claiming U N I X as a trademark and threatening ESDI with

infringing upon it. B S D ! countered by changing the ads to emphasize that BSDI
was a separate company that wasn't related to AT&T or the subsidiary AT&T
created to market U N I X known as UNIX System Laboratories, or USL.

That didn't work, USL saw its cash cow melting away and assumed folks would
jump at the chance to buy a complete OS with all the source code for $995. The
price seems outrageously high today, but that's only after the stiff price
competition of the 1990$. It was still a good deal at the time. So USL sued B S D I
for actually stealing proprietary source code from AT&T.

This argument didn’t work, either. BSD! turned around and waved the Network
 TG CC] is a compiler tool and it was used by developers so they were smart
enough. When something bothered someone, we fixed it. There was a very tight
coupling," he said.

H e openly wonders, though, whether the average word processor or basic tool
user will be able to do anything. H e says, ’'The downside is that it’s hard to
transfer that knowledge w i t h a user who isn't a developer* Let's say Quicken has
a special feature for lawyers. You need to have a more formal model because the
lawyers aren’t developers, (We re fortunate i n that regard.)”

That is, lawyers aren't schooled enough i n the guts of computer development to
complain i n the right way. A programmer could say, ” G C C is optimizing away
too much dead code that isn't really dead." Other folks i n the G C C community
would know what is going o n and be able to f i x it. A lawyer might just say,
"Quicken screwed up my billing and had me billing twenty-six hours i n a day."
This wouldn't pinpoint the problem enough for people to solve it. The lawyer
doesn’t understand the inside o f the software like the programmer.

i n situations like this, Henkel-Wallace believes that a corporate-style team may

be the only one that can study the problems thoroughly enough to find solutions*
This wouldn't pinpoint the problem enough for people to solve it. The lawyer
doesn't understand the inside of the software like the programmer.

i n situations like this, Henkel-Wallace believes that a corporate-style team may

be die only one that can study the problems the roughly enough to find solutions.
Intuit, the manufacturer of Quicken, is well known for videotaping many
standard users who use their product for the first time. This allows them to
pinpoint rough spots in the program and identify places where it could be
improved. This relentless smoothing and polishing has made the product one of
the best-known and widely used tools on desktops. I t isn't clear that non-
programmers could have accomplished the same quality by working together
with the Source at their disposal.

11.5 THE SOURCE A N D THE L A N G U A G E THAT WE SPEAK

There are deeper, more philosophical currents to the open source world. The
personal computer industry is only a few decades old. While it has advanced
rapidly and solved many problems, there is still very little understanding of the
field and what it takes to make a computer easy to use. This has been the great
struggle, and the free source world may be an essential pan of this trip.

Tim O'Reilly, the publisher of many books and a vocal proponent of the open
source world, says, ” We've gone through this period of thinking of programs as
would make sure that the data coming out of the Hauppauge television receiver
would be generally available to the rest of the computer. Hardiman pointed out a
solution, but cautioned, " I f your Hauppauge card has the MSP34xx Stereo
Decoder audio chip, you may get no sound when watching TV. I should get this
fixed in the next week or two."

Solutions like these float around the FreeBSD community. Most people don't
really care i f they can watch television with their computer, but a few do. The
easy access to source code and drivers means that the few can go off and do their
own thing without asking some major company for permission. The b i g
companies like Microsoft and Apple, for instance, have internal projects that are
producing impressive software for creating and displaying multimedia
extravaganzas on computers. But they have a strict view of the world: the
company is the producer of high-quality tools that make their way to the
consumer who uses them and pays for (hem i n one way or another.

The list ecology is more organic and anti-hierarchical. Everyone has access to
the source code. Everyone can make changes. Everyone can do what they want.
There is no need for the FreeBSD management to meet and decide "Multimedia
is £ood." There is no need for a nroiect team to prioritize and list action items
The list ecology is more organic and anti-hierarchical. Everyone has access to
the source code. Everyone can make changes. Everyone can do what they want.
There is no need for the FreeBSD management to meet and decide 'Multimedia
is good. 1’ There is no need for a project team to prioritize and list action items
and bcsc-of-brced deliverables. Someone in Switzerland decides he wants to
hook up a television receiver to his computer and, what do you know, someone
in Great Britain has already solved the problem. Well, he's solved it i f you don’t
have an MSP34xx stereo decoder chip in your card. But that should be fixed
sooner or later, too.

4.1 FREE DOESN'T M E A N FREELOAD1NG

There are thousands of other mailing lists linking thousands of other projects. It's
hard to actually put a number to them because the projects grow, merge, and fade
as people's interests wax and wane. The best flourish, and the others just drift
away.

L i f e on the mailing lists is often a bit more brutal and short than life on earth.
The work on the project needs to split up. The volunteers need to organize
themselves so that great software can be written.

On that January 14, a new member of the W I N E list was learning just how
ego. It may not be fair to lump all of the serfs i n the corporate cubicle farms in
Redmond into one big army of automatons, but it sure conjures a striking image
that isn’t altogether inaccurate. Microsoft employees are fiercely loyal and often
more dedicated to the cause than the average worker bee. B i l l Gates built the
company from scratch with the help o f several college friends, and this group
maintains tight control over all parts o f the empire. The flavor of the
organization is set by one man w i t h the mind and the ego to micromanage it all.

N o w consider the image of the members of the free software revolution.

Practically every newspaper article and colorful feature describing the group
talks about a ragtag army of scruffy, bearded programmers who are just a bit too
pale from spending their days in front of a computer screen. The writers love to
conjure up a picture of a group that looks like it came stumbling out of some
dystopian fantasy movie like M a d M a x or A B o y and His Dog. They’re the
outsiders. They're a tightly knit band of rebel outcasts who are planning to free
the people from their Microsoft slavery and return to the people the power
usurped by Mr. Gates. What do they want? Freedom! When do they want it?
Now!

There’s only one problem w i t h this tidv. H o l l y wood- readv image: it's far from
the people from their Microsoft slavery and return io the people the power
usurped by Mr. Gates. What do they want? Freedom! When do they want it?
Now!

There's only one problem with this tidy, Hollywood -ready image: it's far from
true. While Microsoft is one big corporation with reins of control that keep
everyone in line, there is no strong or even weak organization that binds the
world of open source software. The movement, if it could be called that, is
comprised of individuals, each one free to do whatever he wants with the
software. That’s the point: no more shackles. No more corporate hegemony Just
pure source code that runs fast, clean, and light, straight through the night.

This doesn't mean that the image is ah wrong. Some of the luminaries like
Richard Stallman and Alan Cox have been known to sport long, Rip van Winkle-
grade beards. Some folks are strikingly pale. A few could bathe a bit more
frequently. Caffeine is a bit too popular with them. Some people look as i f they
were targets for derision by the Idiots on the high school football team.

But there arc many counterexamples. Linus Torvalds drives a Pontiac and lives
i n a respectable home with a wife and two children. He works during the day at a
big company and spends his evenings shopping and doing errands. His life
would be perfectly categorized as late 1950s sitcom if his wife, Tove, weren't a
former Finnish karate champion and trucks weren’t driving up to his house to
deliver top-of-the-line computers like a 200-pound monstrosity with four Xeon
college, graduate with a business degree, and turn respectable. Eric Allman, for
instance, is trying to build a commercial version of his popular free package
Sendmail. The free version w i l l still be free, but y o u can get a nicer interface and
some cooler features for managing accounts i f you buy in. I f things work out,
some of die folks with the free version w i l l want a l l of the extra features he’s
tacking on and they’ll pay him. No one knows what this w i l l do to the long-term
development of Sendmail, of course. Will he only make newr improvements in
the proprietary code? W i l l other folks stop contributing to the project because
they see a company involved? There's some evidence that Allman's not the same
guy who hung around the pizza joint. When I contacted h i m for an interview, he
passed me along to his public relations expert, who wrote back wanting to ’’make
sure this is a profitable way to spend Eric's time.” For all we know, Eric may
have even been wearing a suit when he hired a corporate PR team.

Some o f the other free software folks are going to get married. The Apache
group has leveraged its success w i t h small server organizations into connections
with the best companies selling high-powered products. IBM is now a f i r m
supporter of Apache, and they inn it on many of their systems. Brian Behlendorf
still schedules his o w n appointments, jokes often, and speaks freely about his
v i s i o n for Anarhp hut hpk <;prinii(; anv marripd man w i t h *jpvpral k i r k tn
group has leveraged its success with small server organizations into connections
with the best companies selling high-powered products. I B M is now a firm
supporter of Apache, and they run i t on many of their systems. Brian Behlendorf
still schedules his own appointments, jokes often, and speaks freely about his
vision for Apache, but he's as serious as any married man with several kids to
support. It's not just about serving up a few web pages filled with song lyrics or
Star Wars trivia. People are using Apache for business-serious business. There
can still be fun, but Apache needs to be even more certain that they're not
screwing up.

And of course there are thousands of free software projects that are going to get
left behind hanging out at the same old pizza joint. There were always going to
be thousands left behind. People gel excited about new projects, better protocols,
and neater code all the time. The old code just sort of withers away. Occasionally
someone rediscovers it, but it is usually just forgotten and superseded. But this
natural evolution wasn't painful until the successful projects started ending up on
the covers of magazines and generating million-dollar deals with venture
capitalists. People will always be wondering why their project isn't as b i g as
Linux.

There will also be thousands of almost great projects that just sail on being
almost great. All of the distributions come with lots of programs that do some
neat things. But there's no way that the spotlight can be bright enough to cover
them all. There w i l l be only one Torvalds and everyone is just going to be happy
"Regardless of open source, programs will become really cheap. Any industry
goes through three phases. First, there's the development of features people need.
Then there’s the fri lls-andupgrade phase, when people buy i t because i t looks
cool. Then there’s the everybody -takes- it- for-granted phase. This is when i t
becomes a commodity. Well, we're still i n the look-cool-and-upgrade stage. In 10
or 15 years you'll be happy with software that's 5 years old. Open source is one
sign that we're moving i n that direction.'1

In this light, the free software revolution isn't really a revolution at all. it's just
the marketplace responding to the overly greedy approaches of some software
companies. It's just a return to the good old days when buying something meant
that you owned it, not that you just signed on as a son of enlightened slave of the
system.

1. NATIONS
The way to transfer wealth from project to project is something that the free
software world doesn't understand well, but it has a good start. Microsoft struck
i t rich with DOS and used that money to build Windows. Now it has been
frantically trying to use this cash cow to create other new businesses. They push
MSN, the Microsoft Network, and hope it w i l l stomp A O L . They've built many
content-delivery vehicles l i k e Slate and M S N B C . They've created data-
manipulation businesses l i k e Travelocity. B i l l Gates can simply dream a dream
and put 10,000 programmers to work creating i t . H e has serious intellectual
liquidity.

I n this sense, the battle between free and proprietary software development is
one between pure giving and strong liquidity. The GPL world gives with no
expectation of return and finds that it often gets a return of a thousand times
back from a grateful world of programmers. The proprietary world, on the other
hand, can take its profits and redirect them quickly to take on another project. It's
a battle of the speed o f easy, unfettered, open source cooperation versus the
lightning speed of money flowing to make things work.

O f course, companies like Red Hat l i e i n a middle ground. The company charges
money for support and olows this money back into inrorovine the product. I t
a battle of the speed of easy, unfettered, open source cooperation versus the
lightning speed of money flowing to make things work.

Of course, companies like Red Hat lie i n a middle ground. The company charges
money for support and plows this money back into improving the product. I t
pays several engineers to devote their time to improving the entire Linux
product. It markets its work well and is able to charge a premium for what
people are able to get for free.

No one knows i f the way chosen by companies like Red Hat and Caldera and
groups like the Free Software Foundation is going to be successful in the long
run, Competition can be a very effective way of driving down the price of a
product. Some worry that Red Hat w i l l eventually be driven out of business by
cheap $2 CDs that rip off the latest distribution. For now, though, the success of
these companies shows that people are willing to pay for hand-holding that
works well.

A deeper question is whether the open or proprietaiy model does a better job of
creating a world where we want to live. Satisfying our wants is the ultimate
measure of a wealthy society, Computers, cyberspace, and the Internet are
rapidly taking up a larger and larger pan of people's time. Television viewership
is dropping, often dramatically, as people turn to life online. I he time spent in
cyberspace is going to be important, _ l Stallman wrote in B Y T E magazine in
1986, I'm trying to change the way people approach knowledge and information
both sides. IBM wondered how they could get something without paying for it,
and Apache wondered whether IBM would come in and simply absorb Apache.

"There were questions about it from the Apache side dial any sort o f I B M
partnership would make it seem as i f I B M had acquired Apache. It was
something that Apache didn't want to see happen or seem to see happen,” Coar
said.

Today, Coar says I B M tries to participate i n the Apache project as a peer. Some
o f the code I B M develops will flow into the group and other bits may remain
proprietary. When the Apache group incorporated, Coar and another I B M
employee, Ken Stoddard, were members. This sort o f long-term involvement can
help ensure that the Apache group doesn't start developing the server i n ways
that w i l l hurt its performance on I B M ' s machine. If you pay several guys who
contribute frequently to the project, you can be certain that your needs w i l l be
heard by die group. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it can buy a substantial
amount of goodwill.

Of course, it's important to realize that the Apache group was always fairly
business-oriented. Many o f the original developers ran web servers and wanted
heaid by the g i o up. I t doesn't guarantee anything, but it can buy a substantial
amount of goodwill.

O f course, it's important to realize that the Apache group was always fairly
businesS’Oriented. Many o f the original developers ran web servers and wanted
access to the source code. They made money by selling the service of
maintaining a website t o the customers, not a shrink-wrapped copy of Apache
itself. The deal w i t h I B M didn’t mean that Apache changed many of its ways; i t
just started w o r k i n g w i t h some bigger fish.

At first glance, each of these examples doesn't really suggest that the coming o f
the corporations is going to change much i n the free source world. Many o f the
changes were made long ago when people realized that some money f l o w i n g
around made the free software world a much better place. The strongest
principles s t i l l survive: (1) hackers thrive when the source code is available, and
(2) people can create their o w n versions al w i l l .

The arrival o f companies like I B M doesn't change this. The core Apache Code is
still available and still running smoothly. The modules still plug i n and work
well. There’s no code that requires I B M hardware to run and the committee
seems determined to make sure (hat any I B M takeover doesn't occur I n fact, it
still seems to be in everyone's best interest to keep the old development model.
The marketplace loves standards, and I B M could sell many machines just
offering a standard version of Apache. When the customers walk i n looking for a
The good news is that free source software is well positioned to fix these
problems. Distributing the source code with the software lets others do their best
to keep the software running i n a changing environment. John Gilmore, for
instance, says that he now embraces the GPL because earlier experiments w i t h
totally free software created versions without accompanying source code.

The bad news is that Gilder has a point about capital formation. Richard
Stallman d i d a great job writing Emacs and GCC, but the accolades weren't as
easy to spend as cash. Stallman was like the guy with a pile o f whale meat i n his
front yard. He could feast for a bit, but you can only eat so much whale meat.
Stallman could edit all day and night with Emacs. H e could revel i n the neat
features and cool Emacs LISP hacks that friends and disciples would contribute
back to the project. But he couldn't translate that pile of whale meat into a free
OS that would let h i m throw away U N I X and Windows.

While Stallman didn't have monetary capital, he did have plenty of intellectual
capital. By 1991, his G N U project had built many well respected tools that were
among the best in their class. Torvalds had a great example of what the GPL
could do before he chose to protect his Linux kernel w i t h the license. H e also
had a great set of tools that the GNU project created.
While Stallman didn’t have monetaiy capital, he did have plenty of intellectual
capital. By 1991, his G N U project had built many well respected tools that were
among the best i n their class. Torvalds had a great example o f what the GPL
could do before he chose to protect his Linux kernel with the license. He also
had a great set of tools that the GNU project created.

The G N U project and the Free Software Foundation were able to raise money
just on the strength of their software. Emacs and GCC opened doors. People
gave money that flowed through to the programmers. While there was no cash
flow from software sales, the project found that it could still function quite well.

Stallman's reputation also can be worth more than money when it opens the right
doors. He continues to be blessed by the implicit support of MIT, and many
young programmers are proud to contribute their work to his projects. It's a
badge of honor to be associated with either Linux or the Free Software
Foundation. Programmers often list these details on their r sum s, and (he facts
have weight.

Lhe reputation also helps him start new projects. 1 could write the skeleton of a
new double-rotating, buzzword-enhanced editor, label it "Pete MACS," and post
it to the Net hoping everyone would love it, fix it, and extend it. It could happen.
But I'm sure that Stallman would find it much easier to grab the hearts, minds,
and spare cycles of programmers because he’s got a great reputation. That may
not be as liquid as money, but i t can be better.
when it needed a plausible competitor They would be more famous.

But that's crying over spilled m i l k . The Berkeley CSRG lived a life o f relative
luxury i n their world made fat w i t h b i g corporate and government donations.
They took the cash, and i t was only a matter of time before someone called them
o n i t Yes, they won in the end, but it came too late. Torvalds was already out of
the gate and attracting more disciples.

McKusick says, " I f you plot the installation base of Linux and B S D over the last
five years, you'll see that they're both in exponential growth. B u t BSD’s about
eighteen to twenty months behind. That's about how long i t took between Net
Release 2 and the unencumbered 4.4BSD-Lite. That’s about how long i t took for
the court system to do its job."

1, G R O W T H

Through the 1990s, the little toy operating system grew slowly and quietly as
more and more programmers were drawn into the vortex. A t the beginning, the
OS wasn't rich with features. You could run several different programs at once,
Through the 1990s, the little toy operating system grew slowly and quietly as
more and more programmers were drawn into the vortex. At the beginning, the
OS wasn't rich with features. You could run several different programs at once,
but you couldn't do much with the programs. The system's interface was just
text. Still, this was often good enough for a few folks in labs around the world.
Some just enjoyed playing with computers. Getting Linux running on their PC
was a challenge, not unlike bolting an aftermarket supercharger onto a Honda
Civic. But others look the project more seriously because they had serious jobs
that couldn't be solved with a proprietary operating system that came from
Microsoft or others.

i n time, more people started using the system and started contributing their
additions to the pot. Someone figured out how to make M l T s free X Window
System run on Linux so everyone could have a graphical Interface. Someone
else discovered how to roll in technology for interfacing with the Internet. That
made a big difference because everyone could hack, tweak, and fiddle with the
code and then just upload the new versions to the Net.

I t goes without saying that all the cool software coming out of Stallman's Free
Software Foundation found its way to Linux. Some were simple toys like G N L1
Chess, but others were serious tools that were essential to the growth of the
project. By 1991, the FSF was offering what might be argued were the best text
away--it just makes it a bit easier for someone else to dig into a program to see
what's going wrong. The source code may just be a list of instructions written in
a programming language that is designed to be readable by humans, but that
doesn’t mean that i t is easy to understand, I n fact, most humans won t figure out
most source code because programming languages are designed to be understood
by other programmers, not die general population.

To make matters worse, programmers themselves have a hard time

understanding source code. Computer programs are often quite complicated and
it can take days, weeks, and even months to understand what a strange piece o f
source code is telling a computer to do. Learning what is happening i n a program
can be a complicated job for even the best programmers, and it is not something
that is taken lightly.

W h i l e many programmers and members of the open source world are quick to
praise the movement, they will also be able to cite problems with the myth of die
Source. It isn't that the Source doesn't work, they'll say, it's just that it rarely
works anywhere near as well as the hype implies. The blooms are rarely as
vigorous and the free markets in improvements are rarely as liquid.
praise the movement, they will also be able to cite problems with the myth of the
Source. I t isn't that the Source doesn't work, they1!] say, it's just that it rarely
works anywhere near as well as the hype implies, rhe blooms are rarely as
vigorous anth he free markets in improvements are rarely as liquid,

Larry McVoy, an avid programmer, proto-academic, and developer of the

BitKeeper toolkit, likes to find fault with the model. It isn't that he doesn't like
sharing source code, it's just that he isn't wealthy enough to take on free software
projects. "We need to find a way for people to develop free software and pay
their mortgages and raise a family," he says.

" I f you look closely," he says, "there really isn’t a bazaar. At the top it’s always a
one-persoii cathedral, h's either Linus, Stallman, or someone else." That is, the
myth of a bazaar as a wide-open, free-for-all of competition isn’t exactly true.
Sure, everyone can download the source code, diddle with it, and make
suggestions, but al the end of the day it matters what Torvalds, Stallman, or
someone else says. There is always a great architect of Chartres lording it over
his domain.

Part of this problem is the success of Raymond's metaphor. He said lie just
wanted to give the community some tools to understand the success of Linux
and reason about it. But his two visions of a cathedral and a bazaar had such a
clarity that people concentrated more on dividing the world into cathedrals and
bazaars. I n reality, there’s a groat deal of blending in between. The most efficient
the editors of the influential website Slashdot (www.slashdot.org), pointed me
toward the Debian booth, which was next to theirs. "If you look in the booth,
you can see that map. They put a pushpin in the hoard for every developer and
project leader they have around the world. China, Netherlands, Somalia, there
at e people coming from all over."

James Lewis-Moss is one of the members, who just happened to be i n the

Debian booth next door. H e lives i n Asheville, North Carolina, which is four
hours west of the Convention Center i n downtown Raleigh. The Debian group
normally relies upon local volunteers to staff the booth, answer questions,
distribute CD-ROMs, and keep people interested i n the project.

Lewis-Moss is officially i n charge of maintaining several packages, including

the X Emacs, a program that is used to edit text files, read email and news, and
do a number of other tasks. A package is the official name for a bundle of
smaller programs, files, data, and documentation. These parts are normally
installed together because the software won't work without all of its component
parts.

The packager s job is to download the latest software from the programmer and
smaller programs, files, data, and documentation. These parts are normally
installed together because the software won't work without all of its component
parts.

The packager's job is to download the latest software from the programmer and
make sure that it runs well with the latest version of the other software to go In
the Debian distribution. This crucial task Is why groups like Debian are so
necessary. I f Lewis-Moss does his job well, someone who installs Debian on his
computer w i l l not have any trouble using X Emacs.

Lewis-Moss's job isn't exactly programming, but it's close. He has to download
the source code, compile the program, run it, and make sure that the latest
version of the source works correctly with die latest version of the Linux kernel
and the other parts of the OS that keep a system running. The packager must also
ensure that the program works well with the Debian-specific tools that make
installation easier. I f there are obvious bugs, he'll fix them himself. Otherwise,
he'll work with the author on tracking down and fixing the problems.

He's quite modest about this effort and says, "Most Debian developers don’t
write a whole lot of code for Debian. We just test things to make sure it works
well together, It would be offensive to some of the actual programmers to hear
that some of the Debian folks are writing the programs when they're actually
not.1'
says Raymond.

"Sometime back I had to accept Bruce's resignation from the OSI because he
was flaming public allies on a mailing list. I f you're going to go public, you can t
run your mouth like a rabid attack dog. when the APSL [Apple Public Source
License] came along, he convinced people that everybody should go mug Eric
and the OSI/' Raymond said. It caused more grief.

Perens, for his part, said, " I was disappointed in Eric because certainly open
source is about freedom of speech. He should be able to tolerate a dissenting
voice. The entire argument was about my not deferring to his leadership. He felt
that my dissent was damaging. The actual result was that Apple took my
criticism seriously and took all of the suggestions."

Raymond is still critical. He says, "Apple was more diplomatic to Bruce in

public than they should have been. The truth is that his meddling got the people
inside Apple who were pushing open source into considerable political trouble,
and they considered him a disruptive asshole. Their bosses wanted to know,
quite reasonably, why Apple should bother trying to do an open source license i f
all i t meant was that they'd be attacked by every flake case with an agenda. By
public than they should have been. The truth is that his meddling got the people
inside Apple who were pushing open source into considerable political trouble,
and they considered him a disruptive asshole. Their bosses wanted to know,
quite reasonably, why Apple should bother trying to do an open source license i f
all it meant was that they'd be attacked by every flake case with an agenda. By
undermining OSI's status as ousted representatives of the whole community,
Bruce nearly scuttled the whole process."

For now, the two work apart, Perens says he l l make up with Raymond, but
doesn't see it happening too soon, Raymond is happy to focus on the future of
open source and write more analysis of the movement. They’ve been separated,
and the tempers are cool.

Giving away software seems like an entirely altruistic act. Writing code is hard
work, and simply casting it onto the net with no restrictions is a pretty nice gift
outright, especially i f the code took months or years to write. This image of
selflessness is so strong that many people assume that the free software world is
inhabited by saints who are constantly doing nice things for each other. It seems
like a big love-in.

But love is more than a many spiendored thing. It's a strange commodity that
binds us together emotionally In ways that run deeper than placid pools
reflecting starry eyes. After the flush of infatuation, strong love lasts if and only
i f it answers everyone's needs. The hippie culture of free love lasted only a few
The real struggle is finding out how long society can keep hanging ten toes o f f
the edge o f the board as w e gel carried by the wave of freedom. Is there enough
energy i n the wave and enough grace i n society to ride i t a l l the way to the
shore? Or w i l l something wicked, something evil, or something sloppy come
along and mess i t up?

1. C O L L E G E
I -

6.1 SPEAKING IN TONGUES

I was part o f the free software movement for many years, but I didn't know i t .
When I was a graduate student, I released the source code to a project. In 1991,
that was the sort of thing to do i n universities. Publishing the source code to a
project was part of publishing a paper about it A n d the academy put publishing
pretty high on its list.

My first b i g release came in May 1991 when 1 circulated a program that let
(hat was the sort of thing to do i n universities, Publishing (he source code to a
project was part of publishing a paper about it. And the academy put publishing
pretty high on its l i s t

My first big release came in May 1991 when I circulated a program that let
people hide secret messages as innocuous text. My program turned any message
into some cute play-by-play from a baseball game, like " N o contact in
Mudsville! it's a fastball with wings. No wood on that one. He's uncorking what
looks like a spitball, Whooooosh! Strike! He's out of there." The secret message
was encoded in the choices of phrases. "He's out of there" meant something
different from "He pops it up to Orville Baskethands.1' The program enabled
information to mutate into other forms J u s t like the shapeshifting monsters from
The X-Files. I sent out an announcement to the influential newsgroup comp.risks
and soon hundreds of people were asking for free copies of the software.

1 created this program because Senator Joe Biden introduced a bill into the
Senate that would require the manufacturers of all computer networks to provide
a way for the police to get copies of any message. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation, among others, was afraid that they would have trouble obtaining
evidence i f people were able to encode data. M y software illustrated how hard it
would be to stop the flow of information.

The best, and perhaps most surprising, part of die whole bloom of email came
when a follow I had never met, D. Jason Penney, converted the program from the
fading Pascal into the more popular C. He did this on his own and sent the new,
Raymond acknowledges this problem but proposes that the free source model
can still be more effective despite die inexperience of the people who are forced
to scratch an itch. Again he taps the world of libertarian philosophy and suggests
that the free software world is l i k e a bazaar filled with many different merchants
offering their wares. Corporate development, o n the other hand, is structured like
die religious syndicates that built the medieval cathedrals. The bazaars offered
plenty of competition but no order, The cathedrals were run by central teams of
priests who tapped the wealth of the town to b u i l d the vision of one architect.

The differences between the two were pretty simple. The cathedral team could
produce a great work of an i f the architect was talented, the funding team was
successful, and the management was able to keep everyone focused on doing
their jobs. I f not, it never got that far. The bazaar, o n the other hand, consisted of
many small merchants trying to outstrip each other. The best cooks ended up
w i t h the most customers. The others soon went out of business.

The comparison to software was simple. Corporations gathered die tithes,

employed a central architect with a grand vision, managed die team of
programmers, and shipped a product every once and a bit. The Linux world,
however, let everyone touch the Source. People would trv to fix things or add
The comparison to software was simple. Corporations gathered the tithes,
employed a central architect with a grand vision, managed the team of
programmers, and shipped a product ever}' once and a bit. The Linux world,
however, let everyone touch the Source. People would try to fix things or add
new features. The best solutions would be adopted by oth ers and the mediocre
would fall by the way side. Many different Linux versions would proliferate, but
over time the marketplace of software would coalesce around the best standard
version.

"In the cathedral-builder view of programming, bugs and development problems

are tricky, insidious, deep phenomena, I t takes months of scrutiny by a dedicated
few to develop confidence that you've winkled them all out. Thus the long
release intervals, and the inevitable disappointment when long-awaited releases
are not perfect/ Raymond said.

" I n the bazaar view, on the other hand, you assume that bugs are generally
shallow phenomena-or, at least, that they turn shallow pretty quick when
exposed to a thousand eager code- developers pounding on every single new
release. Accordingly you release often i n order to get more corrections, and as a
beneficial side effect you have less to lose if an occasional botch gets out the
door.’ 1

1 1 2 THEY PUT A G I A N T ARROW ON THE PROBLEM

distribution, and it didn't cost me anything,"

Of course, Red Hat isn’t hurt too much by folks who grab copies without paying
for them. In fact, the company maintains a website that makes it relatively easy
for people to do just that Red Hat didn't write most of the code. They also just
grabbed it from various authors throughout the Net who published it under the
G N U General Public License. They grabbed it without paying for it, so they're
not really put out i f someone grabs from them.

The ability to snag GPL'ed software from around the Net keeps their
development costs much lower than Sun, Apple, or Microsoft. They never paid
most of the authors of the code they ship. They just package it up. Anyone else
can just go find it on the Net and grab it themselves. This pretty much guarantees
that Red Hat will be in a commodity business.

To make matters worse for Red Hat, the potential competitors don’t have to go
out onto the Net and reassemble the collection of software for themselves. The
GPL specifically forbids people from placing limitations on redistributing the
source code. That means that a potential competitor doesn't have to do much
more than buy a copy of Red Hat’s disk and send it off to the CD-ROM pressing
To make matters worse for Red Hal, the potential competitors don't have i o go
out onto the Net and reassemble the collection of software for themselves. The
GPL specifically forbids people from placing limitations on redistributing the
source code. That means that a potential competitor doesn't have to do much
more than buy a copy of Red Hat’s disk and send i t off to the CD-ROM pressing
plant. People do this al! the lime. One company at the exposition was selling
copies o f all the major Linux distributions like Red Hal, Slackware, and
OpenBSD for about $3 per disk. I f you bought i n bulk, you could get 11 disks
for $25. Not a bad deal i f you're a consumer.

So, on one side of the floor, Young had a flashy booth filled with workers talking
about what you could get i f you paid $50 or more for Red Hat's version 6.0 with
new enhancements like GNOME. Just a few hundred feet away, a company was
selling ripoff copies of the same CDs for $3, Any company that is able to stay in
business i n a climate like that must be doing something right.

It’s not much different from the supermarket. Someone can pay S i or more for
two liters of Coca-Cola, or they can walk over a few aisles and buy Kool-Aid
and raw sugar. I t may be much cheaper to buy the raw ingredients, but many
people don't.

Young is also smart enough to use the competition from other cheap disk
vendors to his advantage. He can't do anything about the GPL restrictions that
force him to share with knockoff competitors, so he makes the best of them.
creating computers that are defined by the job they do, not the operating system
or the computer chip, Free source packages should have no trouble winning
many battles i n this arena. The price is right and the manufacturers have to hire
the programmers anyway.

The third breach w i l l be young kids, They have no previous allegiances and are
eager to learn new computer technology. Microsoft may ask 'Where do you
want to go today?" but they don't want to talk with someone whose answer is
"The guts o f your OS."The best and brightest 13-year-olds are already the
biggest fans of free software. They love the power and the complete access.

The fourth crack w i l l be the large installations i n businesses that are interested i n
competitive bidding. Microsoft charges a bundle for each seat i n a company, and
anyone bidding for these contracts w i l l be able to charge much less i f they ship a
free OS. It’s not uncommon for a company to pay more than a million dollars to
Microsoft for license fees. There’s plenty of room for price competition when the
b i l l gets that high. Companies that don't want to change w i l l be hard to move
from Windows, but ones that are price-sensitive w i l l be moved.

O f course, free software really isn't free. A variety o f companies offering Linux
Microsoft for license fees. There's plenty of room for price competition when the
b i l l gels that high. Companies that don't want to change w i l l be hard to move
from Windows, but ones that are price-sensitive w i l l be moved.

Of course, free software really isn't free. A variety of companies offering Linux
support need to charge something to pay their bills. Distributions like Red Hat or
FreeBSD may not cost much, but they often need some customization and hand-
holding. Is a business just trading one b i l l for another? Won't Linux support end
up costing the same thing as Microsoft's product?

Many don't think so. Microsoft currently wastes billions of dollars a year
expanding its business i n unproductive ways that don't yield new profits. I t spent
millions writing a free web browser to compete with Netscape’s and then they
just gave it away. They probably gave up millions of dollars and untold
bargaining chips when they twisted the arms of competitors into shunning
Netscape. The company's successful products pay for these excursions. At the
very least, a free OS operation would avoid these costs.

Free OS systems are inherently cheaper to run. If you have the source, you might
be able to debug the problem yourself. You probably can't, but i t doesn't hurt to
try. Companies running Microsoft products can't even try. The free flow of
information w i l l help keep costs down.

Of course, there are also hard numbers. A n article in Wired by Andrew Leonard
distribution came from innocent non- AT&T sources.

Berkeley even landed a few good blows of its own. They found that AT&T had
stripped copyrights from Berkeley code that they had imported to System V and
had failed to provide due credit to Berkeley, rhe BSD license is probably one of
the least restrictive ones in the world. Companies like Apple use BSD source
code all the time. The license has few requirements beyond keeping the
copyright notice intact and including some credit for the University of
California. AT&T didn't pay attention to this and failed to cite Berkeley's
contributions in their releases. Oops. The CSRG countersued claiming that
AT&T had violated a license that may be one of the least restrictive in the world.

The battle raged in the couns for more than a year. I t moved from federal to
California state court. Judges held hearings, lawyers took depositions, clerks
read briefs, judges heard arguments presented by briefs written by lawyers who
had just held depositions. The burn rate of legal fees was probably larger than
most Internet start-ups.

Any grown-up should take one look at this battle and understand just how the
free software movement got so far. While the Berkeley folks were meeting with
had just held depositions. The burn rate of legal fees was probably larger than
most Internet start-ups.

Any grown-up should take one look at this battle and understand just how the
free software movement got so far. While the Berkeley folks were meeting with
lawyers and worrying about whether the judges were going to choose the right
side, Linus Torvalds was creating his own kernel. He started Linux on his own,
and that made him a free man.

In the end, the University of California settled the lawsuit after the USI. was sold
to Novell, a company run by Ray Noorda. McKusick believes that Noorda's
embrace of free competition made a b i g difference, and by January 1994 the
legal fight was over. Berkeley celebrated by releasing a completely free and
unencumbered 4,4BSD-Lite i n June 1994,

The terms of the settlement were pretty minor. Net Release 2 came with about
18,000 files. 4.4BSD-Lite contained all hut three of them. Seventy of them
included a new, expanded copyright that gave some credit to AT&T and USL,
but didn’t constrain anyone’s right to freely distribute them. McKusick, Bostic,
and the hundreds of volunteers did a great job making sure that Net Release 2
was clean. In fact, two people familiar with the settlement talks say that
Berkeley just deleted a few files to allow USL's lawyers to save face. We'll never
know for sure because the details of the settlement are sealed. McKusick and the
others can t talk about the details. That’s another great example of how the legal
software package with some coherence. Today, Microsoft users and
programmers pull iheir hair out trying to keep Windows 95, Windows 98, and
Windows NT straight. Little idiosyncrasies cause games to crash and programs
to fail. Microsoft has hundreds o f quality assurance engineers and thousands o f
support personnel. Still, the little details drive everyone crazy.

New versions of Linux appear as often as daily. People often create their own
versions to solve particular problems. Many of these changes won’t affect
anyone, but they can add up. Is there enough consistency to make the tools easy
enough to use?

Many wondered i f Linux was right for world domination. Programmers might
love playing with source code, but the rest o f the world just wants something
that delivers the e-mail on time. More Important, the latter are willing to pay for
this efficiency.

Such questions have been bothering the open source community for years and
still have no easy answers today. Programmers need food, and food requires
money. M a k i n g easy-to-use software requires discipline, and discipline doesn't
always agree w i t h total freedom.
Such questions have been bothering the open source community for years and
still have no easy answers today. Programmers need food, and food requires
money. Making easy-to-use software requires discipline, and discipline doesn't
always agree with total freedom.

When the first wave of hype about free software swept across (he Zeitgeist, no
one wanted to concentrate on these difficult questions. The high quality of free
operating systems and their use at high-profile sites like Yahoo! was good news
for the world. The success of unconditional cooperation was intoxicating. I f free
software could do so much with so little, it could overcome the difficult
questions. Besides, it didn't have to be perfect It just needed to be better than
Microsoft.

1, FREEDOM

The notion embodied by the word "free" is one of the great marketing devices of
ail time. Cereal manufacturers know that kids w i l l slog through bowls of sugar io
get a free prize. Stores know that people w i l l gladly give them their names and
addresses i f they stand a chance of winning something for free. Car ads love to
emphasize the freedom a new car w i l l give to someone.

Of course, Microsoft knows this fact as well. One of their big advertising
campaigns stresses the freedom to create new documents, write long novels,
Disappearing Cryptography, Information Hiding: Steganography &
Watermarking, 2nd ed. by Peter Wayner I S B N 1-55860-769-2 $44.95

To order, visit; http://www.wayner.org/books/discrypt2/

Disappearing Cry ptography, Second Edition describes how to take words,

sounds, or images and hide them in digital data so they look like other words,
sounds, or images. When used properly, this powerful technique makes it almost
impossible to trace the author and the recipient of a message. Conversations can
be submerged i n the flow of information through the internet so that no one can
know i f a conversation exists at all.

This full revision of the best-selling first edition describes a number o f different
techniques to hide information. These include encryption, making data
incomprehensible; steganography, embedding information into video, audio, or
graphics files; watermarking, hiding data i n the noise o f image or sound files;
mimicry, "dressing up" data and making it appear to be other data, and more.

The second edition also includes an expanded discussion on hiding information

incomprehensible; steganography, embedding information into video, audio, or
graphics files; watermarking, hiding data i n die noise of image or sound files;
mimicry, "dressing up" data and making it appear to be other data, and more.

The second edition also includes an expanded discussion on hiding information

with spread-spectrum algorithms, shuffling tricks, and synthetic worlds. Each
chapter is divided into sections, first providing an introduction and high-level
summary for those who want to understand the concepts without wading through
technical explanations, and then presenting greater detail for those who want to
write their own programs. To encourage exploration, the author's Web site
www.wayner.org/books/disciypt2/ contains implementations for hiding
information in lists, sentences, and images.

"Disappearing Cryptography is a witty and entertaining look at the world of

information hiding. Peter Wayner provides an intuitive perspective of the many
techniques, applications, and research directions in the area of steganography.
The sheer breadth of topics is outstanding and makes this book truly unique. A
1
must read for those who would like to begin learning about information hiding.'
-Deepa Kundur, University of Toronto

" A n excellent inn'oduction for private individuals, businesses, and governments

who need to under- stand the complex technologies and their effects on
protecting privacy, intellectual property and other interests.1' - David Banisar,
Research Fellow, Harvard Information Infrastructure Project, & Deputy Director,
editor and compiler in the world. Others might have been close, but Stallman’s
were free. These were crucial tools that made it possible for Linux to grow
quickly from a tiny experimental kernel into a full-featured OS for doing
everything a programmer might want to do.

James Lewis-Moss, one o f the many programmers who devote some time to
Linux, says that G C C made it possible for programmers to create, revise, and
extend the kernel. “GCC is integral to the success of L i n u x / ' he says, and points
out (hat this may be one o f the most important reasons why “it's polite to refer to
i t as G N U / L i n u x / '

Lewis-Moss points out one o f the smoldering controversies i n the world of free
software: all of the tools and games that came from the G N U project started
becoming part of what people simply thought o f as plain "Linux." The name for
the small kernel of the operating system soon grew to apply to almost all the free
software that ran with it. This angered Stallman, w h o first argued that a better
name would be'Lignux. "When that failed to take hold, he moved to
"GNU/Linux," Some ignored his pleas and simply used “ L i n u x / ' which is still a
bit unfair. Some feel that“GNU/Linux "is too much of a mouthful and, for better
o r worse, lust plain L i n u x is an appropriate shortcut. Some, like Lewis-Moss,
software that ran with it. This angered Stallman, who first argued that a belter
name would be'Lignux.'When that failed to take hold, he moved to
"GNU/ Linux," Some ignored his pleas and simply used " L i n u x / ' which is still a
bit unfair. Some feel that'GNU/Linux'is too much of a mouthful and, for better
or worse, just plain Linux is an appropriate shortcut. Some, like Lewis-Moss,
hold firm to GNU/Linux,

Soon some people were bundling together CD-ROMs with all this software i n
one batch, The group would try to work out as many glitches as possible so that
the purchaser’s life would be easier. A l l boasted strange names like Yggdrasil,
Slackware, SuSE, Debian, or Red Mat Many were just garage projects that never
made much money, but that was okay. Making money wasn't really the point.
People just wanted to play with the source. Plus, few thought that much money
could be made. The GPL, for instance, made it difficult to differentiate the
product because it required everyone to share their source code with the world. I f
Slackware came up with a neat fix that made their version of Linux belter, then
Llebian and SuSE could grab it. The GPL prevented anyone from constraining
the growth of Linux.

But only greedy businessmen see sharing and competition as negatives. I n

practice, the free flow of information enhanced the market for Linux by ensuring
that it was stable and freely available. I f one key CDROM developer gets a new
girlfriend and Slops spending enough time programming, another distribution
w i l l pick up the slack, If a hurricane flattened Raleigh, North Carolina, the home
Solaris and NeXT's OS, can trace their roots to this distribution. The B S D was
originally protected by a license that allowed anyone to freely copy and modify
the source code as long as they gave some credit to the University of California
at Berkeley. Unlike the GNU G P L , the license does not require the user to
release the source code to any modifications.

BSD License The original license for B S D software. I t placed few restrictions on
what you did with the code. The important terms forced you to keep the
copyright intact and credit the University of California at Berkeley when you
advertise a product. The requirement to include credit is now removed because
people realized that they often needed to publish hundreds of acknowledgments
for a single C D - R O M . Berkeley removed the term i n the hopes that it would set
a good example for the rest o f the community.

copyleft Another term that is sometimes used as a synonym for the GNU General
Public License.

Debian Free Software Guidelines See Open Source, (www.debian.org)

driver Most computers are designed to work with optional devices like modems,
Public License.

Debian Free Software Guide/ines See Open Source, (www.debian.org)

driver Most computers are designed to work with optional devices like modems,
disk drives, primers, cameras, and keyboards. A driver is a piece of software that
translates the signals sent by the device into a set of signals that can be
understood by the operating system. Most operating systems are designed to be
modular, so these drivers can be added as an afterthought whenever a user
connects a new device. They are usually designed to have a standard structure so
other software w i l l work with them. The driver for each mouse, for instance,
translates the signals from the mouse into a standard description that includes the
position of the mouse and its direction. Drivers are an important point of debate
i n the free software community because volunteers must often create rhe drivers.
Most manufacturers write the drivers for Windows computers because these
customers make up the bulk of their sales. The manufacturers often avoid
creating drivers for Linux or BSD systems because they perceive the market to
be small. Some manufacturers also cite the G N U GPL as an impediment because
they feel that releasing the source code to their drivers publishes important
competitive information.

FreeBSD The most popular version of BSD. The development team, led by
Jordan Hubbard, works hard to provide an easy-to-use too] for computers
running the Intel architecture. In recent years, they've tried to branch out
"In B S D , you can do a unified make. They're fairly proud of that," says
Raymond. " B u t this creates rigidities that give people incentives to fork. The
B S D things that are built that way develop new spin-off groups each week, while
Linux, which is more loosely coupled, doesn't fork."

H e elaborates, "Somebody pointed out that there’s a parallel of politics. Rigid

political and social institutions tend to change violently i f they change at all,
while ones w i t h more play i n them tend to change peacefully."

But this distinction may be semantic. Forking does occur in the Linux realm, but
i t happens as small diversions that get explained away w i t h other words. Red Hat
may choose to use GNOME, while another distribution like SuSE might choose
K D E . The users w i l l see a b i g difference because both tools create virtual
desktop environments. You can’t miss diem. B u t people won't label this a fork.
Both distributions are using the same Linux kernel and no one has gone off and
said, "To hell with Linus, I'm going to build my o w n version of Linux."
Everyone's technically still calling themselves Linux, even i f they're building
something that looks fairly different on die surface.

Jason Wright, one of the developers on the OpenBSD team, sees the organization
said, ’'To hell with Linus, I'm going to build my own version of Linux,"
Everyone's technically still calling themselves Linux, even i f they're building
something that looks fairly different on the surface.

Jason Wright, one of the developers on the OpenBSD team, sees the organization
as a good thing, "The one thing that all of the BSDs have over Linux is a unified
source tree. We don't have Joe Blow's tree or Bob's tree," he says. In other
words, when they fork, they do it officially, with great ceremony, and make sure
the world knows of their separate creations. They make a clear break, and this
makes it easier for developers.

Wright says that this single source tree made it much easier for them to turn
OpenBSD into a very secure OS/'We've got the security over Linux, They've
recently been doing a security audit for Linux, but they're going to have a lot
more trouble. There’s not one place to go for the source code."

To extend this to political terms, the Linux world is like the 1980s when Ronald
Reagan ran the Republican party with the maxim that no one should ever
criticize another Republican. Sure, people argued internally about taxes,
abortion, crime, and the usual controversies, but they displayed a rare public
cohesion. N o one criticizes Torvalds, and everyone is careful to pay lip service to
the importance of Linux cohesion even as they're essentially forking by choosing
different packages.
a small way, that would force others to contribute back to the project because
they wouldn't gel their software distributed by tlie group unless it was GPL'ed.
Others wanted less stringent requirements that might include quasi- commercial
projects that still came with their source code. There were some cool projects out
there that weren't protected by G P L , and it could be awfully hard to pass up the
chance to integrate them into a package.

Over time, one o f the leaders of the Debian group, Bruce Perens, came to create
a definition of what was acceptable and what wasn't. This definition would be
large enough to include the GNU General Public License, the BSD-style
licenses, and a fewT others like M l T s X Consortium license and the Artistic
license. The X-windows license covers a graphical windowing interface that
began at MIT and was also freely distributed w i t h BSD-like freedom. The
Artistic license applies to the Perl programming language, a tool that is
frequently used to transform files. The Debian meta-def inition would embrace
all of these.

The official definition o f what was acceptable to Debian leaned toward more
freedom and fewer restrictions on the use o f software. Of course, that's the only
wav that anyone could come uo w i t h a definition that included both GNU and
all of these.

rhe official definition of what was acceptable to Debian leaned toward more
freedom and fewer restrictions on the use of software. Of course, that's the only
way that anyone could come up with a definition that included both GNU and
the much less restrictive BSD. But this was also the intent of the open source
group. Perens and Eric Raymond felt that Stallman still sounded too quasi’
communist for '"conservative businessmen./1 and they wanted the open source
definition to avoid insisting upon the sort of forced sharing that Stallman’s G N U
virus provided.

Still, the definition borrowed heavily from Stallman's concept of GNU, and
Perens credits him by saying that many of the Debian guidelines are derived
from the GPL. A n official open source license for a product must provide the
programmer with source code that is human-readable. I t can’t restrict what
modifications are made to the software or how it is sold or given away.

The definition glossed over the difference between B S D and GPU by stating,
"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them
to be distributed under the same terms as rhe license of the original software.’1

The definition proved to be the model for more commercial offerings like the
Netscape Public License. In 1998, Netscape started distributing the source code
to its popular browser in hopes of collecting help from the Internet anti stopping
the community and showed something about the person's technical tastes. Sure,
someone could wear an OpenBSD shin because they liked die cute little daemon
logo, but also because they wanted to show that they cared about security. The
OpenBSD project began because some users wanted to build a version of U N I X
that was much more secure. The group prides itself on fixing bugs early and
well. Wearing an OpenBSD shirt proclaims a certain alliance with this team's
commitment to security. After all, some of the profits from the shirts went to pay
for the development o f the software. Wearing the right T-shirt meant choosing an
alliance. It meant joining a tribe.

Young is keenly aware that much of his target market is 13-year-old boys who
are flexing their minds and independence for the first time. The same images of
rebellion that brought James Dean his stardom are painted on die T-shirts. Some
wear shirts proclaiming TOTAL W O R L D D O M I N A T I O N SOON. Raging
against Microsoft is a c li c h that is avoided as much as it is still used. The shirts
are a mixture o f parody, bluster, w i t , and confidence. O f course, they're usually
black. Everyone wears black.

Ockman looks at this market competition for T-shirts and sees a genius. H e says,
"I think B o b Young's absolutely brilliant. Suddenly he realized that there's no
are a mixture of parody, bluster, wit, and confidence. O f course, they're usually
black. Evetyone wears black.

Ockman looks at this market competition for T-shirts and sees a genius. He says,
"I think Bob Young’s absolutely brilliant. Suddenly he realized that there’s no
future in releasing mainframes. H e made a jump after finding college kids in
Carolina fusing Linux]. For him to make that jump is just amazing. 11e's a
marketing guy. H e sat down and figured i t out.

"Every time 1 hear him talk,” Ockman says about Young, "he tells a different
story about ketchup, i f you take people who’ve never had ketchup before i n their
life and you blindly feed them ketchup, they have no taste for ketchup. They
don't like it.” I f you feed them ketchup over time, they begin to demand it on
their hamburgers.

"No one who's never had Coca-Cola before would like it,’ 1 Ockman continues.
''These things are purely a branding issue. I t has to be branded for cool in order
for people to sit down and learn everything they have to know.”

i n essence, Young looked around arid saw that a bunch of scruffy kids were
creating an OS that was just as good, i f not belter, than the major OS$ costing
major sums of money. This OS was, best of all, free for all comers. The OS had a
problem, though. The scruffy kids never marketed their software. The deeply
intelligent, free-thinking hackers picked up on how coo] it was, but the rest of
and completely honest. Most corporations keep their hackers shut off i n a back
room because these traits seem to scare away customers and investors who just
want sweet little lies i n their ears. Stallman was never that kind o f guy. H e
looked at the burgeoning corporate control o f software and didn't like it one bit.
His freedom was slowly being whittled away, and he wasn't the type to simply
sit by and not say anything.

When Stallman left the A l lab i n 1984, he didn’t want to be controlled by its
policies. Universities started adopting many of the same practices as the
corporations i n the 1980s, and Stallman couldn't be a special exception. I f MIT
was going to be paying h i m a salary, MIT would o w n his code and any patents
that came from it. Even MIT, which is a much cooler place than most, couldn't
accommodate h i m on staff. H e didn't move far, how ever, because after he set up
the Free Software Foundation, he kept an office at MIT, first unofficially and
then officially. Once he wasn't "on the staff," the rules became different.

Stallman turned to consulting for money, but it was consulting w i t h a twist. H e

would only work for companies that wouldn't pul any restrictions o n the
software he created. This wasn't an easy sell. H e was insisting that any work he
d i d for Corporation X could also be shared with Corporations Y and Z , even i f
Stallman turned to consulting for money, but it was consulting with a twist. He
would only work for companies that wouldn't put any restrictions on the
software he created. This wasn't an easy sell. He was insisting that any work he
did for Corporation X could also be shared with Corporations Y and Z, even i f
they were direct competitors.

This wasn't how things were done i n the 1980s. That was the decade when
companies figured out how to lock up the source code to a program by only
distributing a machine-readable version. They hoped this would control their
product and let them restrain people who might try to steal their ideas and their
intellectual property. Stallman thought it was shutting down his ability to poke
around inside the computer and fix it. This secrecy blocked him from sharing his
thoughts and ideas with other programmers.

Most programmers looked at the scheme of charging for locked- up binary

versions of a program as a necessary evil. Sure, they couldn't play around with
the guts of Microsoft Windows, but i t also meant that no one could play around
with the guts of the programs they wrote. The scheme locked doors and
compartmentalized the world, but it also gave the creator of programs more
power. Most programmers thought having power over their own creation was
pretty neat, even i f others had more power. Being disarmed is okay if everyone
else is disarmed and locked in a cage.
The Apache group is one of the more businesslike development teams i n the free
source world. It emerged in tire mid-1990s when the World Wide Web was just
blossoming. In the early years, many sites relied on web servers like the free
version that came from the N C S A , the supercomputer center at the University o f
Illinois that helped spark the web revolution by writing a server and a browser.
This code was great, but it rarely served a l l of the purposes o f the new
webmasters who were starting new sites and building new tools as quickly as
they could.

Brian Behlendorf, one of the founders of the Apache group, remembers the time.
" I t wasn't just a hobbyist kind of thing. We had need for commercial-quality
software and this was before Netscape released its software. We had developed
our o w n set of patches that we traded like baseball cards. Finally w e said, We
had so many paths that overlap. Why don't we create our o w n version and
continue on our own.’”

These developers then coalesced into a core group and set up a structure for the
code. They chose the basic, BSD-style license for their software, which allowed
anyone to use the code for whatever purpose without distributing die source code
to anv changes. Many o f the eroup lived i n Berkeley then and stil I live i n the
These developers then coalesced into a core group and set up a structure for the
code- They chose the basic, BSD-style license for their software, which allowed
anyone to use the code for whatever purpose without distributing the source code
to any changes. Many of the group lived in Berkeley then and still live in the
area today- Of course, the BSD-style license also made sense for many of the
developers who were involved in businesses and often didn't want to jump into
the open source world with what they saw as Stallman's absolutist fervor.
Businesses could adopt the Apache code without fear that some license would
force [hem to reveal their source code later. The only catch was that they couldn't
call the product Apache unless it was an unmodified copy of something
approved by the Apache group.

Several members of the group went off and formed their own companies and
used the code as the basis for their products. Sameer Parekh based the
Stronghold server product on Apache after his company added the encryption
tools used to protect credit card information. Others just used versions of Apache
to serve up websites and billed others for the cost of development.

i n 1999, the group decided to formalize its membership and create a not-for-
profit corporation that wras devoted to advancing the Apache server source code
and the open source world in general. New members can apply to join the
corporation, and they must be approved by a majority of the current members.
This membership gets together and votes on a board of directors who make the
up his ideals, and his m i n d started shifting to accommodate this new measure o f
reality. H e decided dial it wouldn't be wrong to sell copies of software or even
software services as long as you didn't withhold the source code and stomp on
anyone's freedom to use the source code as they wished.

Stallman has always been great at splitting hairs and creating Jesuitical
distinctions, and this insight was one of his best. At first glance, it looked
slightly nutty. I f people were free to do anything they wanted with software, they
could just give a copy to their friend and their friend would never send money
back to Stallman's Free Software Foundation, In fact, someone could buy a copy
from Stallman and then start reselling copies to others to undercut Stallman. The
Free Software Foundation and the G N U GPL gave them the freedom to do so. I t
was as i f a movie theater sold tickets to a movie, but also posted a b i g sign near
the exit door that said ' Hey, it's absolutely okay for y o u to prop this open so your
friends can sneak i n without paying,"

W h i l e this total freedom befuddled most people, it didn't fail. Many paid for
tapes or C D - R O M versions because they wanted the convenience. Stallman's
versions came w i t h the latest bug fixes and new features. They were the quasi-
official versions. Others felt that oavina heloed suddoh the work so thev didn't
While this total freedom befuddled most people, i t didn't fail. Many paid for
tapes or CD-ROM versions because they wanted the convenience. Stallman's
versions came with the latest bug fixes and new features. They were the quasi-
official versions. Others felt that paying helped support the work so they didn't
feel bad about doing i t . They liked the FSF and wanted it to produce more code.
Others just liked printed books better than electronic documentation. Buying
them from Stallman was cheaper than printing them out. Still others paid for the
CD-ROMs because they just wanted to support the Free Software Foundation.

Stallman also found other support, rhe MacArthur Foundation gave him one of
their genius grants that paid him a nice salary for five years to do whatever he
wanted. Companies like Intel hired him as a consultant and asked him to make
sure that some of his software ran on Intel chips. People were quite willing to
pay for convenience because even free software didn’t do everything that it
should.

Stallman also recognized that this freedom introduced a measure of competition.

I f he could charge for copies, then so could others. The source code would be a
vast commonweal, hut the means of delivering i t would he filled with people
struggling to do the best job of distributing the software, i t was a pretty hard-
core Rcaganaut notion for a reputed communist. Al the beginning, few bothered
to compete with him, but in time all of the G N U code began to be included with
computer operating systems. By the time Linus Torvalds wrote his OS, the G N U
These points o f friction fester and turn into what might more commonly be
called hale.

These technical debates are terrible tar pits for the community, and they eat up
the energy. The debates turn frustrating because they have the strange distinction
o f being both technically important and utterly trivial, Everyone would like to
just sail through l i f e and not worry about tiny details like the type o f integer used
i n a calculation. There are millions of these decisions that take up time that
might be better spent imagining grand dreams of a seamless information
noosphere that provides the wisdom of the ages i n a simple graphical interface.
But every programmer learns that it's the details that count. NASA lost a
spacecraft when some programmer used English units instead o f the metric
system. So the work needs to get done.

Occasionally, the fights get interesting. Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens are both
great contributors io the open source movement. In fact, both worked together to
try to define the meaning of the term. Perens worked w i t h the community that
creates the Debian distribution o f Linux to come up w i t h a definition o f what
was acceptable for the community. This definition morphed into a more official
version used bv the Qnen Source Initiative. When they sot a definition thev
great contributors to the open source movement. I n fact, both worked together to
try to define the meaning o f the term. Perens worked with the community that
creates the Debian distribution of Linux to come up with a definition of what
was acceptable for the community. This definition morphed into a more official
version used by the Open Source Initiative. When they got a definition they
liked, they published it and tried to trademark the term "open source" in order to
make sure it was applied with some consistency. I t should be no surprise that all
of that hard work brought them farther apart.

In early April 1999, soon after Apple Computer joined the free source world by
releasing some of the source code to their operating system, Raymond and
Perens found themselves at each other's throats. Raymond had worked closely
with Apple on developing their license and blessed it soon after it emerged.
Apple was so pleased that i t put Raymond’s endorsement on their web page, i he
decision was a big coup for the open source movement and strong proof that
corporations were embracing the movement. B i g executives from big companies
like Apple were knocking on the open source movement's door. Raymond
thought the victory would bring more attention to the cause.

Others thought Raymond had given away the farm. Perens and many others
looked at the license and spotted a small clause that seemed dangerous. The
license for their open source code could be withdrawn at a moment's notice.
Someone pointed out that it would be a real bummer i o do lots of work on
Apple's system and then find out that some neb-nosed lawyer at Apple could just
dollars. Torvalds started writing L i n u x because he couldn't afford a real version
o f UNIX. Lack of money or the parsimony of evil, gender-nasty parents who
refuse to buy their daughters a computer can hardly be blamed.

In fact, many of the people online don't even know the gender of the person on
the other end. Oblique nicknames like "303/ "nomad;1 "CmdrTaco/ or
"Hemos" are common. No one knows i f you're a boy or a girl online. It's almost
like the ideal of a gender-free existence proposed by the unisex dreamers who
wrote such stuff as "Free to Be You and M e / trying to convince children that
they were free to pursue any dream they wanted. Despite the prevalence of these
gender-free visions, the folks w h o ended up dreaming of a world where all the
software was free turned out to be almost entirely men.

Most of the men would like to have a few more women show up. They need
dates as much as any guy. If anything, the crown of Evi] Discriminator might be
placed on the heads of the girls w h o scorn the guys who are geeks, dweebs, and
nerds. A girl couldn't find a better ratio o f men i f she tried.

This may change i n the future if organizations l i k e LinuxChix

(www.linuxchix.oig) have their way. They run a site devoted to celebrating
placed on the heads of the girls who scorn the guys who are geeks, dweebs, and
nerds. A girl couldn't find a belter ratio of men i f she tried.

This may change in the future i f organizations like LinuxChix

(www.linuxchix.org) have their way. They run a site devoted to celebrating
women who enjoy the open source world, and they've been trying to start up
chapters around the world. The site gives members a chance to post their names
and biographical details. Of course, several of the members are men and one is a
man turning into a woman. The member writes, "I’m transsexual (male-to-
female, pre-op), and at the moment still legally married to my wife, which means
that if we stay together w e l l eventually have a legal same-sex marriage."

Still, there's not much point i n digging into this too deeply because the free
source world rarely debates this topic. Everyone is free to use the software and
contribute what they want. I f the wromen want to come, they can. I f they don't,
they don't have to do so to fulfil] some mandate from society. No one is sitting
around debating whether having it all as a woman includes having all of the
source code. It's all about freedom to use software, not dating, mating, or
debating sexual roles in society.

Racial po lilies, however, are more complicated. Much of the Linux community
is spread out throughout the globe. While many members come from the United
States, major contributors can be found in most countries. Linus Torvalds, of
course, camo from Finland, one of the more technically advanced countries in
Stallman thought this was a disaster for the world and set out to convince the
world that he was right. In 1984, he wrote the GNU Manifesto, which started his
GNU project and laid out the conditions for his revolution. This document stood
out a bit in the middle of the era of Ronald Reagan because i t laid out Stall man's
plan for creating a virtual commune where people would be free to use the
software. I t is one of the first cases when someone tried to set down a definition
of the word "free" for software users, Sure, software and ideas were quite free
long ago, but no one noticed until the freedom was gone.

He wrote,

1 consider that the golden rule requires that if .1like a program I must share i t
with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and
conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break
solidarity with other users in this way.. .. So that I can continue to use computers
without dishonor, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free
software so that I will he able to get along without any software that is not free.

The document is a wonderful glimpse at the nascent free software world because
it is as much a recruiting document as a tirade directed at corporate business
without dishonor, 1 have decided to pul together a sufficient body of free
software so that I w i l l be able to gel along without any software that is not free.

The document is a wonderful glimpse at the nascent free software world because
it is as much a recruiting document as a tirade directed at corporate business
practices. When the American colonies split off from England, Thomas Paine
spelled out the problems with the English in the first paragraph of his pamphlet
"Common Sense." hi his manifesto, Stallman didn't get started using words like
"dishonor" until the sixth paragraph. The first several paragraphs spelled out the
cool tools he had developed already: 'an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing
editor commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a
linker and around 35 utilities/' Then he pointed to the work he wanted to
complete soon: " A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and
may be released this year. A n initial kernel exists but many more features are
needed to emulate Unix." He was saying, in effect, that he already had a few
juicy peaches growing on the trees of his commune.

I f this wasn't enough, he intended to do things a bit better than U N I X . His

operating system was going to offer the latest, greatest ideas of computer
science, circa 1984, "In particular, we plan to have longer file names, file version
numbers, a crashproof file system, file name completion perhaps, terminal-
independent display support, arid perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window
system through which several Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can
share a screen." The only thing that was missing from every computer nerd's
they had written. Some tossed random utility programs into the soup, some
offered games, and some sent i n sophisticated packages that ran printers,
networks, or even networks o f printers. A few even became complete disciples
and started writing code full-time for the G N U project This growth was largely
ignored by the world, which became entranced with the growth o f Microsoft.
More and more programmers, however, were spending more time mingling with
the G N U project, and i t was taking hold.

In the early 1980s, an operating system known as U N I X had grown to be very

popular i n universities and laboratories. AT&T designed and built it at Bell Labs
throughout the 1970s. i n the beginning, the company shared the source code
w i t h researchers and computer scientists in universities, i n pail because the
company was a monopoly that was only allowed to sell telephone service. U N I X
was just an experiment that the company started to help inn the next generation
o f telephone switches, which were already turning into specialized computers.

In the beginning, the project was just an academic exercise, but ah o f the
research and sharing helped create a nice operating system with a wide audience.
U N I X turned out to be pretty good. When the phone company started splitting
un i n 1984. die folks at AT&T wondered how thev could turn a profit from what
I n the beginning, lhe project was just an academic exercise, but all of the
research and sharing helped create a nice operating system with a wide audience.
U N I X turned out to be pretty good. When the phone company started splitting
up in 1984, the folks at AT&T wondered how they could turn a profit from what
was a substantial investment in time and money. They started by asking people
who used UNIX at the universities to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Stallman looked at this as mind control and the death of a great tradition. Many
others at lhe universities were more pragmatic. AT&T had given plenty of
money and resources to the university. Wasn’t it fair for the university to give
something back?

Stallman looked at this a bit differently. Yes, AT& r was being nice when they
gave grants to the university, but weren't masters always kind when they gave
bowls of gruel to their slaves? The binary version AT&T started distributing to
the world was just gruel for Stallman. The high priests and lucky few got to read
the source code. They got to eat the steak and lobster spread. Stallman saw this
central controlling, corporate force as the enemy, and he began naming his work
GNU, which was a recursive acronym that stood for "GNU'S Not U N I X . " The
G N U project aimed to produce a complete working operating system that was
going io do everything that U N I X did for none of the moral, emotional, or
ethical cost. Users would be able to read the source code to Stallman’s OS and
modify it without signing a lough non- disclosure agreement drafted by teams of
would need to capitalize their own development and take the chance that
someone might beat them to the door. Anxious sponsors who need some code
quickly should be willing to pay the price.

Another solution is to award contracts before any work is done. Developers

would essentially b i d o n the project and the sponsor would choose one to start
work. The process would be fairly formal and favor the seasoned, connected
programmers. A couple of kids working i n their spare time might be able to w i n
an open bounty, but they would be at a great disadvantage i n this system. Both
CoSource and SourceXchange say that they'll favor this sort o f preliminary
negotiation.

I f the contracts are awarded before work begins, the bounty system looks less
like a w i l d free-for-all and more like just a neutral marketplace for contract
programmers to make their deals. Companies like Cygnus already bid to be paid
for jobs that produce open source. These market-places for bounties w i l l need to
provide some structure and efficiencies to make i t worth people’s time to use
them.

One possible benefit of the bounty system is to aggregate the desires of many
for jobs that produce open source. These market-places for bounties w i l l need to
provide some structure and efficiencies to make i t worth people's time to use
them.

One possible benefit of the bounty system is to aggregate the desires o f many
small groups. While some bounties will only serve the person who asks for
them, many have the potential to help people who are willing to pay. A n efficient
system should be able to join these people together into one group and put their
money into one pot.

CoSource says that it w i l l try to put together the bounties of many small groups
and allow people to pay them with credit cards. It uses the example of a group of
Linux developers who would gather together to fund the creation of an open
source version of their favorite game. They would each chip in $10, $20, or $50
and when the pot got big enough, someone would step forward. Creating a
cohesive political group that could effectively offer a large bounty is a great job
for these sites.

Of course, there are deeper questions about the flow of capital and the nature of
risks in these bounty-based approaches. I n traditional software development, one
group pays for the creation of the software in the hope that they'll be able to sell
it for more than it cost to create. Here, the programmer would be guaranteed a
fixed payment i f he accomplished the job. The developer's risk is not completely
eliminated because the job might take longer than they expected, but there is
money they don't need to spend.

The next induction ceremony for this pantheon should include Robert Young, the
CEO of Red Hat Software, who helped the Linux and the open source world
immeasurably by finding a way to charge people for something they could get
for free. This discoven made the man rich, which isn’t exactly what the free
software world is supposed to do. But his company also contributed a sense of
stability and certainty to the Linux marketplace, and that was sorely needed.
Many hard-core programmers, who know enough to get all of the software for
free, are w i l l i n g to pay $70 to Red Hat just because it is easier. While some may
be forever jealous of the millions of dollars in Young’s pocket, everyone should
realize that bringing Linux to a larger world of computer illiterates requires good
packaging and hand-holding. Free software wouldn’t be anywhere i f someone
couldn't find a good way to charge for it.

The best way to understand why Young ranks with tlie folks who discovered
how to sell sugar water is to go to a conference l i k e LinuxExpo. In the center o f
the floor is the booth manned by Red Hat Software, the company Young started
i n Raleigh, North Carolina, after he got through working i n the computer-1easing
business. Young is i n his fifties now and manages to survive despite the fact that
The best way to understand why Young ranks with the folks who discovered
how to sell sugar water is to go to a conference like LinuxExpo. I n the center of
the floor is the booth manned by Red Hat Software, lhe company Young started
i n Raleigh, North Carolina, after he got through working in the computer- leasing
business. Young is in his fifties now and manages to survive despite the fact that
most of his company's devotees are much closer to 13. Red Hat bundles together
some of the free software made by the community and distributed over die Net
and puts it on one relatively easy-to-use CD-ROM. Anyone who wants to install
Linux or some of its packages can simply buy a disk from Red Hat and push a
bunch of keys. A l l of the information is on one CD-ROM, and it’s relatively
tested and pretty much ready to go. If things go wrong, Red Hat promises to
answer questions by e-mail or telephone to help people get the product working.

Red Hat sells their disk at prices that range from $29.95 to $149.95. That buys
the user a pretty box, three CD-ROMs including some demonstration versions of
other software, all of the source code, a manual, and some telephone or e-mail
support. That is pretty much like the same stuff that comes in software boxes
from a normal company, The manual isn't as nice as the manuals produced by
Apple or Microsoft, but it's not too bad.

The big difference is that no one needs to buy the C D - R O M from Red Hat.
Anyone can download all of the software from lite Nel. A friend of mine, Hal
Skinner, did it yesterday and told me, " I just plugged it in and the software
downloaded everything from the Net. 1 got everything i n the Red Hat 6.0
programmers by programmers. There isn't much of a quality assurance and
human factors team trying to get diem to engineer it so tlie other 95 percent of
humanity can use it.

But this problem is going away. Companies like Red Hat and Caldera have a
profit motive in making the software accessible to all. The tools look nicer, and
they are often just as presentable as the tools from the proprietary firms. The
programmers arc also getting more sensitive to these problems. I n the past, the
free software world was sort of an alternative Eden where programmers went to
escape from the rest of programmatically challenged society. Now the world is
open to free software and the programmers are more open to taking everyone's
needs into account.

The problem w i t h a l l of Metcalfe's analogies is that he assumes the same rules

that control the world o f physical goods also govern the world of ideas. The
software industry likes to pretend that tills isn't true by packaging tlie software i n
big, empty boxes that look good o n shelves. Swapping ideas is easy and costs
little. O f course, the Soviet Union worried about the swapping of ideas and tried
to control the press and a l l forms of expression. The free software movement is
the exact opposite o f this.
software industry likes to pretend that this isn't true by packaging the software in
big, empty boxes that look good on shelves. Swapping ideas is easy and costs
little. Of course, the Soviet Union worried about the swapping of ideas and tried
to control the press and all forms of expression. The free software movement is
the exact opposite of this.

I n fact, it is much easier to see the free software world as the liber tarian idea] of
strong competition and personal freedom i f you remember that it exists in the
realm of ideas. The landscape is similar to universities., which usually boast that
they’re just big melting pots where the marketplace of ideas stays open all night.
The best ideas gradually push out the worst ones and society gradually moves
toward a total understanding of the world.

Perhaps it’s just not fair to characterize the politics of the open source or free
software world at all. Terms like communism, libertarianism, liberalism, and
Marxism all come from an age when large portions of society did not have easy
access to ample supplies of food and housing.

Data and information are not limited goods that can only be consumed by a
limited group. One person or one million people can read a computer file and the
marginal costs aren’t very different. Sharing is cheap, so i t makes sense to use it
to all of its advantages. We're just learning how to use the low cost of
widespread cooperation.
he finishes.

Of course, Prabhakar suggests that there is some self-interest as well. Apple

wants to be a full partner with the BSD community. It wants the code it shares to
mingle and cross-pollinate with the code from the BSD trees, i n the long run,
Apple's Darwin and the BSDs w i l l grow closer together. In an ideal world, both
groups will flourish as they avoid duplicating each other's efforts.

Prabhakar says, "This reduces our reintegration costs. The ability to take the
standard version of FreeBSD and dump i t into our OS was a big win. Prior to
doing the open source, we had done a small scale of givebacks."

This view is echoed by other companies, IBM is a great hardware company and
an even greater service company that’s never had much luck selling software, at
least in the same way that Microsoft sells software. Their OS/2 never got far off
the ground. They’ve sold plenty of software to companies by bundling it with
handholding and long-term service, but they've never had great success in the
shrink-wrapped software business. Open source gives them the opportunity to
cut software development costs and concentrate on providing service and
hardware. They get free development help from everyone and the customers get
the ground. They've sold plenty of software to companies by bundling it with
handhokling and long-term service, but they've never had great success in the
shrink-wrapped software business. Open source gives them the opportunity to
cut software development costs and concentrate on providing service and
hardware. They get free development help from everyone and the customers get
more flexibility.

Sun's Community Source License is also not without some self-interest. The
company would like to make sure that Java continues to be "Write Once, Run
Anywhere," and that means carefully controlling the APIs and the code to make
sure no idiosyncrasies or other glitches emerge. People and companies that want
to be part of the community must abide by Sun's fairly generous, hut not
complete, gift to the world.

The company's web page points out the restriction Sun places on its source code
fairly clearly. "Modified source code cannot be distributed without the express
written permission of Sun” and "Binary programs built using modified Java 2
SDK source code may not be distributed, internally or externally, without
meeting the compatibility and royalty requirements described in the License
Agreement."

While some see this clause as a pair of manacles, B i l l Joy explains that the
Community Source License is closer to our definition of a real community. " I t s
a community in a stronger sense," he told an audience at Stanford. " I f you make
Parekh and C2Net saw an opportunity. They would merge two free products, the
Apache web server and Young's SSLeay, and make a secure version so people
could easily set up secure commerce sites for the Internet. They called this
product Stronghold and put it on the market commercially.

C2 Net's decision to charge for the software rubbed some folks the wrong way.
They were taking two free software packages and making something commercial
out of them. This wasn't just a fork, it seemed like robbery to some. Of course,
these complaints weren't really fair. Both collections of code emerged with a
BSD-style license that gave everyone the right to create and sell commercial
additions to the product. There wasn't any G PL-like requirement that they give
back to the community. If no one wanted a commercial version, they shouldn't
have released the code with a very open license in the first place.

Parekh understands these objections and says that he has weathered plenty of
criticism on tlie internal mailing lists. Still, he feels dial the Stronghold product
contributed a great deal to the strength of Apache by legitimizing it.

"1 don’t feel guilty about it. I don’t think we’ve contributed a whole lot of source
code, which is one of the key metrics that the people in the Apache group are
criticism on die internal mailing lists. Still, he feels that the Stronghold product
contributed a great deal to the strength of Apache by legitimizing it.

"1 don't feel guilty about it. 1 don't think we've contributed a whole lot of source
code, which is one of the key metrics that the people in the Apache group are
using. In my perspective, the greatest contribution we've made is market
acceptance," he said.

Parekh doesn't mean that he had to build market acceptance among web
developers. The Apache group was doing a good job of accomplishing that
through their guerrilla tactics, excellent product, and free price tag. But no one
was sending a message to the higher levels of the computer industry, where long-
term plans were being made and corporate deals were being cut. Parekh feels
that he bulk first-class respectability for the Apache name by creating and
supporting a first-class product that big corporations could use successfully. He
made sure that everyone knew that Apache was at (he core of Stronghold, and
people took notice.

Parekh's first job was getting a patent license from RSA Data Security. Secure
software like SSL relies on the RSA algorithm, an idea that was patented by
three M I T professors i n the 1970s. This patent is controlled by RSA Data
Security. While the company publicized some of its licensing terms and went out
of its way to market the technology, negotiating a license was not a trivial detail
that could be handled by some free software team. Who's going to pay the
system fails the American people and inadvertently gives the free software world
another leg up. There’s no information i n the record to help historians or give
future generations some hints o n how to solve similar disputes.

L OUTSIDER

The battle between the University of California at Berkeley's computer science

department and AT&T did not reach the court system until 1992, but die friction
between the department's devotion to sharing and the corporation's insistence on
control started long before.

While (he BSD team struggled with lawyers, a free man i n Finland began to
write his o w n operating system without any of the legal or institutional
encumbrance. A t the beginning he said i t was a project that probably wouldn't
amount to much, but only a few years later people began to joke about "Total
World Domination.1' A few years after that, they started using die phrase
seriously.

In April 1991, Linus Torvalds had a problem. H e was a relatively poor university
amount to much, but only a few years later people began to joke about ''Total
World Domination." A few years after that, they started using the phrase
seriously.

I n April 1991, Linus Torvalds had a problem. H e was a relatively poor university
student in Finland who wanted to hack In the guts of a computer operating
system. Microsoft's machines at rhe time were rhe cheapest around, but they
weren't very interesting. The basic Disk Operating System (DOS) essentially let
one program control the computer. Windows 3.1 was not much more than a
graphical front end IO DOS featuring pretty pictures—icons—IO represent the
files. Torvalds wanted to experiment with a real OS, and that meant U N I X or
something that was UNIX-like. These real OSs juggled hundreds of programs at
one time and often kept dozens of users happy. Playing with DOS was like
practicing basketball shots by yourself. Playing with UNIX was like playing
with a team that had 5, 10, maybe as many as 100 people moving around the
court i n complicated, clock work patterns.

But UNIX machines cost a relative fortune. The high-end customers requested
the OS, so generally only high-end machines came with it. A poor university
student in Finland didn't have the money for a topnotch Sun Sparc station. He
could only afford a basic PC, which came with the 386 processor. This was a
top-of -the- line PC at the time, but it still wasn't particularly exciting, A few
companies made a version of U N I X for this low-end machine, but they charged
for it.
In most cases, the flow i s not particularly novel. The companies just choose
FreeBSD or some version o f L i n u x for their machines like any normal human
being. Many web companies use a free OS like Linux or FreeBSD because
they’re both cheap and reliable. This is going to grow much more common as
companies realize they can save a substantial amount of money over buying seat
licenses from companies like Microsoft.

In some cases, the interactions between the open source realm and the corporate
cubicle farm become fairly novel. When the Apache web server grew popular,
the developers at IBM recognized that they had an interesting opportunity at
hand. If I B M could get the Apache server to work on its platforms, it might sell
more machines. Apache was growing more common, and common software
often sold machines. When people came looking for a new web server, the I B M
salesmen thought i t might be nice to offer something that was well known.

Apache’s license is pretty loose. IBM could have taken die Apache code, added
some modifications, and simply released it under their o w n name. The license
only required that I B M give some credit by saying the version was derived from
Apache itself. This isn't hard to do when you're getting something for free.
Apache's license is pretty loose, IBM could have taken the Apache code, added
some modifications, and simply released it under their own name. The license
only required that I B M give some credit by saying the version was derived from
Apache itself. This isn't hard to do when you're getting something for free.

Other companies have done the same thing. Brian Behlendorf, one of the Apache
core group, says, “There's a company that's taken the Apache code and ported i t
to Mac. They didn't contribute anything back to the Apache group, but it didn't
really hurt us to do that." H e suggested that the karma came back to haunt (hem
because Apple began releasing their own version of Apache with the new OS,
effectively limiting the company's market,

I B M is, of course, an old master at creating smooth relationships with customers

and suppliers. They chose to build a deeper relationship with Apache by hiring
one of the core developers, Ken Coar, and paying him to keep everyone happy.

" M y job is mu Ltifaceted,'' says Coar. "I don't work on the I B M addedvalue stuff
[ work on the base Apache code on whatever platforms are available to me. 1
serve as a liaison between I B M and the Apache group, basically advising I B M
on whether the things that they want to do are appropriate. It's an interesting yet
unique role. A l l of my code makes it back into (he base Apache code."

Coar ended up with the job because he helped IBM and Apache negotiate the
original re]atio nship. He said there was a considerable amount of uncertainly on
outside the FSF and I wanted to tackle that project."

According to Raymond, Stallman didn't want him to do the work and refused to
build it into the distribution. Stallman could do this because he controlled the
Free Software Foundation and the distribution of the software. Raymond could
have created his own version, but refused because it was too complicated and
ultimately bad for everyone if two versions emerged.

For his part, Stallman explains that he was glad to accept parts of Raymond's
work, but he didn't want to be forced into accepting them all. Stallman says,
"Actually, 1 accepted a substantial amount of work that Eric had done. He had a
number of ideas I liked, but he also had some ideas I thought were mistaken. I
was happy to accept his help, as long as I could judge his ideas one by one,
accepting some and declining some.

"But subsequently he asked me to make a blanket arrangement i n which he

would take over the development of a large pan of Emacs, operating
independently. I felt I should continue to Judge his ideas individually, so I said
no. 1'
"But subsequently he asked me to make a blanket arrangement i n which he
would take over the development of a large pan of Emacs, operating
independently. I felt I should continue to judge his ideas individually, so I said
no,"

Raymond mixed this experience with his time watching Torvalds's team push ihe
Linux kernel and used them as the basis for his essay on distributing the Source.
"Mostly I was trying to pull some factors that I had observed as unconscious
folklore so people could take them out and reason about them," he said.

Raymond says, "Somebody pointed out that there's a parallel of politics. Rigid
political and social institutions tend to change violently i f they change at all,
while ones with more play in them tend to change peacefully."

There is a good empirical reason for the faith i n the strength of free source. After
ail, a group of folks who rarely saw each other had assembled a great pile of
source code that was kicking Microsoft's butt in some comers of the computer
world. Linux servers were common on the Internet and growing more common
every day. The desktop was waiting to be conquered. They had done this without
stock options, without corporate jets, without secret contracts, and without
potentially illegal alliances with computer manufacturers. The success of the
software from the GNU and Linux world was really quite impressive.

Of course, myths can be taken too far. Programming computers is hard work and
often frustrating. Sharing the source code doesn’t make bugs or problems go
whistles that a dedicated, market-driven team can add to software.

OusterhouCs decision to move to Sun worried many people because they thought
i t might lead to a commercialization of the language. Ousterhout answered these
with an e-mail message that said TCL/Tk would remain free, but Sun would try
to make some money on the project by selling development tools.

"Future enhancements made toTcl andTk by my group at Sun, including the

ports to Macs and PCs, will be made freely available to anyone to use for any
purpose. My view, and that of the people I report to at Sun, is that it wouldn't
work for Sun to try to takeTcl andTk proprietary anyway: someone (pr obably
me, in a new job) would just pick up the last free release and start an
independent development path. This would be a terrible thing for everyone since
it would result in incompatible versions.

"Of course, Sun does need to make money from the work of my team or else
they won't be able to continue to support us. Our current plan is to charge for
development tools and interesting extensions and applications. Balancing the
public and the profitable will be an ongoing challenge for us, but it is very
important both to me and to Sun to keep the support of the existing Td
" O f course, Sun does need to make money from the work of my team or else
they won't be able to continue to support us. Our current plan is to charge for
development tools and interesting extensions and applications. Balancing the
public and the profitable will be an ongoing challenge for us, but it is very
important both to me and to Sun to keep the support of the existing Td
community," he wrote.

In some respects, Ousterhoufs pragmatism was entirely different from

Stallman's, He openly acknowledged the need to make money and also admitted
that Sun was leaving TCL/Tk free because it might be practically impossible to
make it proprietary. The depth of interest in the community made it likely that a
free version would continue to evolve. Stallman would never cut such a deal
with a company shipping proprietaiy software.

In other respects, many of the differences are only at the level of rhetoric.
Ousterhout worked on producing a compromise that would leave TCL 'Tk free
while the sales of development tools paid the bills. Stallman did the same thing
when he figured out a way to charge people for CD-ROMs and manuals,
Ousterhout's work at Sun was spun off into a company called Seri piles that is
surprisingly like many of the other free software vendors, The core of the
product, TCL/Tk 8,1 al this time, is governed by a BSD-sly le license. The source
code can be downloaded from the site. The company itself, on the other hand,
sells a more enhanced product known as TCLPro.
He added that many of the packagers are also programmers in other projects. In
his case, he writes Java programs during the day for a company that makes
point-of-sale terminals for stores.

Lewis-Moss ended up with this job in the time-honored tradition of committees

and volunteer organizations everywhere. " I reported a bug in X Emacs to
Debian. The guy who had the package at that time said, I don't want this
anymore. Do you want it?1 1 guess it was random. It was sort of an accident. I
didn't intend to become involved in it, but it was something I was interested in, I
figured Hell, might as well."'

The Linux development effort moves slowly forward with thousands of stories
like Lewis-Moss's. Folks come along, check out the code, and toss in a few
contributions that make it a bit better for themselves. The mailing list debates
some of the changes i f they're controversial or i f they’ll affect many people. It's a
very efficient system in many ways, i f you can stand the heat of the debates.

Most Americans are pretty divorced from the heated arguments that boiJ through
the corridors of Washington. The view of the House and Senate floor is largely
just for showr because most members don't attend the debates. The real decisions
very efficient system in many ways, i f you can stand the heat of the debates.

Most Americans are pretty divorced from the healed arguments that boil through
the corridors of Washington. The view of the House and Senate floor is largely
just for show because most members don’t attend the debates. The real decisions
are made in back rooms.

The mailing lists that form the core of the different free software projects take all
of this debate and pipe it right through to the members. While some discussions
occur in private letters and even in the occasional phone call, much of the
problem and controversy is dissected for everyone to read. This is crucial
because most of the decisions arc made largely by consensus.

"Most of the decisions are technical and most of them w i l l have the right answer
or the best possible one at the moment," says Lew is- Moss. "Often things back
down to who is willing to do the work. I t you're willing to do the work and the
person on the other side isn’t willing, then yours is the right one by definition."

While the mailing list looks like an idealised notion of a congress for the Linux
kernel development, it is not as perfect as it may seem. Not all comments are
taken equally because friendships and political alliances have evolved through
time. The Debian group elected a president to make crucial decisions that can’t
be made by deep argument and consensus. The president doesn't have many
other powers i n other cases.
wish list was a secret submarine docking site in the basement grotto.

The f i f t h paragraph even explained to everyone that the name o f the project
would be the acronym G N U , which stood for "GNU'S Not U N I X / ' and it should
be pronounced with a hard G to make sure that no one would get i t confused
w i t h the word "new." Stallman has always cared about words, the way they’re
used and the way they’re pronounced.

In 1984, U N I X became the focus of Stallman's animus because its original

developer, AT&T, was pushing to try to make some money back after paying so
many people at Bell Labs to create it. Most people were somewhat conflicted by
the fight. They understood that AT&T had paid good money and supported many
researchers w i t h the company's beneficence. The company gave money, time,
and spare computers. Sure, i t was a pain to pay AT&T for something and get
only a long license drafted by teams of lawyers. Yes, i t would be nice if we could
poke around under die hood of UNIX without signing a non-disclosure
agreement. I t would he nice i f we could he free to do whatever we want, but
certainly someone who pays for something deserves the right to decide how it is
used. We've al] got to eat.
poke around under die hood of UNIX without signing a non-disclosure
agreement. I t would be nice i f we could be free to do whatever we want, but
certainly someone who pays for something deserves ihe right to decide how it is
used. We've all got to eat.

Stallman wasn't confused at all. Licenses like AT&Ts would constrict his
freedom to share with others. To make matters worse, the software companies
wanted him to pay for the privilege of gening software without the source code.

Stall man explains that his feelings weren't focused on AT&T per se. Software
companies were springing up all over the place, and most of them were locking
up their source code with proprietary licenses, it was the 1980s thing to do, like
listening to music by Duran Duran and Boy George.

"When I decided to write a free operating system, I did not have AT&T in mind
at all, because 1 had never had any dealings with them. I had never used a U N I X
system They were just one of many companies doing the same discreditable
thing," he told me recently, " I chose a Unix-like design just because I thought it
was a good design for the job, not because 1 had any particular feelings about
AT&T."

When he wrote the GNU Manifesto, he made it clear to the world that his project
was more about choosing the right moral path than saving money. H e wrote then
that the G N U project means "much more than just saving everyone the price of a
Microsoft's employees may be just serfs motivated by the dream that someday
their meager stock options will b e worth enough to retire upon, but they have a
huge pile of cash driving them forward. This capita] can be shifted very quickly.
I f Bill Gates wants 1 ,000 programmers to create something, he can wave his
hand. I f he wants to buy 1,000 computers, it takes h i m a second. That's rhe
power of capital.

Linus Torvalds may be on the cover of magazines, but he can't do anything w i t h

the wave of a hand. H e must charm and cajole the thousands of folks o n the
L i n u x mailing list to make a change. Many of the free software projects may
generate great code, but they have to beg for computers. The programmers might
even surprise h i m and come up w i t h an even better solution. They've done i t i n
the past. B u t no money means that no one has to do what anyone says.

In the past, the free software movement was like the movies in which Mickey
Rooney and Judy Garland put on a great show in the barn. That part won't
change. Cool kids with a dream w i l l still be spinning u p great programs that w i l l
be wonderful gifts for the world.

But shows that are charming and fresh in a barn can become thin and weak on a
Rooney and Judy Garland put on a great show in the barn. Thai pan won't
change. Cool kids with a dream w i l l still be spinning up great programs that w i l l
be wonderful gifts for the world.

But shows that are charming and fresh in a barn can become thin and weak on a
big stage on Broadway. The glitches and raw functionality of Linux and free
software don't seem too bad i f you know that they're built by kids in their spare
lime. Building real tools for real companies, moms, police stations, and serious
users everywhere is another mailer. Everyone may be hoping that sharing,
caring, and curiosity are enough, but no one knows for certain. Maybe capital
will end up winning. Maybe it won't, it s freedom versus assurance; it s wide-
open sharing versus stock options; it’s cooperation versus intimidation; it s the
geeks versus the suits, all in one knockdown, hack-ti] l-you-drop, winner-take-
everything fight.

1. LISTS

While Alan Cox was sleeping late and Microsoft was putting Richard
Schmalensee on the stand, the rest of the open source software world was
tackling their own problems. Some were just getting up, others were in the
middle of their day, and still others were just going to sleep. This is not just
because the open source hackers like to work at odd times around the clock.
Some do. But they also live around die globe i n all of the different time zones.
Before the attack became well known, programmers would often ignore the
length of the request and assume dial 512 bytes was more than enough for
anything. W h o would ever type a U R L that long?

Who had an e-mail address that long? Attackers soon figured out that they could
send more than 512 bytes and started writing over the rest o f the computer s
memory. The program would dutifully take in 100,000 bytes and keep writing it
to memory. A n attacker could download any software and start i t running. A n d
attackers d i d this.

D e Raadt and many others started combing the code for loopholes. They made
sure every program that used a buffer included a bit o f code that would check to
ensure that n o hacker was trying to sneak i n more than the buffer could hold.
They checked thousands o f other possibilities. Every line was checked and
changes were made even i f there was n o practical way for someone to get at the
potential hole. Many buffers, for instance, only accept information from the
person sitting at the terminal. The OpenBSD folks changed them, too.

This audit began soon after the fork i n 1995 and continues to this day. Most of
the major work is done and the group likes to brag that they haven’t had a hole
potential hole. Many buffers, for instance, only accept information from the
person sitting at the terminal. The OpenBSD folks changed them, too.

This audit began soon after the fork in 1995 and continues to this day. Most of
the major work is done and the group likes to brag that they haven't had a hole
that could be exploited remotely to gain root access in over two years. The latest
logo boasts the tag line "Sending kiddies to /dev/null since 1995.” That is, any
attacker is going to go nowhere with OpenBSD because all of the extra
information from the attacks would be routed to /dev/null, a UNIX conceit for
being erased, ignored, and forgotten.

The OpenBSD fork is a good example of how bad political battles can end up
solving some important technical problems. Everyone fretted and worried when
de Raadt announced that he was forking the BSD world one more time. This
would further dilute the resources and sow confusion among users. The
concentration on security, however, gave OpenBSD a brand identity, and the
other BSD distributions keep at least one eye on the bug fixes distributed by the
OpenBSD team. These often lead to surreptitious fixes in their own distribution.

The focus also helped him attract new coders who were interested in security.
"Some of them used to be crackers and they were really cool people. When they
become eighteen, it becomes a federal offense, you know," de Raadt says.

This fork may have made the B S D community stronger because i t effectively
Steve Gilliard, a "media operative" at the website NetSlaves, wrote, " I f the Red
H a t friends and family group were judged by normal standards, there is no
brokerage in the U.S. which would let many of them buy into an IPO. In many
cases, they would be denied a brokerage account. Poor people are usually
encouraged to make other investments, like paying o f f Visa and Master Card.”

Others saw i t as a trick to weed out the pool and make sure that E* Trade could
allocate the shares to its buddies. The more the small guys were excluded, the
more the b i g guys would get for their funds, fn the end, the complaints reached
some ears. More people were able to sneak in, but the circle was never big
enough for all.

20.1 W O R L D D O M I N A T I O N PRETTY SOON?

Red Hat s b i g pool of money created more than jealousy i n the hearts and minds
o f the open source world. Jealousy was an emotional response. Fear o f a new
Microsoft was the rational response that came from the mind. Red Hat's pool of
cash was unprecedented in the open source community. People saw what the pile
Red Hat's big pool of money created more than jealousy i n the hearts and minds
of the open source world. Jealousy was an emotional response. Fear of a new
Microsoft was the rational response that came from the mind. Red Hat's pool of
cash was unprecedented in the open source community. People saw what the pile
of money and the stock options did to Bill Gates. Everyone began to wonder i f
the same would happen to Red Hat.

On the face of it ± most open source developers have little to worry about. A l l the
code on the Red Hat disk is covered with a General Protection License and isn't
going to become proprietary. Robert Young has been very open about his
promise to make sure that every thing Red Hat ships falls under the GPL. That
includes the distribution tools it writes in-house.

Ttie GPL is a powerful force that prevents Rod Hat from making many unilateral
decisions. There are plenty of distributions that would like to take over the
mantle of the most popular version of Linux. It's not hard. The source code is all
there.

But more savvy insiders whisper about a velvet-gloved version o f Microsoft's

''embrace and extend." The company first gains control by stroking the egos and
padding the wallets of the most important developers.

I n time, other Red Hat employees will gradually become the most important
developers. They're paid to work on open source projects al] day. They'll
someone answering the phone every moment. A company that is selling shrink-
wrapped software can collect money as people buy new copies. McVoy doesn’t
want this cash to spend tipping bartenders on cruise ships, although he doesn't
rule it out. H e wants the capital to reinvest in other neat ideas. H e wants to have
some cash coming i n so he can start up development teams looking at new and
bigger projects.

The Cygnus model is too constraining for him. H e argues that a company relying
o n support contracts must look for a customer to fund each project. Cygnus, for
instance, had to convince Intel that they could do a good job porting the GCC to
the i960. They found few people interested i n general support of G N U , so they
ended up concentrating on GCC.

McVoy argues that it's the engineers who come up with the dreams first. The
customers are often more conservative and less able to see how some new tool or
piece of software could be really useful. Someone needs to hole up i n a garage
for a bit to create a convincing demonstration o f the idea. Funding a dream takes
capital.

To him, the absence o f money i n the free software world can b e a real limitation
piece of software could be really useful. Someone needs Lo hole up i n a garage
for a bit to create a convincing demonstration of the idea. Funding a dream takes
capital.

To him, the absence of money i n the free software world can be a real limitation
because money is a way to store value. It's not just about affording a new Range
Rover and balsamic vinegars that cost more than cocaine by weight. Money can
be a nice way to store up effort and transport it across time. Someone can work
like a dog for a six months, turn out a great product, and sell it for a pile of cash.
Ten years later, the cash can be spent on something else. The work is effectively
stored for die future.

Of course, this vision isn't exactly true. Cygnus has managed to charge enough
fortheir contracts to fund the development of extra tools. Adding new features
and rolling them out into the general distribution of some G N U tool is pan of the
job that the Cygnus team took on for themselves. These new features also mean
that the users need more support. On one level, it's not much different from a
traditional software development cycle. Cygnus is doing its work by subscription
while a traditional house is creating its new features on spec.

In fact, Cygnus did so well over such a long period of time that it found it could
raise capital. "Once Cygnus had a track record of making money and delivering
on time, in Vestel's wanted a piece of it,” says Gilmore.
handsomely by Microsoft as an expert witness to repeat this view in court,

Schmalensee's argument was simple: competitors are popping up all over the
place. Microsoft, he said i n his direct testimony, "is in a constant struggle for
competitive survival That struggle—the race to win and the victor's perpetual
fear of being displaced-is the source of competitive vitality in the
microcomputer software industry."

Schmalensee even had a few competitors ready. "The iMac clearly competes
directly and fiercely with Intel-compatible computers running Windows," he said
without mentioning that Microsoft had bailed out Apple several months before
with hundreds of millions of dollars i n an investment. When Steve Jobs, the
iCEO of Apple, announced the deal to a crowd of Mac lovers, the crowd booed.
Jobs quieted them and tried to argue that the days of stiff competition with
Microsoft were over. The scene did such a good job of capturing the total
domination of Microsoft dial die television movie The Pirates of Silicon Valley
used it to illustrate how Bill Gates had won all of the marbles.

After the announcement of the investment, Apple began shipping Microsoft's

Internet Explorer web browser as the preferred browser on its machines.
domination of Microsoft that the television movie The Pirates of Silicon Valiev
used it to illustrate how B i l l Gates had won all of the marbles.

After the announcement of the investment, Apple began shipping Microsoft's

Internet Explorer web browser as the preferred browser on its machines,
Microsoft's competitor Netscape became just a bit harder to find on the iMac,
After that deal, Steve Jobs even began making statements that the old sworn
enemies, Apple and Microsoft, were now more partners than competitors.
Schmalensee didn't focus on this facet of Apple's new attitude toward
competition.

Next, Schmalensee trotted out BeOS, an operating system made by Be, a small
company with about 100 employees run by ex-Apple executive Jean-Louis Gass
e. This company had attracted millions of dollars in funding, he said, and some
people really liked it. That made it a competitor.

Schmalensee didn’t mention that Be had trouble giving away the BeOS operating
system. Gass e approached a number of PC manufacturers to see i f they would
include BeOS on their machines and give users the chance to switch between
two operating systems. Gass e found, to no one's real surprise, dial Microsoft's
contracts with manufacturers made it difficult, i f not practically impossible, to
get BeOS in customers' hands. Microsoft controlled much of what the user got to
sec and insisted on almost total control over the viewer's experience.
Schmalensee didn’t mention these details in his testimony. BeOS may have been
The open source movement is filled with people who analyze software, look for
bugs, and search for fixes. These quiet workhorses are the foundation o f the
movement's success. One member of this army is David Baron, an
undergraduate student who started out at Harvard in the fall of 1998 and found,
like most students, that he had a b i t of spare time. Some students turn to theater,
some to the newspaper, some to carousing, some to athletic teams, some to
drinking, and most choose one or more of the above. A few students search out
some charitable work for their spare time and volunteer at a homeless shelter or
hospital L a w students love to work at the free legal clinic for the poor. Baron,
however, is a b i t of a nerd in all of the good senses of the word. He's been
working on cleaning u p Netscape's open source browser project known as
Mozilla, and he thinks i t s a great act o f charity.

Baron spends his spare time poking around the M o z i l l a layout engine
responsible for arranging the graphics, text, form slots, buttons, and whatnot i n a
consistent way. Graphic designers want all web browsers on the Net to behave i n
a consistent way and they've been agitating to try and get the browser companies
(Netscape, Microsoft, iCab, WebTV, and Opera) to adhere to a set o f standards
DdlUll Spt?LlUS il!b SpdLt LLIHf pUKJllg dlUUllU Lilt LVl(J£||td IdVUUL tTLIJ LILt
responsible for arranging the graphics, text, form slots, buttons, and whatnot in a
consistent way. Graphic designers want all web browsers on the Not to behave in
a consistent way anti they've been agitating to try and get die browser companies
(Netscape, Microsoft, iCab, WebTV, and Opera) to adhere to a set of standards
developed by the W3C, the World Wide Wreb Consortium based at MIT. These
standards spelt out exactly how the browsers are supposed to handle complicated
layout instructions like cascading style sheets,

Baron looked at these standards and thought they were a good idea. I f all web
browsers handled content i n the same way, then little buttons saying "Best
Viewed with Microsoft I E ” or "Best Viewed by Netscape” would disappear. The
browser companies would be able to compete on features, not on their ability to
display weirder web pages. It would cut the web designers out of the battle
between Microsoft and Netscape.

The standards also help users, especially users with different needs. He told me,
"Standards (particularly CSS) encourage accessibility for users with all sorts of
disabilities because they allow authors to use H T M L as It was originally
intended—as a structural markup language that can be interpreted by browsers
that display things in non visual media or in very large fonts for users with poor
vision. Changing the H T M L on the web back to structural markup will also
allow these browsers to produce sensible output.”

Handling standards like this is always a bit of a political problem for companies.
Linux, DemoLinux, D L D , DLite, D L X , DragonLinux, easyLinux, Enoch,
Eridani Star System, Eonova Linux, e-smith server and gateway, Eurielec Linux
(Spanish), executive Linux, floppy fw, Floppix, Green Frog Linux, hal91, Hard
Hat Linux, Immunix, Independence, Jurix, KhaOs Linux, K R U D , KSI-Linux,
Laetos, L E M , Linux Cyrillic Edition, LinuxGT, Linux-Kheops (French), Linux
MLD (Japanese), LinuxOne OS, LinuxPPC, LinuxPPP (Mexican), Linux Pro
Plus, Linux Router Project, L O A F , L S D , Mandrake, Mastodon, MicroLinux,
MkLinux, muLinux, nanoLinux II, NoMad Linux, OpenClassroom, Peanut
Linux, Plamo Linux, P L D , Project Ballantain, PROSA, QuadLinux, Red Hat,
Rock L i n u x , RunOnCD, ShareTheNet, Sky gate, Slackware, Small Linux,
Stampede, Stataboware, Storm L i n u x , SuSE, Tomsrtbt, Trinux, TurboLinux,
uClinux, Vine Linux, WinLinux 2000, Xdenu, XTeamLinux, and Yellow Dog
Linux.

Officially, Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter tor the kernel and the one who
makes the final decisions about new features. I n practice, the group runs like a
loosely knit "ad-hocracy." Some people might care about a particular feature like
the ability’ to interface with Macintoshes, and they write special code that makes
this task easier. Others who run really big databases may want larger file systems
rhar ran stnrp mnrp informs non without limits
makes the final decisions about new features. In practice, the group runs like a
loosely knit "ad-hocracy." Some people might care about a particular feature like
the ability to interface with Macintoshes, and they write special code that makes
this task easier. Others who run really b i g databases may want larger file systems
that can store more information without limits.

AU of these people work at their own pace. Some work in their homes, like Alan
Cox. Some work in university labs. Others work for businesses that use Linux
and encourage their programmers to plug away so it serves their needs.

The team is united by mailing lists. The Linux Kernel mailing list hooks up Cox
i n Britain, Torvalds in Silicon Valley, and the others around the globe. They post
notes to the list and discuss ideas. Sometimes verbal fights break out, and
sometimes everyone agrees. Sometimes people light a candle by actually writing
new code to make the kernel better, and other times they just curse the darkness.

Cox is now one of several people responsible for coordinating the addition of
new code. He tests it for compatibility and guides Linux authors to make sure
they’re working together optimally. I n essence, he tests every piece of incoming
software to make sure all of the gauges work with the right system of
measurement so there will be no glitches. He tries to remove the
incompatibilities that marred Zorro.

Often, others w i l l duplicate Cox’s work. Some now features arc very popular and
fellow men, and offers a practical way of living a l i f e of effective charity/ he
writes. It’s not enough to give a man a fish, because Leaching him to fish is a
much better gift. A fish farm that hires a man and gives h i m stock options may
be offering the highest form of giving around.

Gilder does note that the cycle o f gifts alone is not enough to build a strong
economy, He suggests that the bigger and bigger piles of coconuts and whale
blubber were all that emerged from the endless rounds of potlatching. They were
great for feasting, but the piles would rot and go stale before they were
consumed. The successful society reinterpreted the cycle of gifts as investment
and dividends, and the introduction of money made it possible for people to
easily move the returns from one investment to the start of another. This liquidity
lets the cycles be more and more efficient and gives people a place to store their
wealth.

Of course, Gilder admits that money is only a temporary storage device. It s just
a tool for translating the wealth of one sector o f the economy into the wealth o f
another. It's just a wheelbarrow or an ox cart. I f society doesn't value the
contributions of the capitalists, the transfer w i l l fail. I f the roads are too rocky or
blocked bv too manv toll collectors, the carts won’t make the trip.
Of course, Gilder admits that money is only a temporary storage device. It’s just
a tool for translating the wealth of one sector of the economy into the wealth of
another. It's jusi a wheelbarrow or an ox cart. I f society doesn't value the
contributions of the capitalists, the transfer will fail. I f the roads are too rocky or
blocked by too many toll collectors, the carts won't make the trip.

At first glance, none of this matters to the free software world. The authors give
away their products, and as long as someone pays a minimal amount for storage
the software w i l l not decay. The web is filled with source code repositories and
strongholds that let people store away their software and let others download it
at will. These cost a minimal amount to keep up and the cost is dropping every
day. There's no reason to believe that the original work of Stallman w i l l be lost
to the disease, pestilence, wear, and decay that have cursed physical objects like
houses, clothes, and food.

But despite the beautiful permanence of software, every one knows that it goes
bad. Programmers don't use the term "bit rot" for fun. As operating systems
mature and other programs change, the old interfaces start to slowly break down.
One program may depend upon the operating system to print out a file i n
response to a command. Then a new version of the printing code is revved up to
add fancier fonts and more colors. Suddenly the interface doesn't work exactly
right. Over time, these thousands of little changes can ruin the heart of a good
program in much the same way worms can eat the hull of a wooden ship.
that the actions I took were illegal, and that I committed invasions of privacy-1
even offered to plead guilty to my crimes soon after my arrest?

He continued, "The fact of the matter is that 1 never deprived the companies
involved i n this case of anything. I never committed fraud against these
companies. And there is not a single piece of evidence suggesting that I did so."

This trespass, of course, would be breaking the rules. The irony is that i n 1999,
Sun announced that i t was sharing its source code with the world. They begged
everyone to look at it and probe i t for weaknesses. The tide of opinion changed
and Sun changed with it.

Of course, breaking into a company's computer system will always be bad, but
it’s hard to view Mitnick's alleged crimes as a terrible thing, Now that source
code is largely free and everyone digs public sharing, he begins to look more like
a moonshine manufacturer during Prohibition. The free source revolution has
given him a rakish charm. Who knows if he deserves it, but the Zeitgeist has
changed.

There are more arrests on the way. In January 2000, a young Norwegian man
a moonshine manufacturer during Prohibition. The free source revolution has
given him a rakish charm. Who knows i f he deserves it, but the Zeitgeist has
changed.

There are more arrests on the way. in January 2000, a young Norwegian man
was detained by the Norwegian police who wanted to understand his part in the
development of software to unscramble the video data placed on D V D disks.
Motion picture producers who released their movies in this format were worried
that a tool known as DeCSS, which was floating around the Internet, would
make it easier for pirates to make unlicensed copies of their movies.

The man, Jan Johansen, did not write rhe tool, but merely helped polish and
circulate it on the Net. News reports suggest an anonymous German programmer
did the actual heavy lifting.

Still, Johansen made a great target for the police, who never officially arrested
him, although they did take him i n for questioning.

At this writing, it's not clear i f Johansen officially broke any laws. Some argue
that he violated the basic strictures against breaking and entering. Others argue
that he circulated trade secrets that were not legimately obtained.

Still others see the motion picture industry's response as an effort to control the
distribution of movies and the machines that display them. A pirate doesn't need
to use the DeCSS tool to unlock the data on a D V D disk. They just make a
UNIX license. I t means that much wasteful duplication of system programming
effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of die
art."

This was a crucial point that kept Stallman from being dismissed as a quasi-
communist crank who just wanted everyone to live happily on some nerd
commune. The source code is a valuable tool for everyone because it is readable
by humans, or at least humans who happen to be good at programming.
Companies learned to keep source code proprietary, and i t became almost a
reflex. If people wanted to use it, they should pay to help defray the cost o f
creating it. This made sense to programmers who wanted to make a living or
even get rich writing their own code. But i t was awfully frustrating at times.
Many programmers have pulled their hair out i n grief when their work was
stopped by some bug or undocumented feature buried deep i n the proprietary,
super-secret software made by Microsoft, I B M , Apple, or whomever. I f they had
the source code, they would be able to poke around and figure out what was
really happening. Instead, they had to treat the software like a black box and
keep probing it with test programs that might reveal the secrets hidden inside.
Eveiy programmer has had an experience like this, and every programmer knew
rhar thpv rnnld <;nlvp fhp nrnhlpm much fjKtpr i f thpv r n n l d nnlv rp.irl rhp qmirrp
the source code, they would be able to poke around and figure out what was
really happening. Instead, they had to treat the software like a black box and
keep probing it with test programs that might reveal the secrets hidden inside.
Every programmer has had an experience like this, and every programmer knew
that they could solve the problem much faster i f they could only read the source
code. They didn't want to steal anything, they just wanted to know what was
going on so they could make their own code work.

Stallman's G N U project would be different, and he explained, "Complete system

sources w i l l be available to everyone. A s a result, a user who needs changes i n
the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available
programmer or company to make them for him. Users w i l l no longer be at the
mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole
position to make changes,”

He was quick to mention that people would be ' free to hire any available
programmer 1' to ensure that people understood he wasn't against taking money
for writing software. That was okay and something he did frequently himself. He
was against people controlling the source with arbitrarily complex legal barriers
that made it impossible for him or anyone else to get something done.

When people first heard of his ideas, they became fixated on the word "free."
These were the Reagan years. Saying that people should just give away their
hard work was sounding mighty communist to everyone, and this was long
Red Hat tried to alleviate some of the trouble by allocating 000,000 shares to
"directors, officers and employees o f Red Hat and to open source software
developers and oilier persons that Red Hat believes have contributed to the
success of the open source software community and the growth of Red Hat."
This group, occasionally known as the "friends and family," was a way to reward
buddies. Red Hat drew up a list of major contributors to the open source
distribution and sent out invitations,

"Dear open source community member," began the e-mail letter that Red Hat
sent to about 1,000 people.

In appreciation of your contribution to the open source community, Red Hat is

pleased to offer you (his personal, non- transferable, opportunity.. .. Red Hat
couldn't have grown this far without the ongoing help and support of the open
source community, therefore, we have reserved a portion of the stock in our
offering for distribution online to certain members of die open source
community. We invite you to participate.

Many programmers and developers were touched by the thoughtfulness, r h e list

probably wasn't long enough or inclusive enough to p u l l everyone into the circle,
offering for distribution online to certain members of the open source
community. We invite you to participate.

Many programmers and developers were touched by the thoughtfulness. The list
probably wasn't long enough or inclusive enough to pull everyone into the circle,
but it did do a good job of spreading the wealth around. The plan began to
backfire, however, when EThade began to parcel out the shares. Everyone who
made it onto the list filled out a form listing their net worth, and ETrade
attempted to decide who was a sophisticated investor and who wasn't. Some
folks who had little money (perhaps because they spent too much time writing
free software) were locked out.

One contributor, C. Scott Ananian, wrote about his rejection i n Salon magazine,
" I filled out the eligibility questionnaire myself. I knew they were Trying to weed
out inexperienced investors, so on every question that related to experience, I
asserted the maximum possible. 1 knew what I was doing. And it was my money,
anyway-1 had a God-given right to risk i t on as foolhardy a venture as I liked.1'

The article drew plenty of flack and murmurs of a class action lawsuit from the
disenfranchised. A discussion broke out on Slashdot, the hardcore site for nerds.
Some defended ETrade and pointed out that a Red Hat IPO was not a lock or a
guarantee of wealth. Too many grandmothers hod been burned by slick-talking
stock salesmen in the past. ETrade had to block out the little guys for their own
protection. Slock can go down as well as up.
not unlike high school When the cliques split, everyone had to pick and choose.
De Raadt had to get some folks i n his camp if he was going to make some
lemonade.

The inspiration came to de Raadt one day when he discovered that the flame war
archive on his web page was missing a few letters. He says that someone broke
into his machine and made a few subtle deletions. Someone who had an intimate
knowledge of the NetBSD system. Someone who cared about the image
portrayed by the raw emotions in the supposedly private letters.

He clarifies his comments to make i t clear that he's not sure it was someone from
the NetBSD core. "I never pursued it. I f it happens, it's your own fault. It's not
their fault/' he said. Of course, the folks from NetBSD refused to discuss (his
matter or answer questions unless they could review the chapter.

This break-in gave him a focus. De Raadt looked at NetBSD and decided that it
was too insecure. He gathered a group of like-minded people and began to comb
the code for potential insecurities.

About the same time, I got involved with a company that wrote a network
Iliis break-in gave him a focus. De Raadl looked al NeiBSD and decided that it
was too insecure. He gathered a group of like-minded people and began to comb
the code for potential insecurities.

"About the same time, I got involved with a company that wrote a network
security scanner. Three of the people over there started playing with the source
tree and searching for security holes. We started finding problems all over the
place, so we started a comprehensive security audit. We started from the
beginning. Our task load increased massively. At one time, I had five pieces of
paper on my desk full of things to look for," he said.

Security holes in operating systems are strange beasts that usually appear by
mistake when the programmer makes an unfounded assumption. One of the best*
known holes is ihe buffer overflow, which became famous in 1983 after Robert
Morris, then a graduate student at Cornell, unleashed a program that used the
loophole to bring several important parts of the Internet to a crawl.

In this case, the programmer creates a buffer to hold all of the information that
someone on the net might send. Web browsers, for instance, send requests like
" G E T http://www.nytimes.com" to ask for the home page of the New York
Times website. The programmer must set aside some chunk of memory to hold
this request, usually a block that is about 512 bytes long, The programmer
chooses an amount that should be more than enough for all requests, including
the strangest and most complicated.
improvements, you can own them." After you negotiate a license with Sun, you
can sell them. Joy also points out that Sun's license does require some of the
GNU-like sharing by requiring everyone to report bugs.

Some customers may like a dictator demanding complete obeisance to Sun's

definition of Java, but some users are chaffing a b i t The freedom to look at the
code isn’t enough, They want the freedom to add their ow n features that are best
tuned to their own needs, a process that may start to Balkanize the realm by
creating more and more slightly different versions of Java. Sun clearly worries
that the benefits of ail this tuning aren't worth living through the cacophony of
having thousands of slightly different versions. Releasing the source code allows
al] of the users to see more information about the structure of Sun’s Java and
helps them work off the same page. This is still a great use of the source code,
but i t isn't as free as the use imagined by Stallman.

Alan Baratz, the former president of Sun’s Java division, says that their
Community Source License has been a large success. Sure, some folks would
like the ability to take the code and fork off their own versions as they might be
able to do with software protected by a BSD- or GNU-style license, but Java
developers really want the assurance that it's all compatible. As many said.
Alan Batatz, the former president of Sun's Java division, says that their
Community Source License has been a large success. Sure, some folks would
like the ability to lake the code and fork off their own versions as they might be
able to do with software protected by a BSD- or GNU-style license, but Java
developers really want the assurance that it’s all compatible. As many said,
’Microsoft wanted to fork Java so it could destroy it.'1

Barati. said, "We now have forty thousand community source licensees. The
developers and the systems builders and the users all want the branded Java
technology. They want to know that all of the apps are going to be there. That's
the number-one reason that developers are writing to the platform." Their more
restrictive license may not make Stallman and other free software devotees
happy, but at least Java w i l l run everywhere.

Maybe in this case, the quality and strength of the unity Sun brings to the
marketplace is more important than the complete freedom to do whatever you
want. There are already several Java clones available, like Kaffe. They were
created without the help of Sun, so their creators aren't bound by Sun's licenses.
But they also go out of their way to avoid splitting with Sun. Tim Wilkinson, the
CEO of Transvirtual, the creators of Kaffe, says that he plans to continue to
make Kaffe LOO percent Java compatible without paying royalties or abiding by
the Community Source License. I f his project or other similar ones continue to
thrive and grow, then people w i l l know that the freedom of open source can be
as important as blind allegiance to Sun.
18.2 BSD'S G A R D E N OF FORKING PATHS

Some forks aren't so bad. There often comes a time when people have legitimate
reasons to go down different paths. What's legitimate and what's not is often
decided after a b i g argument, but the standard reasons arc the same ones that
drive programming projects. A good fork should make a computer run software
a gazillion times faster. Or i t might make the code much easier to port to a new
platform. Or i t might make the code more secure. There are a thousand different
reasons, and it's impossible to really measure which is the right one. The only
true measure is the number o f people who follow each branch of the fork. I f a
project has a number of good disciples and the bug fixes are coming quickly,
then people tend to assume it is legitimate.

The various versions of the BSD software distribution are some o f the more
famous splits around. A l l are descended, i n one way o r another, from the original
versions of U N I X that came out o f Berkeley. Most o f the current ones evolved
from the 4.3BSD version and the Network Release 2 and some integrated code
from the 4.4BSD release after it became free. A l l benefited from the work of the
The various versions of the BSD software distribution are some of the more
famous splits around. A l l are descended, in one way or another, from the original
versions of UNIX that came out of Berkeley. Most of the current ones evolved
from the 4 3 B S D version and the Network Release 2 and some integrated code
from the 4.4BSD release after it became free. AU benefited from the work o f the
hundreds of folks who spent their free time cloning the features controlled by
AT&T. A l l of them are controlled by the same loose BSD license that gives
people the right to do pretty much anything they want to the code. A l l of them
share the same cute daemon as a mascot.

That's where the similarities end. The FreeBSD project is arguably the most
successful version, it gets a fairly wide distribution because its developers have a
good deal with Walnut Creek CD-ROM Distributors, a company that packages
up large bundles of freeware and shareware on the Net and then sells them on
CD-ROM. The system is well known and widely used because the F reeBSD
team concentrates on making the software easy to use and install on intel
computers. Lately, they've created an Alpha version, but most of the users run
the software on x86 chips. Yahoo! uses FreeBSD.

FreeBSD, of course, began as a fork of an earlier project known as 386BSD,

started by B i l l Jolilz. This version of BSD was more of an academic example or
a proof-of-concept than a big open source project designed to take over the
world.
I f governments ever decide to try to tax free software, the community might b e
able to fight off die request by arguing dial the tax is "paid" when die
government also uses the free software. I f 7 out o f WO Apache servers are
located i n government offices, then the government must be getting 7 percent
returned as tax.

One of the most difficult problems for people is differentiating between wealth
and money. The free software movement creates wealth without moving money.
The easy flow of digital information makes this possible. Some folks can turn
this into money by selling support or assisting others, but most o f the lime the
wealth sits happily i n the public domain.

Today, the Internet boom creates a great pool o f knowledge and intellectual
wrealth for the entire society. Some people have managed to convert this into
money by creating websites or tools and marketing them successfully, but the
vast pool of intellectual wealth remains open and accessible to all. Who does this
belong to? W h o can tax this? Who controls it? The most forward-thinking
countries w i l l resist die urge to tax it, but how many w i l l really be able to keep
o n resisting?
vast pool of intellectual wealth remains open and accessible to all. Who does this
belong to? Who can tax this? Who controls it? The most forward- thinking
countries w i l l resist the urge to tax it, but how many will really be able to keep
on resisting?

1. WEALTH

The writer, P. J. O'Rourke, once pointed out that wealth is a particularly

confusing concept to understand. It had nothing to do with being born i n the
right place. Africa is filled with diamonds, gold, platinum, oil, and thousands of
other valuable resources, while Japan has hardly anything underground except
subway tunnels and anthrax from strange cults. Yet Japan is still far wealthier
even after the long swoon of their postbubble economy.

O'Rourke also pointed out that wealth has nothing to do with raw brains. The
Russians play chess as a national sport while Brentwood is filled with dim bulbs
like the folks we saw during the 0, J. Simpson murder trial. Yet poverty is
endemic i n Russia, while Brentwood flourishes. Sure, people wait i n line for
food in Brentwood like they did in Soviet Russia, but this is only to gel a table at
the hottest new restaurant.

Wealth is a strange commodity; and understanding it keeps economists busy;

Governments need io justify their existence in some way, and lately people i n the
barber's, or the free drugs from the neighborhood pusher.

I f y o u want to think bigger, it may be better to see the free software world as
closer to the great socialized resources like the ocean, the freeway system, or the
general utility infrastructure. These treat eveiyone equally and provide a
common basis for travel and commerce.

Of course, that's the most cynical way that free software is no different from
many of the other industries. There are other ways that the free source vision is
just a return to the way that things used to be before the software industry
mucked them up. The problem is that a mixture of licensing, copyright, and
patent laws have given the software industry more ways to control their product
than virtually any other industry. The free source movement is more a reaction
against these controls than a brave new experiment.

21.2 W O U L D Y O U LICENSE A C A R F R O M THESE GUYS?

Comparing the software industry to the car industry is always a popular game.
21,2 WOULD YOU LICENSE A CAR FROM THESE GUYS?

Comparing the software industry to the car industry is always a popular game.
Normally, the car industry looks a bit poky and slow off the mark because they
haven't been turning out new products that are twice as fast and twice as efficient
as last year's products. But many parts of the car industry are bright, shining
examples of freedom compared to their software equivalents.

Consider the Saturday afternoon mechanic who likes to change die oil, pul in a
new carburetor, swap the spark plugs, and keep the car in running order. The car
guy can do all of these things without asking the manufacturer for permission.
There's nothing illegal about taking apart an engine or even putting an entirely
new, souped-up engine i n your car. The environmental protection laws may
prohibit adding engines that Spew pollutants, hut the manufacturer is out of the
loop. After all, it's your car. You paid for it.

Software is something completely different. You don’t own most of the software
you paid for on your computer. You just own a ’license’’ to use it. The difference
is that the license can be revoked at any time if you don't follow the rules, and
some of the rules can be uncomfortable or onerous. There's nothing wrong with
this mechanism. In the right hands, it can be very pleasant. The Berkeley
Software Distribution license, for instance, has no real requirements except that
you credit the university for its contributions, and the university just revoked that
complex, the Father's Day- industrial complex, the Christmas-industrial complex,
and their need to create acceptable gifts are gone.

O f course, there's also a certain element o f selfishness to the charity. The social
prestige that comes from writing good free software is worth a fair amount i n the
job market. People l i k e to list accomplishments like "wrote driver" or
"contributed code to Linux Kernel 2.2" on their r sum . Giving to the right
project is a badge of honor because serious folks doing serious work embraced
the gift. That’s often more valuable and more telling than a plaque or an award
from a traditional buss.

Rob Newberry is a programmer at Group Logic, a small software house i n

northern Virginia where 1 once d i d some consulting. H i s official title is "Director
o f Fajita Technology," and he is sometimes known as "The Dude," a reference to
a character i n the movie /The B i g L ebowski/. Technically, his job is budding and
supporting their products, which are used to automate the prepress industry. One
o f their products, known as Mass Transit, w i l l move files over the Internet and
execute a number o f automated programs to them before moving them on.
Printers use them to take i n new jobs, massage the data to their needs by
performing tasks like color separation, and then send the jobs to the presses. This
supporting their products, which are used to automate the prepress industry. One
of their products, known as Mass Transit, w i l l move files over the Internet and
execute a number of automated programs to them before moving them on,
Printers use them to take in new jobs, massage the data to their needs by
performing tasks like color separation, and then send the jobs to the presses. This
work requires great understanding of the various network protocols like FTP o f
NFS.

Newberry is also a Linux fan. He reads the Kernel list but rarely contributes
much to it. H e runs various versions of Linux around the house, and none of
them were working as well as he wanted with his Macintosh. So he poked
around in the software, fixed it, and sent his code off to Alan Cox, who watches
over the part of the kernel where his fixes belonged.

"1 contributed some changes to the Appletalk stack that’s in the Linux Kernel
that make it easier for a Linux machine to offer dial-in services for Macintosh
users," he said in an article published in Salon. " A s it stands, Mac users have
always been able to dial Into a Linux box and use IP protocols, but i f they
wanted to use Appletalk over PPP, the support wasn't really there."

Newberry, of course, is doing all of this on his own time because he enjoys it.
But his boss, Derick Naef ± still thinks it's pretty cool that he’s spending some of
his programming energy on a project that won't add anything immediately to the
bottom line.
Microsoft is an American company. B i l l Gates lives in Washington State and so
do most of the programmers under his dominion. The software they write gets
used around the globe in countries big and small, and the money people pay for
the software comes flooding back to the Seattle area, where it buys huge houses,
designer foods, and lots of serious and very competitive consumption, Through
the years, this sort of economic imperialism has built the great cities of Rome,
London, Tokyo, Barcelona, and many other minor cities. History is just a long
series of epochs when some company comes up with a clever mechanism for
moving the wealth of the world home to its cities. Britain relied on opium for a
while, Rome, it might be said, sold a legal system. Spain trafficked in pure gold
and silver. Microsoft is selling structured information in one of the most efficient
schemes yet.

Of course, these periods of wealth-building invariably come to an abrupt end

when some army, which is invariably described as "ragtag," shows up to pillage
and plunder. The Mongolian hordes, the Visigoths, and the Vikings are just a few
of the lightweight, lean groups that appeared over the horizon and beat the
standing army of the fat and complacent society. This was the cycle of boom and
U1 LUUlSe, L l l t i t f ptlLOUS 0 1 WtJdlll 1-UUIIULIlg HlVd.1IdDLV LUJIie LU d l l d O l U p i t l l U
when some army, which is i n variably described as "ragtag," shows up to pillage
and plunder. The Mongolian hordes, the Visigoths, and the Vikings are just a few
of the lightweight, lean groups that appeared over the horizon and beat the
standing army of the fat and complacent society. This was the cycle of boom and
doom that built and trashed empire after dynasty after great society.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that Linus Torvalds has Viking blood in him.
Although he grew Up in Finland, he comes from the minority of the population
for whom Swedish is the native tongue. The famous neutrality during World War
II, the lumbering welfare states, the Nobel Peace Prize, and the bays filled with
hiding Russian submarines give the impression that the Viking way is just a
thing of the past, but maybe some of the old hack and sack is still left i n the
bloodlines.

The Linux movement isn't really about nations and it's not really about war i n
the old-fashioned sense. It’s about nerds building software and letting other nerds
see how cool their code is. It's about empowering the world of programmers and
cutting out the corporate suits. Its about spending all night coding on wonderful,
magnificent software with massive colonnades, endless plazas, big brass bells,
and huge steam whistles without asking a boss "Mother, may I?" It's very
individualistic and peaceful.

That stirring romantic vision may he moving the boys in the trenches, but the
side effects are beginning to be felt i n the world of global politics. Every time
gradually supplant the people who have day jobs. They'll pick up mindshare.
Such a silent coup could guarantee that Red H a t will continue to receive large
influxes of cash from people who buy the CD-ROMs.

There are pans of this conspiracy theory that are already true. Red Hat does
dominate the United Slates market for Linux and it controls a great deal of the
mindshare. Their careful growth supported by an influx of cash ensured a strong
position i n the marketplace.

In November 1999, Red Hat purchased Cygnus Solutions, the other major
commercial developer of GPL -protected software, which specialized i n
maintaining and extending the compiler, GCC. Red Hat had 235 employees at
the time and Cygnus Solutions had 181. That's a huge fraction o f the open source
developers under one roof. The Cygnus press release came w i t h the headline,
RED HAT TO ACQUIRE CYGNUS A N D CREATE OPEN SOURCE
POWERHOUSE.

To make matters worse, one o f the founders of Cygnus, Michael Tiemann, likes
to brag that the open source software prevents competitors from rising up to
threaten Cygnus. The GPL guarantees that the competitors will also have to
POWERHOUSE.

To make matters worse, one of the founders of Cygnus, Michael Tiemann, likes
to brag (hai the open source software prevents competitors from rising up to
threaten Cygnus. The GPL guarantees that the competitors will also have to
publish their source, giving Cygnus a chance to stay ahead. I n this model, any
company with the money and stamina to achieve market dominance isn't going
to be knocked down by some kids in a garage.

Those are scary confluences. Let's imagine that the conspiracy theory is
completely borne out. Let's imagine that all of the other distributions wither
away as corporate and consumer clients rush head over heels to put Red Hat on
their machines. Red Hat becomes the default i n much the same way that
Microsoft is the default today. W i l l Red Hat have the power that Microsoft has
today?

W i l l they be able to force everyone to have a Red I l a i Network logon button on

their desktop? Perhaps. Many people are going to trust Red Hat to create a good
default installation. Getting software to be loaded by default will give them some
power.

Can they squeeze their partners by charging different rates for Linux? Microsoft
is known to offer lower Windows prices to their friends. This is unlikely. Anyone
can just buy a single Red Hat CDROM from a duplicator like CheapBytes. This
I f I were to bet, I would guess that the ratios of cognoscenti to uninformed users
in die Linux and Microsoft worlds are pretty close. Reading die Source just takes
too much time and too much effort for many i n the Linux world to take
advantage o f the huge river of information available to them.

I f this is true or at least close to true, then why has the free source world been
able to move so much more quickly than the Microsoft world? The answer isn't
that everyone in the free source world is using the Source, it's that everyone is
free to use it. When one person needs to ask a question or scratch an itch, the
Source is available w i t h no questions asked and n o lawyers consulted. Even at
3:00 A.M., a person can read the Source. A t Microsoft and other corporations,
they often need to wait for the person running that division or section to give
them permission to access the source code.

There are other advantages. The free source world spends a large amount of time
keeping the source code clean and accessible. A programmer who tries to get
away with sloppy workmanship and bad documentation w i l l pay for it later as
others come along and ask thousands o f questions.

Corporate developers, on the other hand, have layers o f secrecy and bureaucracy
keeping the source code clean and accessible. A programmer who tries to get
away with sloppy workmanship and bad documentation w i l l pay for it later as
oilters come along and ask thousands of questions,

Corporate developers, on the other hand, have layers of secrecy and bureaucracy
to isolate them from questions and comments, i t is often hard to find the right
programmer in the rabbit warren of cubicles who has the source code in the first
place. One Microsoft programmer was quoted as saying, " A developer at
Microsoft working on the OS can't scratch an itch he’s got with Excel, neither
can the Excel developer scratch his itch with the O S - i l would take him months
to figure out how to build and debug and install, and he probably couldn't get
proper source access anyway.”

This problem is endemic to corporations. The customers are buying the binary'
version, not the source code, so there is no reason to dress up the backstage
wings of the theater. After some time, though, people change cubicles, move to
other corporations, and information disappears. While companies try to keep
source code databases to synchronize development, the efforts often fall apart.
After Apple canceled development of their Newton handheld, many Newton
users were livid. They had based big projects on the platform and they didn't
want to restart their work. Many asked whether Apple could simply give away
the OS's source code instead of leaving it to rol on some hard disk. Apple
dodged these requests, and this made some people even more cynical. One
outside developer speculated, "It probably would not be possible to re-create the
original BSD code for controlling the net.

7.2 I N FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A POUND

In time, more and more companies started forming in the Bay Area and more
and more realized that Berkeley's version of UNIX was die reference for the
Internet. They started asking for this bit or that bit.

Keith Bostic heard these requests and decided that the Berkeley CSRG needed to
free up as much of the source code as possible. Everyone agreed it was a utopian
idea, but only Bostic thought it was possible to accomplish. McKusick writes, in
his history of BSD, ’"Mike Karels la fellow software developer] and I pointed out
that releasing large parts of the system was a huge task, but we agreed that i f he
could sort out how to deal with re-implementing the hundreds of utilities and the
massive C library, then we would tackle the kernel. Privately, Karels and I
thought that would be the end of the discussion."

Dave Hitz, a good friend of Bostic's, remembers the time. 'Bostic was more of a
could sort out now to deal with re-implementing the Hundreds or utilities and tne
massive C library, then we would tackle the kernel Privately, Karels and I
thought that would be the end of the discussion,"

Dave Hitz, a good friend of Bostic's, remembers the time. "Bostic was more of a
commanding type. He just rounded up all of his friends to finish up the code.
You would go over to his house for dinner and he would say, I've got a list.
What do you want to do?' I think I did the cp command and maybe the look
command." Hitz, of course, is happy that he took part in the project. He recently
founded Network Appliance, a company that packages a stripped-down version
of B S D into a file server that is supposed to be a fairly bulletproof appliance for
customers. Network Appliance didn't need to do much software engineering
when they began. They just grabbed the free version of B S D and hooked it up.

Bostic pursued people far and wide to accomplish the task. He gave them the
published description of the utility or the part of the library from the
documentation and then asked them to reimplement it without looking at die
source code. This cloning operation is known as a cleanroom operation because
it is entirely legal i f it takes place inside a metaphorical room where the
engineers inside don't have any information about how the AT&T engineers built
UNIX.

This was not an easy job, but Bostic was quite devoted and pursued people
everywhere. He roped everyone who could code into the project and often spent
time fixing things afterward. The task took IB months and included more than
The problem is similar to the one encountered by biologists as they try to define
ecosystems and species, Some say there are two different groups of tuna that
swim i n the Atlantic. Others say there is only one. The distinction would be left
to academics i f i t didn’t affect the international laws on fishing. Some groups
pushing the vision of one school are worried that others on the other side o f the
ocean are catching their fish. Others push the two-school theory to minimize the
meddling of the other side s bureaucracy. N o one knows, though, how to draw a
good line.

Stallman's L G PL was a concession to the fact that sometimes programs can be

used like libraries and sometimes libraries can be used like programs. I n the end,
the programmer can draw a su ong line around one set of boxes and say that the
GPL covers these functions without leaking out to infect the software that links
up w i t h the black boxes.

10.4 I S THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION ANTI-FREEDOM?

Still, these concessions aren’t enough for some people. Many continue to rail
10.4 IS THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION ANTI-FREEDOM?

Still, these concessions aren't enough for some people. Many continue to rail
against Stallman's definition of freedom and characterize the GPL as a fascist
document that steals the rights of any programmer who comes along afterward.
Being free means having the right to do anything you want with the code,
including keeping all your modifications private.

To be fair, the GPL never forces you to give away your changes to the source
code. It just forces you to release your modifications i f you redistribute it. I f you
just run your own version in your home, then you don't need to share anything.
When you start sharing binary versions of the software, however, you need to
ship the source code, too.

Some argue that corporations have die potential to work around tills loophole
because they act like one person. A company could revise software and 'ship i f
by simply hiring anyone who wanted to buy it. The new employees or members
□f the corporation would get access to the software without shipping the source.
The source code would never be distributed because it was not publicly shipped.
No one seriously believes that anyone would try to exploit this provision with
such an extreme interpretation, but it does open the question of whether an
airtight license can ever be created.
Microsoft's gradual erosion of its turf. The license gave users wide opportunities
to make changes and linker with die software, but i t also allowed Netscape io
use the changes internally and refuse to share what they did w i t h them. This
special privilege offended some users who didn’t like the imbalance, but i t didn't
bother many others who thought it was a reasonable compromise for a chance to
linker w i t h commercial code. Netscape, of course, returned some o f the favor by
allowing people to keep their modifications private i n much the same way that
the BSD-sly le license provided.

In June 1999, the Open Source Initiative revealed a startling fact. They were
close to failing in their attempts to register the term "open source" as a
trademark. The phrase was too common to be registered. Instead, they backed
away and offered to check out licenses and classify them officially as ,r O S I
Certified" i f they met the terms of the OSI's definition of freedom.

Some reacted negatively, Richard Stallman decided dial he didn't like die word
"open" as much as "free." Open doesn't capture the essence of freedom. Ockman
says, " I don't think it's very fair. For ages, he's always said that the term 'free
software' is problematic because people think o f 'free beer' when they should be
thinking. of free speech J We were attempting to solve that term. I f the masses are
Some reacted negatively, Richard Stallman decided that he didn't like the word
■'open" as much as ’ free. 11 Open doesn’t capture the essence o f freedom, Ockman
says, " I don't think it’s very fair. For ages, he’s always said that the term 'free
software’ is problematic because people think o f 'free beer' when they should be
thinking of 'free speech.' We were attempting to solve that term. I f the masses are
confused, then corporate America is confused even more."

The debate has even produced more terms. Some people now use the phrase
"free source" to apply to the general conglomeration o f the G P L and the open
source world. Using "free software" implies that someone is aligned w i t h
Stallman's Free Software Foundation. Using "open source” implies you're
aligned w i t h the more business-friendly Open Source Initiative. So "free source"
and "open source1' both w o r k as a compromise. Others tweak the meaning o f free
and refer to G P L protected software as ''GNUFrce.'’

Naturally, all of this debate about freedom can reach comic proportions,
Programmers are almost better than lawyers at finding loopholes, i f only because
A
they have to live w i t h a program that crashes.[ 7J Stallman, for instance, applies
the G P L to everything coming out of the G N U project except the license itself.
That can’t be changed, although i t can he freely reproduced. Some argue that i f i t
were changeable, people w o u l d be able to insert and delete terms at will. Then
they could apply the changed G P L to the new version o f the software and do
what they want. Stallman’s original intent w o u l d not be changed. The G P L
would still apply to ail of the G N U software and its descendants, but it wouldn’t
the web servers for some time, and it was gradually beating out Microsoft
products dial cost thousands o f dollars. Many of die web servers ran Apache on
top o f a Linux or a FreeBSD machine and got the job done. The software worked
well, and the nonexistent price made i t easy to choose.

Linux was also winning over some o f the world's most serious physicists,
weapons designers, biologists, and hard-core scientists. Some of the nation's top
labs had wired together clusters of cheap PCs and turned them into
supercomputers that were highly competitive with the best machines on the
market. One upstart company started offering "supercomputers" for $3,000.
These machines used Linux to keep the data flowing while the racks o f
computers plugged and chugged their way for hours on complicated simulations.

There were other indications. Linux users bragged that their system rarely
crashed. Some claimed to have machines that had been running for a year or
more without a problem, Microsoft (and Apple) users, on die odier hand, had
grown used to frequent crashes. The "Blue Screen of Death" that appears on
Windows users' monitors when something goes irretrievably wrong is the butt of
many jokes.
more without a problem. Microsoft (and Apple) users, on the other hand, had
grown used to frequent crashes. The ' Blue Screen of Death1' that appears on
Windows users’ monitors when something goes irretrievably wrong is the butt of
many jokes.

Linux users also bragged about the quality of their desktop interface. Most of the
uninitiated thought o f Linux as a hacker's system built for nerds. Yet recently
two very good operating shells called G N O M E and K D E had taken hold. Both
offered the user an environment that looked just like Windows but was better.
Linux hackers started bragging that they were able to equip their girlfriends,
mothers, and friends with Linux boxes without grief. Some people with little
computer experience were adopting Linux with little trouble.

Building websites and supercomputers is not an easy task, and it is often done i n
back rooms out of the sight of most people. When people began realizing that
the free software hippies had slowly managed to lake over a large chunk of the
web server and supercomputing world, they realized that perhaps Microsoft’s
claim was viable. Web servers and supercomputers are machines built and run by
serious folks with bosses who want something i n return for handing out
paychecks. They aren't just toys sitting around rhe garage.

I f these free software guys had conquered such serious arenas, maybe they could
handle the office and the desktop. I f the free software world had created
something usable by the programmers’ mothers, then maybe they were viable
no one should own property. It failed when it tried to enforce this by denying
people the fruits of their labor. If someone wanted to build something neat,
useful, or inventive, they had better do i t for the glory of the Soviet state. That
turned the place into a big cesspool of inactivity because everyone's hard work
was immediately stolen away from (hem.

The free software world is quite different from that world. The GPL and the
B S D licenses don't strip away someone's freedom and subjugate them to the
state, i t gives them the source code and a compiler to use w i t h it. Yes, the GPL
does restrict the freedom of people to take the free source code and sell their
own proprietary additions, but this isn’t the same as moving them to Siberia.

The Free Software State doesn't steal the fruits of someone's labor away from
them. Once y o u develop the code, you can still use it. The GPL doesn't mean
that only Torvalds can sit around his dacha and compile the code. You get to use
it, too. In fact, one of the reasons that people cite for contributing to GPL
projects is the legal assurance that the enhancements w i l l never be taken away
from them. The source w i l l always remain open and accessible.

Metcalfe's point is that communism didn't work, so the free software world will
it, Loo, I n fact, one of the reasons that people cite for contributing to GPL
projects is the legal assurance that the enhancements w i l l never be taken away
from them. The source w i l ] always remain open and accessible.

Metcalfe's point is that communism didn't work, so the free software world w i l l
fail, too. He makes his point a bit dearer when he starts comparing the free
software folks to tree-hugging environmentalists.

"How about Linux as organic software grown in utopia by spirituals sts?,r he

wonders, " I f North America actually went back to the earth, close to 250 million
people would die of starvation before you could say agribusiness. When they
bring organic fruit to market, you pay extra for small apples with open sores -the
Open Sores Movement."

The problem with this analogy is that no one is starving with open source
software. Data is not a physical good. Pesticides and fertilizers can boost crop
yields, but that doesn't matter with software. I f anything, free software ends up in
even more people's hands than proprietaiy software. Everyone in the free
software world has a copy of the image editing tool, GIMP, but only the richest
Americans have a copy of the very expensive Adobe Photoshop.

Of course, he has half a point about the polish of open source code. The
programmers often spend more time adding neat features they like instead of
making the code as accessible as possible. The tools are often designed for
Linux, FreeBSD, or OpenBSD is installed, several dollars don't go flowing to
Seattle. There's a little bit less available for the Microsoft crowd to spend on
mega-mansions, SUVs, and local taxes. The local library, the local police force,
and the local schools are going to have a bit less local wealth to tax. I n essence,
the Linux boys are sacking Seattle without getting out of their chairs or breaking
a sweat. You won't see this battle retold on those cable channels that traffic i n
war documentaries, but it's unfolding as we speak.

The repercussions go deeper. Microsoft is not just a Seattle firm. Microsoft is an

American company and whatever is good for Microsoft is usually good, at least
i n some form, for the United States. There may be some fraternal squabbling
between Microsoft and Silicon Valley, but the United States is doing quite well.
The info boom is putting millions to work and raising trillions i n taxes.

The free software revolution undermines this great scheme in two very insidious
ways. The first is subtle. N o one officially has much control over a free software
product, and that means that no country can claim it as its own. I f B i l l Gates says
dial the Japanese version o f Windows w i l l require a three-button mouse, then
Japan w i l l have to adjust. But Torvalds, Stallman, and the rest can't do a darn
thing about anyone. People can iust reprogram their mouse. I f being boss means
ways. The first is subtle. No one officially has much control over a free software
product, and that means that no country can claim it as its own. I f B i l l Gates says
that the Japanese version of Windows will require a three-button mouse, then
Japan will have to adjust. Rut Torvalds, Stallman, and the rest can't do a darn
thing about anyone. People can just reprogram their mouse. I f being boss means
making people jump, then no one in the free software world is boss of anything,
Free source code isn't on anyone's side. It's more neutral than Switzerland was in
World War 11. The United States can only take solace in the fact that many of the
great free source minds choose to live i n its boundaries.

The second effect is more incendiary. Free software doesn't pay taxes. I n the last
several centuries, governments around the world have spent their days working
out schemes to tax every transaction they can find. First, there were just tariffs
on goods crossing borders, then the bold went after the income, and now the
sales tax and the VAT are the crowning achievement. Along the way, the
computer with its selfless ability to count made this possible. But how do you
tax something that's free? How do you take a slice out of something tliat costs
nothing?

These are two insidious effects. T h r main job of governments is to tax people.
Occasionally, one government will lust after the tax revenue of another and a
war w i l l break out that w i l l force people to choose sides. The GPL and the BSD
licenses destroy this tax mechanism, and no one knows what this will bring,
individuals by not restraining them is great. Raymond comes off as a bit more
extreme than other libertarians, i n part because he doesn’t hesitate to defend die
second amendment o f the U.S. Constitution as much as the first. Raymond is not
ashamed to support widespread gun ownership as a way to further empower the
individual. H e dislikes the National Rifle Association because they're too willing
to compromise away rights that he feels are absolute.

Some people like to call h i m the Margaret Mead o f the free source world
because he spent some time studying and characterizing die culture i n much the
same way that Mead did when she wrote Coming of Age i n Samoa. This can be
a subtle jab because Margaret Mead is not really the same intellectual angel she
was long ago. Derek Freeman and other anthropologists raise serious questions
about Mead's ability to see without bias. Mead was a b i g fan o f free love, and
many contend it was no accident that she found wonderful tales of unchecked
sexuality i n Samoa. Freeman revisited Samoa and found i t was not the guilt-free
land o f libertine pleasures that Mead described i n her book. He documented
many examples of sexual restraint and shame that Mead apparently missed i n her
search for a paradise.

Ravmond looked at onen source develooment and found what he wanted to find:
land of libertine pleasures that Mead described in her book. He documented
many examples of sexual restraint and shame that Mead apparently missed in her
search for a paradise,

Raymond looked at open source development and found what he wanted to find:
the wonderful efficiency of unregulated markets. Sure, some folks loved to label
Richard Stallman a communist, a description that has always annoyed Stallman,
Raymond looked a bit deeper and saw that the basis of the free software
movement's success was the freedom that gave each user the complete power to
change and improve their software. Just as Sigmund Freud found sex at the root
of everything and Carl Jung uncovered a battle of animus and anima, the
libertarian found freedom.

Raymond's essay was one of the first to try to explain why free source efforts
can succeed and even prosper without the financial incentives of a standard
money-based software company. One of the biggest reasons he cited was that a
programmer could 'scratch an itch" that bothered him. That is, a programmer
might grow annoyed by a piece of software that limited his choices or had an
annoying glitch. Instead of cursing the darkness in the brain cavity of the
corporate programmer who created the problem, the free source hacker was able
to use the Source to try to find the bug.

Itch-scratching can be instrumental in solving many problems, Some bugs in

software are quite hard to identify and duplicate. They only occur in strange
read 8080 binary code by eye, but they’re a b i t different from the general
population,

When companies tried to keep their hard work and research secret by locking up
the source code, they built a barrier between the users and their developers. The
programmers would work behind secret walls to write the source code. After
compilers turned the Source into something that computers could read, the
Source would be locked up again. The purchasers would only get the binary
code because that’s all the companies thought the consumers needed. The source
code needed to be kept secret because someone might steal the ideas inside and
create their own version.

Stallman saw this secrecy as a great crime. Computer users should be able to
share the source code so they can share ways to make i t better. This trade should
lead to more information-trading in a great feedback loop. Some folks even used
the word "bloom" to describe the explosion of interest and cross-feedback.
They're using the word the way biologists use it to describe the way algae can
just burst into existence, overwhelming a region o f the ocean. Clever insights,
brilliant bug fixes, and wonderful new features just appear out o f nowhere as
human curiosity is amplified bv human generosity i n a grand explosion o f
the word 'bloom" to describe the explosion of interest and cross- feedback.
They're using the word the way biologists use it to describe the way algae can
just burst into existence, overwhelming a region of the ocean. Clever insights,
brilliant bug fixes, and wonderful new features just appear out of nowhere as
human curiosity is amplified by human generosity in a grand explosion of
intellectual synergy. The only thing missing from the picture is a bunch of furry
Ewoks dancing around a camp fire. [ A 8]

[8]: Linux does have many marketing opportunities. Torvalds chose a penguin
named Tux as the mascot, and several companies actually manufacture and sell
stuffed penguins to die Linux realm. Hie BSD world has embraced a cute
demon, a visual pun on the fact that BSD U N I X uses the word "daemon" to refer
to some of the faceless background programs i n the OS.

11.1 THE BISHOP OF THE FREE MA R KE TPLACE

Eric Raymond, a man who is sort of the armchair philosopher of the open source
world, did a great job of summarizing the phenomenon and creating this myth in
his essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar/' Raymond is an earnest programmer
who spent some time working on projects like Stallman’s G N U Emacs. He saw
the advantages of open source development early, perhaps because he's a hard-
core libertarian. Government solutions are cumbersome. Empowering
many bad detours along the way, but in the end, the United States tends to do the
right tiling.

The free software movement has many flaws, blemishes, and weaknesses, but I
believe that it will also flourish over the years. It will take wrong turns and
encounter great obstacles, but in the end the devotion to liberty, fraternity, and
equality will lead it to make the right decisions and will outstrip all of its
proprietary competitors.

In the end, the lure of the complete freedom to change, revise, extend, and
improve the source code of a project is a powerful drug that creative people can't
resist. Shrink-wrapped software's ease-of-use and prepackaged convenience are
quite valuable for many people, but its world is static and slow.

In the end, the power to write code and change it without hiring a team of
lawyers to parse agreements between companies ensures that the free software
world will gradually win. Corporate organization provides money and stability,
but in technology the race is usually won by the swiftest.

In the end, free software creates wealth, not cash, and wealth is much better than
lawyers to parse agreements between companies ensures that the free software
world w i l l gradually win, Corporate organization provides money and stability,
but in technology the race is usually won by the swiftest.

i n the end, free software creates wealth, not cash, and wealth is much better than
cash. You can't eat currency and you can't build a car with gold. Free software
does things and accomplishes tasks without crashing into the blue screen of
death. It empowers people. People who create it and share it are building real
infrastructure that everyone can use. The corporations can try to control i t with
intellectual property laws. They can buy people, horns woggle judges, and co-opt
politicians, but they can't offer more than money.

I n the end, information wants to be free. Corporations want to believe that

software is a manufactured good like a Car or a toaster. They want to pretend it is
something that can be consumed only once. In reality, i t is much closer to a joke,
an idea, or gossip. Who's managed to control those?

For all of these reasons, this grand free-for-all, this great swapfest of software,
this wonderful nonstop slumber party of cooperative knowledge creation, this
incredible science project on steroids wilt grow in strange leaps and unexpected
bounds until it swallows the world. There will be battles, there will be armies,
there wilt be spies, there w i l l be snakes, there will be court cases, there w i l l be
laws, there will be martyrs, there will be heroes, and there w i l l be traitors. But in
the end, information just wants to be free. That's what we love about it.
" A group of developers got together and said, 'The browsers aren't supporting the
standards' and this makes it impossible to create pages/' Baron explained. "If
every browser supports the standards in a different way, then you have to design
a different version of the site for each browser. Or, more realistically, web
designers resort to hacks that make the page legible i n a l l the ’major' browsers
but not accessible to people with disabilities or people with older computers."

O f course, it's one thing for a web designer or a web master to take u p this call.
Baron, however, was just a college freshman who framed this as volunteer work.
When he happened upon the Web Standards Project, he heard their message and
saw an itch that he wanted to scratch,

"1 want to see the standards supported correctly. Someone’s got to do it," he told
me. " I might as well be doing this instead of playing around and looking at
websites all day. A lot of people do volunteer work, but not a lot of people get to
do volunteer work al this level. I t uses what I know pretty well. A lot o f students
who are very smart end up doing volunteer work which doesn't use their skills.
When you can do volunteer work that uses what you know, it's even better.”

So Baron would download the latest versions of the Mozilla layout engine
do volunteer work at this level. 1L uses what I know pretty well. A lot of students
who are very smart end up doing volunteer work which doesn't use their skills.
When you can do volunteer work that uses what you know; it's even better."

So Baron would download the latest versions of the Mozilla layout engine
known as Gecko and play with web pages. He would create weird web pages
with strange style sheets, load them up, and watch where they broke. When
things went wrong, he would write up detailed bug reports and mail them off to
the folks doing the coding. H e was pan of a quality control team that included
some Netscape employees and a wide variety of other users on the Net.

This community involvement was what Netscape wanted when it created

Mozilla. They hoped that more people would take it upon themselves to test out
the code and at least make complaints when things were going wrong. One
hacker named Janies Clark, who isn't related to the founder of Netscape with the
same name, actually kicked in a complete X M L parser, a tool for taking apart the
latest superset of HTML that is capturing the attention of software and web
designers.

Baron is one of the few folks 1 met while writing tins book who frames his work
on an open source project as charity, Most devotees get into the projects because
they offer them the freedom to mess with the source code. Most also cite the
practical strengths of open source, like the relatively quick bug fixes and the
stability of well-run projects. Most people like to distance themselves from the
rising tide mixed together

The strength of the free price shouldn't be underestimated. While the cost isn't
really nothing after you add up the price of paying Red Hat, Slackware, SuSEt
Debian, or someone else to provide support, it’s still much cheaper than the
proprietary solutions on the marker Price isn’t the only thing on people's minds,
but it will always be an important one.

In the end, though, I think the free software world will flourish because of the
ideals it embraces. The principles of open debate, broad circulation, easy access,
and complete disclosure are like catnip to kids who crackle with intelligence.
Why would anyone want to work i n a corporate cubicle with a Dilbert boss when
you can spend all night hacking on the coolest tools? Why would you want to
join some endless corporate hierarchy when you can dive in and be judged on
the value of your code? For these reasons, the free software world can always
count on recruiting the best and die brightest.

This process will continue because the D i Ibert-grade bosses aren't so dumb. I
know more than a few engineers and early employees at startup firms who
received very small stock allowances at IPO time. One had written three of the
count on recruiting the best and the brightest.

This process will continue because the Dilbert-grade bosses aren't so dumb. I
know more than a few engineers and early employees at startup firms who
received very small stock allowances at IPO time. One had written three of the
six systems that were crucial to the company's success on the web. Yet he got
less than 1 percent of the shares allocated to the new CEO who had just joined
the company, rhe greed of the non- programming money changers who plumb
the venture capital waters w i l l continue to poison the experience of the
programmers and drive many to the world of free software. If they're not going
to get anything, they might as well keep access to the code they write.

The open source ideals are also strangely empowering because they force
everyone to give up their w i l l to power and control. Even i f Richard Stallman,
Linus Tbrvalds, Eric Raymond, and even1one else in the free software world
decides that you’re a scumbag who should be exiled to Siberia, they can’t take
away the code from you. That freedom is a very powerful drug.

The free software movement is rediscovering the same notions that drove the
American colonists to rebel against the forces of English oppression. The same
words that flowed through the pens of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and
Benjamin Franklin are just as important today. The free software movement
certifies that we are all created equal, with the same rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of hug-free code. This great nation took many years to evolve and took
Cft a/mers, Raeftd "Challenges Ahead for the Linux Standards
Base/'LinuxWorld, April 1999.

h tip: // w w w. 1i nu x wor Id . com/l i n ux world/1 w- 1999- 04/ 1w-04- Is b. h tin I

Coates, James. " A Rebellious Reaction to the L i n u x Revolution."Chicago

Tribune, A p r i l 25, 1999.

http: /Av ww. ch icagotri bune.co m/bus i ness/ pr i n ted i t i o n/art icle/0 , 105 1 , S A -
Vo990425005 1,00. htm 1

Cox, Atari. " E d i t o r i a l /1 Freshmeat, July 18, 1999.

http: //w w w. fresh m eat . net/ n ews/ 1998/07/18/900 797536. htm I

Crmge/y, Robert X. ’ B e Careful What You W i s h F o r Why B e i n g Acquired by

Microsoft Makes H a r d l y Anyone Happy In the L o n g R u n / ' PBS Online, August
27, 1999.

http; // w w w. pbs. org/ cri nge ly /pu Ip it/pu Ipit 1 99 90826. htm I
l_ii NiyLJJfj, 11WU L /i.. JJC YYILC1L ilJLJ riiaiJ 1 Ul . TTIlJf J“kA_L]Lll 11 C U LJJf

Microsoft Makes Hardly Anyone Happy in the Long Run/’ PBS Online, August
27, 1999,

Imp : // w ww.pbs .org/cr ingely /pui pi t/pu I pit 1 9990826. htmI

D'Amico, Mary Lisbeth. "German Division of Microsoft Protests 'Where Do You

Want to Go Tomorrow' Slogan: Linux Site Holds Contest for New Slogan While
Case Is Pending, Linux World, April 13, 1999.

http://www.li nuxworld .com/li nuxworld/1 w-1999-04/lw-04-germ an.htmI

Diamond, David. "Linus die Liberator. 1' San Jose Mercury News.

http ; // w ww.merc ury cent er,com 'svtech/ne ws/specia1/1i rius/story.html

DjBom Chris, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone. Open Sources: Voices from the
Open Source Revolution. San Francisco: O'Reilly, 1999.

Freeman, Derek. Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an
Anthropological Myth. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press, 1988.

Gilder, George. Wealth and Poverty. Institute for Contemporary Studies. San
Fransisco: CA , 1981.

Gleick, James. "Control Freaks." New York Times, July 19, 1998.
how much they respect what he's done. Almost everyone will turn around and
follow die compliment with a veiled complaint like, " H e can be difficult to work
with." Stallman is known for being a very unreasonable man i n die sense that
George Bernard Shaw used the word when he said, "The Reasonable man adapts
to nature. The unreasonable man seeks to adapt nature to himself. Therefore it is
only through the actions of unreasonable men that civilization advances." The
reasonable man would still be waiting on hold as the tech support folks i n
MegaSoft played w i t h their Nerf footballs and joked about the weenies who
needed help using their proprietary software.

1 often think that only someone as obsessed and brilliant as Stallman could have
dreamed up the G N U Public License. Only he could have realized that it was
possible to insist that everyone give away the source code and allow them to
charge for it at the same time i f they want. Most of us would have locked our
brains if we found ourselves w i t h a dream of a world of unencumbered source
code but hobbled by the reality that we needed money to live. Stallman found
himself i n that place i n the early days of the Free Software Foundation and then
found a way to squeeze his way out of the dilemma by charging for CD-ROMs
and printed manuals. The fact that others could still freely copy the information
rhpv pnf innpant that hp wasn't r o m n i m n i s i n p his rnrp drpam
code but hobbled by the reality that we needed money to live. Stabman found
himself i n that place in the early days of the Free Software Foundation and then
found a way to squeeze his way out of the dilemma by charging for CD-ROMs
and printed manuals. The fact that others could still freely copy the information
they got meant that he wasn't compromising his core dream.

I f Stallman is a product of MIT, then one opposite o f him is die group of hackers
that emerged from Berkeley and produced the other free software known as
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Berkeley's computer science department
always had a tight bond with AT&T and Sun and shared much of the early U N I X
code with both.

While there were many individuals at Berkeley who are well known among
developers and hackers, no one stands out like Richard Stallman. This is because
Stallman is such a strong iconoclast, not because Berkeley is the home of ne’er-
do-wells who don't measure up. Tn fact, the pragmatism of some of the leaders to
emerge from the university is almost as great as Stallman's idealism, and this
pragmatism is one of the virtues celebrated by Berkeley’s circle of coders. For
instance, B i l l Joy helped develop much of the early versions of the BSD before
he went o f f to take a strong leadership role at Sun Microsystems.

Sun has a contentious relationship with the free software world. It’s far from a
free software company like Red Hat, but it has contributed a fair number of lines
of software to the open source community. Still, Sun guards its intellectual
The story o f the end o f the university’s preeminence in the free software world is
a tale of greed and corporate power. While many saw an unhappy ending coming
for many years, few could do much to stop the inevitable collision between the
University of California at Berkeley and its former patron, AT&T.

The lawsuit between AT&T and the University of California at Berkeley had its
roots i n what marriage counselors love to call a "poorly conceived relationship.1'
B y the end of the 1980s, the computer science department at Berkeley had a
problem. They had been collaborating w i t h AT&T on the U N I X system from the
beginning. They had written some nice code, including some of the crucial
software that formed the foundation of the Internet. Students, professors,
scientists, and even Wall Street traders loved the power and flexibility o f U N I X ,
Everyone wanted U N I X .

The problem was that not everyone could get U N I X . AT&T, which had
sponsored much o f the research at Berkeley, kept an iron hand on its invention.
I f you wanted to run UNIX, then you needed to license some essential software
from AT&T that sat at the core of the system. They were the supreme ruler o f the
The problem was that not everyone could get If M X . AT&T, which had
sponsored much of the research at Berkeley, kept an iron hand on its invention.
If you wanted to run UNIX, then you needed to license some essential software
from AT&T that sat at the core of the system, They were the supreme ruler o f the
U N I X domain, and they expected a healthy tithe for the pleasure of living within
it.

One of the people who wanted UNIX was the Finnish student Linus Torvalds,
who couldn't afford this tithe. He was far from the first one, and the conflict
began long before he started to write Linux i n 1991.

Toward the end of the 1980s, most people In the computer world were well
aware of Stallman's crusade against the corporate dominance of AT&T and
U N I X . Most programmers knew that G N U stood for "GNU'S Not U N I X . "
Stallman was not the only person annoyed by AT&T's attitude toward secrecy
and non-disclosure agreements. In fact, his attitude was contagious. Some of the
folks at Berkeley looked al the growth of tools emerging from the GNU project
and felt a bit used. They had written many pieces of code that found their way
into AT&T's version of U N I X . They had contributed many great ideas. Yet
AT&T was behaving as if AT&T alone owned it. They gave and gave, while
AT&T took.

Stallman got to distribute his source code. Stallman got to share with others.
Stallman got to build his reputation. Programmers raved about Stallman's Emacs.
Stallman stops well short o f giving everything away to everyone. Copyrighting
books is okay, he says, because it "restricts only the mass producers of copies. I t
d i d not take freedom away from readers o f books. A n ordinary reader, who did
not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and few
readers were sued for that." In other words, the copyright rules i n the age of
printing only restricted the guy across town w i t h a printing press who was trying
to steal someone else s business. T h e emergence o f the computer, however,
changes everything. When people can copy freely, the shackles bind everyone.

Communism, of course, is the big loser of the 20th century, and so it's not
surprising that Stallman tries to put some distance between the Soviet and the
G N U empires. H e notes puckishly that the draconian effects o f the copyright
laws i n America are sort o f similar to life i n the Soviet Union, ” where every
copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where
individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as
1
samizdat.' He notes, however, that 'There is of course a difference: the motive
for information control i n the Soviet Union was political; i n the U.S. the motive
is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive. A n y attempt to block
the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the
Q m p hprt;hnp« "
samizdat.11He notes, however, that "There is o f course a difference: the motive
for information control i n the Soviet Union was political; in the U.S. the motive
is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block
the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the
same harshness.”

Stallman has a point. The copyright rules restrict the ability of people to add,
improve upon, or engage other people's work. The fair use rules that let a text
author quote sections for comment don’t really work i n the software world,
where it's pretty hard to copy anything but 100 percent o f some source code. For
programmers, the rules on source code can be pretty Soviet-like i n practice.

He's also correct that some companies would think nothing of locking up the
world. A consortium of megalithic content companies like Disney and the other
studios got the U.S. Congress to pass a law restricting tools for making copies.
Ostensibly it only applied to computer programs and other software used to
pirate movies or other software, but the effect could be chilling on die
marketplace. The home video enthusiast who loves to edit the tapes of his child's
birthday party needs many of the same functions as the content pirate. Cutting
and pasting is cutting and pasting. The mles are already getting a bit more
Soviet-like i n America.

But Stallman is right to distance himself from Soviet-Style communism because

there are few similarities. There's little central control in Stallman's empire. A l l
or Microsoft Excel on a Linux box without using Windows, In essence, the
WINE software is doing a good enough job acting like Windows that it's fooling
Excel and Word. I f y o u can trick the cousins, that's not too bad.

The W I N E home page (www.winehq.com) estimates that more than 90,000

people use W I N E regularly to run programs for Microsoft Windows without
buying Windows, About 140 or more people regularly contribute to the project
by writing code or fixing bugs. Many are hobbyists who want the thrill o f getting
their software to run without Windows, but some are corporate programmers.
The corporate programmers want to sell their software to the broadest possible
marketplace, but they don't want to take the time to rewrite everything. I f they
can get their software working well w i t h WINE, then people who use Linux or
B S D can use the software that was written for Microsoft Windows.

The new user who wanted to get his RIO player working w i t h his L i n u x
computer soon got a rude awakening. Andreas Mohr, a German programmer,
wrote back,

Instead of suggesting the W I N E team to "drop everything” in order to get a

relatively minor thing like PMP300 to work, would you please install W I N E , test
computer soon got a rude awakening. Andreas Mohr, a German programmer,
wrote back,

instead of suggesting (he W I N E team to drop everything" i n order to get a

relatively minor tiling like PMP300 to work, would you please install WINE, test
it, read documentation/btig reports and post a useful bug report here? There are
zillions of very useful and impressing Windoze apps out there. .. (After all that's
only my personal opinion, maybe that was a bit too harsh ;-)

Most new free software users soon discover that freedom isn't always easy. I f
you want to get free software, you're going to have to put in some work.
Sometimes you get lucky. The man i n Switzerland who posted his note on the
same day found out that someone i n Britain was solving his problems for him.
There was no one, however, working on the R I O software and making sure it
worked with WINE.

Mohr's suggestion was to file a bug report that ranks the usability of die software
So the programmers working on WINE can tweak it, This is just the first Step i n
the free software experience. Someone has to notice the problem and fix it. I n
this case, someone needs to hook up their Diamond RIO MP3 player to a Linux
box and try to move MP3 files with the software written for Windows. Ideally,
the software w i l l work perfectly, and now all Linux users w i l l be able to use RIO
players. In reality, there might be problems or glitches. Some of the graphics on
the screen might be wrong. The software might not download anything at all.
processors. H e told VAR Business, " A large truck brought it to our house and the
driver was really confused. He said, You don't have a loading dock?*" On second
thought, those are the kind of shenanigans that drive most sitcoms.

There’s no easy way to classify the many free source code contributors. Many
have children, but many don’t. Some don't mention them, some slip in references
to them, and others parade them around w i t h pride. Some arc married, some are
not. Some are openly gay. Some exist i n sort o f a presexual utopia of early
teenage boyhood. Some o f them are still in their early teens. Some aren't.

Some contributors are fairly described as "ragtag," but many aren't. Many are
corporate droids who work i n cubicle farms during the day and create free
software projects at night. Some work at banks. Some work on databases for
human resource departments. Some build websites. Everyone has a day job, and
many keep themselves clean and ready to be promoted to the next level. Bruce
Perens, one of the leaders of the Debian group, used to work at die Silicon
Valley glitz factory Pixar and helped write some o f the software that created the
h i t Toy Story.

Still, he told me, "At the time Toy Story was coming out. there was a space
Perens, one of the leaders of the Debian group, used to work at the Silicon
Valley glitz factory Pixar and lie Iped write some of the software that created the
hit Toy Story.

Still, he told me, "At the time Toy Story was coming out, there was a space
shuttle flying with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution on i t controlling a
biological experiment. People would say 'Are you proud of working at Pixar?'
and then I would say my hobby software was running on the space shuttle now.
That was a turnaround point when I realized that Linux might become my
career."

i n fact, it's not exactly fair to categorize many of the free software programmers
as a loosely knit band of rebel programmers out to destroy Microsoft, It's a great
image that feeds the media's need to highlight conflict, but it's not exactly true.
The free software movement began long before Microsoft was a household
word. Richard Stallman wrote his manifesto setting out some of the precepts in
1984. He was careful to push the notion that programmers always used to share
the source code to software until the 1980s, when corporations began to develop
the shrink-wrapped software business. In the olden days of the 1950s, 1960s, and
1970s, programmers always shared. While Stallman has been known to flip his
middle finger out at the name Bill Gates for the reporting pleasure of a writer
from Salon magazine, he's not after Microsoft per se. H e just wants to return
computing to the good old days when the source was free and sharing was
possible.
Eric Raymond once got i n a big fight with Richard Stallman about the structure
of Emacs Lisp. Raymond said, "The Lisp libraries were in bad shape in a number
of ways. They were poorly documented. There was a lot of work that had gone
on outside the FSF that should be integrated and I wanted to merge i n the best
work from outside."

The problem is that Stallman didn't want any part of Raymond's wrork. He just
said, '1 won't take those changes into the distribution.' That’s his privilege to do,"
Raymond said.

That put Raymond in an awkward position. He could continue to do the work,

create his own distribution of Emacs, and publicly break with Stallman, I f he
were right and the Lisp code really needed work, then he would probably find
more than a few folks who would cheer his work. They might start following
him by downloading his distribution and sending their bug fixes his way. Of
course, if he were wrong, he would set up his own web server, do all the work,
put his Lisp fixes out there, and find that no one would show up. He would be
ignored because people found it easier to just download Stallman's version of
more (han a few folks who would cheer his work. They might start following
him by downloading his distribution and sending their bug fixes his way. O f
course, i f he were wrong, he would set up his own web server, do all the work,
put his Lisp fixes out there, and find that no one would show up. He would be
ignored because people found i t easier to just download Stallman's version of
Emacs, which everyone thought was sort of the official version, if one could be
said to exist. They didn't use the Lisp feature too much so it wasn't worth
thinking about how some guy in Pennsylvania had fixed i i . They were getting
the real thing from the b i g man himself.

Of course, something in between would probably happen. Some folks who cared
aboui Lisp would make a point of downloading Raymond's version. The rest of
the world would just go on using the regular version. In time. Stallman might
soften and embrace the changes, but he might not. Perhaps someone would come
along and create a third distribution that melded Raymond's changes with
Stallman's into a harmonious version, That would be a great thing, except that it
would force everyone to choose from among three different versions.

i n the end, Raymond decided to forget about his improvements. "Emacs is too
large and too complicated and forking is bad. There was i n fact one group that
got so fed up with working with him that they did fork Emacs, That's why X
Emacs exists. But major forks like that are rare events and I didn't want to be
part of perpetrating another one,” he said. Someone else was going to have to
start the civil war by firing those shots at Fort Sumter.
This vast mass of contributors often negates the value and prestige that comes
from writing neat code. Since no one can keep track o f it all, people tend to treat
all requests from unknown people equally. The free source world tends to have
many equals, just because there's no hierarchy to make i t easy for us to suss out
each other's place. Corporations have titles like executive vice president and
super executive vice president. The military labels people as private, sergeant, or
major. There are no guideposts in the free software world,

Still, good contributions pay off i n good reputations. A bug fix here and a bug fix
there might not build a name, but after a year or two they pay off. A good
reputation opens doors, wins jobs, creates friendships, and makes it possible to
interest people i n new projects.

The free source world is also a strange mirror image of the hierarchies that
emerge after a season of tribal potlatch ceremonies. In the tribes, those who
receive great gifts are required to return the favor with even greater ones. So the
skillful hunters and gatherers give good gifts and receive something better i n
return. The r i c h get richer by giving away their bounty. The less skillful end up
at the bottom o f the list. The free source world, o n the other hand, spreads its
riches out to everyone. There are manv modest proera miners who eniov the
receive great gifts are required to return the favor with even greater ones. So the
skillful hunters and gatherers give good gifts and receive something better in
return. The rich get richer by giving away their bounty. The less skillful end up
at the bottom of the list. The free source world, on the other hand, spreads its
riches out to everyone. There are many modest programmers who enjoy the
source code of the great programmers, and there may be billions o f non-
programmers who also tag along. Many major websites run on free OSs alone.
Who knows which cheap Internet tools w i l l come along in the future? The poor
get lifted along at no great cost to the economy. The charily is broadcast to
everyone, not narrowcast io a few.

The efficiency goes deeper. There's a whole class of products for the home that
are much fancier and sophisticated than what people need. One company near
me sells perfectly usable nonstick pans for $2.95. A fancy department store sells
hefty, industrial-grade pans that do the same thing for more than $100. Why?
They make great gifts for people getting married. This wedding- industrial
complex adds needless accoutrements, doodads, and schmaltz just to give
products enough each to make them great gifts.

The free source world, on rhe other hand, has no real incentive to generate
phony, chrome-plated glitz to make its gifts acceptable or worthy enough of
giving. People give away what they write for themselves, and they tend to write
what they need, rhe result is a very efficient, usable collection of software that
helps real people solve real problems. The inefficiency of the wedding-industrial
One employee from Microsoft, who spoke on background, predicted complete
and utter disaster. "Those folks are going to see the guys from Red H a t driving
around i n the Porsches and they’re just going to quit writing code. Why help
someone else get rich?" he said. 1 pointed out that jealousy wasn't just a problem
for free software projects. Didn't many contract employees from Microsoft
gather together and sue to receive stock options? Weren't they locked out, too?

Still, he raises an interesting point. Getting people to join together for the sake o f
a group is easy to du when no one is getting rich. What w i l l happen when mure
money starts pouring into some folks’ pockets? Wi II people defect? W i l l they
Stop contributing?

Naysayers are quick to point to experiments like Netscape's Mozilla project,

which distributed the source code to the next generation of its browser. The
project received plenty of hype because it was the first b i g open source project
created by a major company. They set up their own website and built serious
tools for keeping track o f bugs. Still, the project has not generated any great
browser that would allow i t to be deemed a success. A t this writing, about 15
months after the release, they're still circulating better and better beta versions,
but none are as complete or feature-rich as the reeular version of Netscape,
created by a major company. They set up their own website and built serious
tools for keeping track of bugs. Still, the project has not generated any great
browser that would allow it to be deemed a success. At this writing, about 15
months after the release, they're still circulating better and better beta versions,
but none are as complete or feature-rich as the regular version of Netscape,
which remains proprietary.[Ml]

[ l l ] : At this writing, version M13 of Mozilla looks very impressive. It's getting
quite close to the proprietary version of Netscape,

The naysayers like to point out that Netscape never really got much outside help
on the Mozilla project. Many of the project's core group were Netscape
employees and most of the work was done by Netscape employees. There were
some shining examples like Jim Clark (no relation to rhe founder of Netscape
with the same name), who contributed an entire XML parser to the project.
David Baron began hacking and testing the Mozilla code when he was a
freshman at Harvard. But beyond that, there was no great grounds well of
enthusiasm. The masses didn't rise up and write hundreds of thousands of lines
of code and save Netscape.

But it s just as easy to cast the project as a success. Mozilla was the first big
corporate-sponsored project. Nothing came before it, so it isn't possible to
compare i t with anything. I t Is both the best and the worst example. The civilian
devotees could just as well bo said to have broken the world record for source
converted software back to me. When I asked h i m whether I could distribute his
version, he said dial it was my program lie was just helping out.

I never thought much more about that project until I started to write this book.
While two or three people a month would write asking for copies of the
software, it never turned into more than a bit of research into the foundations of
secret codes and a bit of a mathematical parlor trick. I t was more an academic
exercise than a prototype of something that could rival Microsoft and make me
rich.

In the past, I thought the project never developed into more than a cute toy
because there was no market for it. The product wasn't readily useful for
businesses, and no one starts a company without the hope dial millions of folks
desperately need a product. Projects needed programmers and programmers cost
money. I just assumed that other free software projects would fall into the same
chasm of lack of funding.

Now; after investigating the free software world, I am convinced that my project
was a small success. Penney's contribution was not just a strange aberration but a
relatively common event on the Internet. People are quite willing to take a piece
chasm of lack of funding.

Now, after investigating the free software world, 1 am convinced that my project
was a small success. Penney's contribution was not just a strange aberration but a
relatively common event on the Internet. People are quite willing to take a piece
of software that interests them, modify i t to suit their needs, and then contribute
it back to the world. Sure, most people only have a few hours a week to work on
such projects, but they add up. Penney's work made my software easier i o use for
many C programmers, thus spreading it further.

I n fact, I may have been subconsciously belittling the project. I t took only three
or four days of my time and a bit more of Penney's, but it was a complete version
of a powerful encryption system that worked well. Yes, there was no money
flowing, but that may have made it more of a success. Penney probably wouldn't
have given me his C version if he knew 1 was going to sell it. He probably would
have demanded a share. Lawyers would have gotten involved. The whole project
would have been gummed up with contracts, release dates, distribution licenses,
and other hassles that just weren't worth i t for a neat way to hide messages. Sure,
money is good, but money also brings hassles.

6.2 C A S H VERSUS SHARING

I n the 1980s and 1990s, programmers i n universities still shared heavily with the
OS should be as b i g as possible and come complete with a l l the features that
someone might want to use. Olliers countered with stripped-down designs tliat
came with a small core of the OS surrounded by thousands o f little programs that
d i d the same thing.

To some extent, the debate is more about semantics than reality. A user wants the
computer to be able to list the different files stored i n one directory. I t doesn't
matter i f the question is answered by a b i g operating system that handles
everything o r a little operating system that uses a program to find the answer.
The job still needs to be done, and many o f the instructions are the same. It's just
a question of whether the instructions are labeled the "operating system11 or an
ancillary program.

B u t the debate is also one about design. Programmers, teachers, and the Lego
company all love to believe that any problem can be solved by breaking it down
into small parts dial can be assembled to create the whole. Every programmer
wants to turn the design of an operating system into thousands o f little problems
that can be solved individually. This dream usually lasts until someone begins to
assemble the parts and discovers that they don't work together as perfectly as
they should.
into small parts that can be assembled to create the whole. Every programmer
wants to turn the design of an operating system into thousands of little problems
that can he solved individually. This dream usually lasts until someone begins to
assemble the parts and discovers that they don't work together as perfectly as
they should.

When Torvalds started crafting the Linux kernel, he decided he was going to
create a bigger, more integrated version that he called a "monolithic kernel/'
This was something of a bold move because the academic community was
entranced with what they called "microkernels? The difference is partly
semantic and partly real but it can be summarized by analogy with businesses,
Some companies try to build large, smoothly integr the steps of production.
Others try to create smaller operations that subcontract much of the production
work to other companies. One is big, monolithic, and all-encompassing, while
the other is smaller, fragmented, and heterogeneous. It's not uncommon to find
two companies in the same industry taking different approaches and thinking
they’re doing the right thing.

The design of an operating system often boils down to the same decision. Do we
want to budd a monolithic core that handles all rhe juggling internally, or do we
want a smaller, more fragmented model that should be more flexible as long as
the parts interact correctly?

I n time, the OS world started referring to this core as the kernel of the operating
as locked up as a prisoner in a windowless cell i n a stone-walled asylum on an
island i n the middle of the ocean, but BeOS was still a competitor for die love o f
the fair maiden.

The last competitor, though, was the most surprising to everyone. Schmalensee
saw L i n u x , a program given away for free, as a b i g potential competitor When
he said Linux, he really meant an entire collection of programs known as "open
source' 1 software. These were written by a loose-knit group of programmers who
shared all of the source code io the software over the Internet.

Open source software floated around the Internet controlled by a variety o f

licenses with names like the GNU Genera] Public License (GPL). To say that the
software was "controlled" by the license is a bit o f a stretch. I f anything, the
licenses were deliberately worded to prohibit control. The GNU G P L , for
instance, let users modify the program and give away their own versions. The
license did more to enforce sharing of all die source code than it did to control or
constrain. It was more an anti-license than anything else, and its author, Richard
Stall man, often called it a "copyleft."

Schmalensee didn't mention that most people thought o f Linux as a strange tool
license did more to enforce sharing of alt the source code than it did to control or
constrain. I t was more an anti-license than anything else, and its author, Richard
Stallman, often called it a "copyleft?

Schmatensee didn't mention that most people thought of Linux as a strange too]
created and used by hackers i n dark rooms l i t by computer monitors. He didn't
mention that many people had trouble getting Linux to work with their
computers. He forgot to mention that Linux manuals came with subheads like
"Disk Druid-like ’fstab editor’’ available." H e didn't delve into the fact that for
many of the developers, Linux was just a hobby they dabbled with when there
was nothing interesting on television. And he certainly didn't mention that most
people thought the whole Linux project was the work of a mad genius and his
weirdo disciples who still hadn't caught on to the fact that the Soviet Union had
already failed big-time. The Linux folks actually thought sharing would make
the world a better place. Fat-cat programmers who spent their stock-option
riches on Porsches and balsamic vinegar laughed at moments like this.

Schmalensee didn't mention these facts. He just offered Linux as an alternative

to Windows and said that computer manufacturers might switch to it at any time.
Poof. Therefore, Microsoft had competitors. Ar the trial, the discourse quickly
broke down into an argument over what is really a worthy competitor and what
isn't. Were there enough applications available for Linux or the Mac? What
qualifies as "enough"? Were these really worthy?
donated to the G N U project, and those little bits were starting to add up,

The free software movement also owes a great deal to Berkeley, or more
precisely to a small group i n the Department of Computer Science at the
University of California at Berkeley, The group of hardcore hackers, which
included professors, research associates, graduate students, and a few
undergraduates, had developed a version of U N I X known as B S D (Berkeley
Software Distribution). AT&T shared their version of U N I X with Berkeley, and
the programmers at Berkeley fixed, extended, and enhanced the software. These
extensions formed the core of B S D . Their work was part experimental and part
practical, but the results were widely embraced. Sun Microsystems, one of
Silicon Valley's U N I X workstation companies, used a version on its machines
through the early 1990s when they created a new version known as Solaris by
folding i n some o f AT&T's System V. Many fee] that B S D and its approach
remain the foundation of the OS.

The b i g problem was that the team built their version on top of source code from
AT&T. The folks at Berkeley and their hundreds, i f not thousands, o f friends,
colleagues, and students who contributed to the project gave their source code
awav, but AT&T did not. This save AT&T control over anyone who wanted to
The big problem was that the team built their version on top of source code from
AT&T, The folks at Berkeley and their hundreds, i f not thousands, of friends,
colleagues, and students who contributed to the project gave their source code
away, but AT&T did not, This gave AT&T control over anyone who wanted to
use BSD, and the company was far from ready to join the free software
movement. Millions of dollars were spent on the research developing UNIX.
The company wanted to make some money back.

The team at Berkeley fought back, and Keith Bostic, one o f the core team, began
organizing people logether to write the source code that could replace these bits.
By the beginning of the 1990s, he had cajoled enough of his friends to
accomplish it. I n June 1991, the group produced "Networking Release 2/' a
version that included almost all of a complete working version of U N I X . A l l you
needed to do was add six files to have a complete operating system.

AT&T was not happy. I t had created a separate division known as the U N I X
Systems Laboratory and wanted to make a profit. Free source code from
Berkeley was tough competition. So the U N I X Systems Laboratory sued.

This lawsuit marked the end of universities' preeminent role in the development
of free software. Suddenly, the lawsuit focused everyone's attention and made
them realize that taking money from corporations came into conflict with
sharing software source code. Richard Stallman left M I T in 1984 when he
Stallman, are both GPL men. The free versions of BSD, which helped give
Linux much of its foundation, are largely ignored by the press for all die wrong
reasons. The BSD teams appear to be fragmented because they are all separate
political organizations w h o have no formal ties. There are many contributors,
which means that B S D has no major charismatic leader with a story as
compelling as that of Linus Torvalds.

Many contributors could wear this mantle and many have created just as much
code. B u t life, or at least the media's description o f i t , is far from fair.

The flagship o f the BSD world may be the Apache web server group, which
contributed greatly to the success o f the platform. This core team has no person
who stands out as a leader. Most of the people on the team are fully employed i n
the web business, and several members of the team said that the Apache team
wras just a good way for the people to advance their day jobs. It wasn't a crusade
for diem to free source code from jail,

The Apache web server is protected by a BSD-sty le license that permits

commercial reuse of the software without sharing the source code. I t is a
separate program, however, and many Linux users run the software on Linux
for Lhejn to free source code from jail.

The Apache web server is protected by a BSD-style license that permits

commercial reuse of the software without sharing the source code. I t is a
separate program, however, and many Linux users run the software on Linux
boxes. Of course, this devotion to business and relatively quiet disposition isn't
always true. Theo de Raadt, the leader of the OpenBSD faction, is fond of
making bold proclamations, i n his interview with me, he dismissed the Free
Software Foundation as terribly misnamed because you weren't truly free to do
whatever you wanted with the software.

i n fact, it's easy to take these stereotypes too far. Yes, GPL folks can be
aggressive, outspoken, quick-thinking, driven, and tempestuous. Sure, BSD folks
are organized, thorough, mainstream, dedicated, and precise. Rut there are
always exceptions to these rules, and the people in each camp will be quick to
spot them.

Someone might point out that Alan Cox, one of the Steadfast keepers of the
GPL -protected Linux kernels, is not particularly flashy nor given to writing long
manifestos on the Net. Others might say that Brian Behlendorf has been a great
defender of the Apache project. He certainly hasn’t avoided defending the BSD
license, although not in the way that Stallman might have liked. He was, after
all, one of the members of the Apache team who helped convince I B M that they
could use the Apache web server without danger.
lawyers. They would be able to play with their software i n complete freedom.
Stallman notes dial he never aimed to produce an operating system that didn't
cost anything. The world may be entranced with the notion o f a price tag o f zero,
but for Stallman, that was just a side effect o f the unrestricted sharing.

Creating a stand-alone system that would do everything with free software was
his dream, but it was a long way from fruition, and Stallman was smart enough
to start off with a manageable project. H e began by producing a text editor
known as G N U Emacs. The program was a big hit because it was highly
customizable. Some people just used the program t o edit papers, but others
programmed i t to accomplish fancier tasks such as reading their e-mail and
generating automatic responses. One programmer was told by management that
he had to include plenty of comments i n his source code, so he programmed
G N U Emacs to insert them automatically. One professor created a version of
G N U Emacs that would automatically insert random praise into requests to his
secretary. [ A 2 ] Practically every thing i n Emacs could be changed or customized.
I f you didn't like hitting the delete key to fix a mistyped character, then you
could arrange for the 6 key to do the same thing. This might make it hard to type
numbers, but the user was free to mess up his l i f e as much as he wanted.
secretary.[ A 2 ] Practically everything i n Emacs could be changed or customized.
I f you didn't like hitting the delete key to fix a mistyped character, then you
could arrange for the 6 key to do the same thing. This might make it hard to type
numbers, but the user was free to mess up his life as much as he wanted.

12 1: "Where are those reports I asked you to copy? You're doing a great job,
Thanks for all the help,'’ on one day. "Are you ever going to copy those reports?
You're doing a great job. Thanks for all the help/ 1 on the next.

i t took Microsoft years to catch up with Stallman s solution, and even then they
implemented i t in a dangerous way. They let people create little custom
programs for modifying documents, but they forgot to prevent malicious code
from crying havoc. Today, Microsoft Word allows little programs named macro
viruses to roam around the planet. Open up a Word document, and a virus might
be lurking.

I n the 1980s, the free software world devoted itself to projects like this. G N U
Emacs became a big hit i n the academic world where system administrators
could install it for free and not worry about counting students or negotiating
licenses. Also, sman minds were better able to appreciate the cool flexibility
Stallman had engineered into the system. Clever folks wasted time by adding
filters to the text editor that would scan their text and translate it into, like,
Valley G i r l talk or more urban jive.
Abe/son, /teed. " A m o n g U.S. Donations, Tons of Worthless Drugs." New York
Times, June 29, 1999.

Ananian, C. ScotL " A Linux Lament; As Red Hat Prepares to G o Public, One
Linux Hackefs Dreams o f IPO Glory Are Crushed by the Man." Salon
magazine, July 30, 1999.

http; /Av w w. sal on .com/ tec tv feature/ 1999/07/30/ redliat_shares/ index, h tml

"Questions Not to Ask on Linux-Kernel." May 1998.

http;//lwn.net/980521/a/nonfa(|,htmi

Aragon, Lawrence, and Matthew A, De Bellis. "Our Lunch With Linus: (Almost)
Every thing You Need to Know About the World’s Hottest Programmer." VAR
Business, A p r i l 12, 1999.

Betz, David, and Jon Edwards. "GNU'S NOT U N I X , " BYTE, July 1986.
tverytmng t o n n e e d to k n o w a oom me wono s riouest programmer, vak

Business, A p r i l 12, 1999,

Betz, David, and Jon Edwards. " G N U ' s N O T U N I X . ' 1 BYTE, July 1986.

BrinJdey, Joel. "Microsoft Witness Attacked for Contradictory O p i n i o n s . " N e w

York T i m e s , January 15, 1999.

imp Ji w ww.ny t i mes.com/ 1i bra ry/ 1 999/0 1 ■' b iztech/art ic I es/1 5soft.htm I

Bronson, Bo. "Manager's Journal S i l i c o n Valley Searches for an I mage. "Wall

Street Journal, June 8, 1998.

N u d i s t on the L a t e Shift: A n d Other True Tales of Silicon Valley, N e w York:

R a n d o m House, 1999.

Brown, Zack. "The ' L i n u x ' vs, 'GNU/Linux' Debate." K e r n e l Traffic, A p r i l 13,
1999.

hup : ll w ww.kt.opensrc.org/kt 19990408_ 1 3 .htmltfed i toria I

Cflrtivittr, Giuseppe, "Telecommunications, Technology; a n d Science." 11 Sole 24

Ore, March 5, 1999.

http : / / w w w.i 1so] e24o re. it/24orei nforma 1ica/s peciale_3d. 19999305/1N F O R M ATI C
an employer who pays them as little as possible, but they do have the freedom to
go be wage slaves of another employer if they choose. Old-fashioned slaves
faced the whip and death i f they tried to take that route.

Most Linux users don't need to rewrite the source, but they can still benefit from
the freedom. I f everyone has the freedom, then someone w i l l come along with
the ability to do it and i f the problem is b i g enough, someone probably will. In
other words, only one person has to fly the X - w i n g fighter down the trench and
blow up the Death Star.

Some point out that the free source world is fine-if you've got the time and the
attention to play with it. The source code only helps those who want to spend the
time to engage it. You've got to read it, study it, and practice it to get any value
from it at ail. Most of us, however, just want the software to work. It's l i k e the
distinction between people who relax by watching a baseball game on television
and those who join a league to play. The spectators are largely passive, waiting
for the action to be served up to them. The league players, on the other hand,
don't get anything unless they practice, stretch, push, and hustle. They need to he
fully engaged with [he game. A i l of us like an occasional competition, but we
often need a soft couch, a six-Dack, and the remote control. Free software is a
and those who join a league to play. The spectators are largely passive, waiting
for the action to be served up to them. The league players , on the other hand,
don't get anything unless they practice, stretch, push, and hustle. They need to be
fully engaged with the game. A l l of us like an occasional competition, but we
often need a soft couch, a six-pack, and the remote control. Free software is a
nice opportunity to step up to the plate, but it's not true refreshment for the
masses.

Which is a better world? A polished Disneyland where eveiy action is scripted,

or a pile of Lego blocks waiting for us to give them form? Do we want to be
entertained or do we want to interact? Many free software folks would point out
that free software doesn't preclude you from settling into the bosom of some
corporation for a long winter’s nap. Companies like Caldera and Llnuxcare are
quite willing to hold your hand and give you the source code. Many other
corporal io ns are coming around to the same notion, Netscape led the way, and
many companies like Apple and Sun w i l l follow along. Microsoft may even do
the same thing by the time you read this.

Money isn't the same as wealth, and the nature of software emphasizes some of
the ways in which this is true. Once someone puts the hours into creating
software, it costs almost nothing to distribute it to the world. 1he only real cost
is time because raw computer power and caffeinated beverages are very
inexpensive.
o f Red Hat, then another supplier would still be around. A proprietary OS like
Windows is like a set of manacles. A n earthquake in Redmond, Washington,
could cause a serious disruption for everyone.

The competition and the GPL meant that the users would never feel bound to one
OS. I f problems arose, anyone could always just start a splinter group and take
Linux i n that direction. And they did. A l l the major systems began as splinter
groups, and some picked u p enough steam and energy to dominate. In time, the
best splinter groups spun off their own splinter groups and the process grew
terribly complicated.

9.1 THE E S T A B L I S H M E N T BEGINS TO NOTICE

B y the mid-1990s, the operating system had already developed quite a

following. I n 1994, Jon H a l l was a programmer for Digital, a company that was
later bought by Compaq. Hall also wears a full beard and uses the name
"maddog" as a nickname. At that time, Digital made workstations that ran a
version of U N I X . I n the early 1990s, Digital made a b i g leap forward by creating
by tne mia-iyaus, me operating system had already developed quite a
following. I n 1994, Jon Hall was a programmer for D i g i t a l a company that was
later bought by Compaq, Hail also wears a full beard and uses the name
"maddog" as a nickname. At that time, Digital made workstations that ran a
version of U N I X . I n the early 1990s, Digital made a big leap forward by creating
a M b i t processor version of its workstation CPU chip, the Alpha, and the
company wanted to make sure that the chip found widespread acceptance.

H a l l remembers well the moment he discovered Linux. H e told Linux Today,

1 didn't even know I was involved with Linux at first. 1 got a copy of Dr. Dobb's
Journal and i n there was an advertisement for "gel a U N I X operating system, all
the source code, and run it on your PC." And I think i t was $99. And I go, "Oh,
wow, that's pretty cool. For $99, 1 can do that." So 1 sent away for it, got the CD.
The only trouble was that I didn't have a PC to run it on. So I put it on my Ultrix
system, took a look at the main pages, directory structure and stuff, and said,
"Hey, that looks pretty cool." Then 1 put i t away in the filing cabinet. That was
probably around January of 1994.

I n May 1994, Hall met Torvalds at a DEC US (Digital Equipment Corporation

User Society) meeting and became a big fan. Hall is a programmer's programmer
who has written code for many different machines over the years, like the I B M
1130 and the DEC PDP-fi. He started out as an electrical engineer in college, hut
took up writing software "after seeing a friend of mine fried by 13,600 volts and
400 amps, which was not a pretty sight." Hall started playing with U N I X when
Every developer tries to stick their fingers in the wind and see which standards
will be important and which ones will fall by the wayside. Microsoft, Netscape,
iCab, WebTV, and Opera have a l l been wondering about the cascading style
sheets because they're sort o f a pain i n the neck. Ideally, the graphics designers
w i l l be able to come up w i t h graphics rules for a set o f web pages and they'll be
applied using the rules set out by the reader.

CSS is not about "total control by the author of the page,” says Baron. "The
basic idea of the cascade is that user preferences (through the browser’s U1 or
possibly through a user CSS style sheet) and author suggestions (contained i n
CSS style sheets) combine to produce the formatting of the page. 1'

A modern catalog conglomerate, for instance, may have two branches. One
would be aimed at middle-aged men who dote on their cars by giving them
endless wax jobs and cleaning them forever. Another might be aimed at young
mothers who dote on their children, i n part by keeping the home as clean as
could be. Normally, the catalog company would use different designers to create
very different-looking catalogs. One would come with retro, hard-edged graphics
covered w i t h racing stripes, and the other w i t h floral prints. What happens when
diese catate head to the web? Normallv two designers would give two
mothers who dote on their children, in pan by keeping the home as clean as
could be. Normally, the catalog company would use different designers to create
very different- looking catalogs. One would come with retro, hard-edged graphics
covered with racing stripes, and the other with floral prints. What happens when
these catalogs head to the wreb? Normally two designers would give two
different websites two different looks.

What i f there is one cleaning product, say a car wheel cleaner, that appears i n
both catalogs? In the old days before cascading style sheets, both designers
would have to do up each page separately. A well- designed system of cascading
style sheets would let one web page for the product display correctly on both
sites. I t would pick up either the floral prints or the racing stripes automatically
when either site called it up.

These standards are notoriously difficult to enforce. Armies around the world
dream of turning out perfect privates that can be inserted into any conflict in any
platoon without any retraining. Newspapers dream of having interchangeable
reporters who can cover the White House or a cricket match in India. It's no
wonder that the web industry wants the same thing.

Baron told me, " I got interested i n Mozilla because I m interested in web
standards." He noticed that a group known as the Web Standards Project was
running a political campaign to pressure the browser companies to lay out pages
the same way (www.webstandards.org).
and that is no small accomplishment, Getting thousands, i f not millions, of
programmers to work together is quite amazing given how quirky programmers
can be. The ease o f copying makes it possible to think that Alan Cox could get
up late and still move the world.

But the 1960s were also an allegedly idyllic time when peace, love, and sharing
were going to create a beautiful planet where everyone gave to everyone else i n
an eternal golden braid of mutual respect and caring. Everyone assumed that the
same spirit that so quickly and easily permeated the college campuses and
lovefests i n the parks was bound to sweep the world. The communes were really
happening, man. But somehow, the groovy beat never caught on beyond those
small nests of easy caring and giving. Somehow, the folks started dropping back
in, getting real jobs, taking on real mortgages, and buying back into the world
where money was king.

Over die years, die same sad ending has befallen many communes, utopian
visions, and hypnotic vibes. Freedom is great. I t allows brilliant inventors to
work independently of the wheels of power. But capital is another powerful
beast that drives innovation. The great communes often failed because they
never converted their hard work into monev, making i t difficult for them to save
Over the years, the same sad ending has befallen many communes, utopian
visions, and hypnotic vibes. Freedom is great. It allows brilliant Inventors to
work independently of the wheels o f power But capital is another powerful
beast that drives innovation. The great communes often failed because they
never converted their hard work into money, making i t difficult for them to save
and invest. Giving things away may be, like, really groovy, but it doesn't build a
nest egg.

Right now, the free software movement stands at a crucial moment in its history.
In the past, a culture of giving and wide-open sharing let thousands of
programmers build a great operating system that was, in many ways, better titan
anything coming from the best companies. Many folks began working on Linux,
FreeBSD, and thousands of other projects as hobbies, but now they're waking up
to find I B M , HewlettPackard, Apple, and all the other b i g boys pounding on
their door. I f the kids could create something as nice as Linux, everyone began to
wonder whether these kids really had enough good sluff to go the distance and
last nine innings against the greatest powrer hitters around.

Perhaps the free software movement w i l l just grow faster and better as more
people hop on board. More users mean more eyes looking for bugs. More users
mean more programmers writing new source code for new features. More is
better.

On the other hand, sharing may be neat, but can it beat the power of capital?
http: //gon d wanaland. com/ mera/h i scory/intervi ew. htm I

"Lim/A Been Windows NT Handily in on Oracle Performance Benchmark." Linux

Weekly News, A p r i l 29, 1999.

http: Z/rpm f ind. n et/ve i Ila rd/ oracle/

Liston, .Robert. The Pueblo Surrender: A Covert Action by die National Security
Agency. N e w York: Evans, 1988.

Little, DarnelL ’Comdex Q & A : L i n u s Torvalds on the Battle Against

Microsoft." Chicago Tribune April 19, 1999.

http://chicagotribunc.eom/biisincss/businessnews/ws/itcm/0, 1267, 2674627007-

27361, 00.html

Lohr, Steve. Tiny Software M a k e r Takes A i m at Microsoft in Court." New York

Times, May 31, 1999.

Mauss, Marcel, " G i f t : T h e F o r m and Reason for Exchange i n Archaic Societies,"

n; n nr n r o. i iC h
Lohr, Steve. " l i n y Software Maker Takes A i m at Microsoft in Court," New York
Times, May 31, 1999.

Mouss, Marcel. "Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange i n Archaic Societies,"
trans. W. D. Halls. New York: W.W. Norton & Company (of reissue i n US),
1950.

McKusick, Marshall Kirk. "Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix." fn Open Sources:

Voices from the Open Source Revolution. San Francisco: O'Reilly, 1999.

McKusick, Marshall Kirk, Keith Bostic, and Michael J. Karels, eds. The Design
and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System

(Unix and Open Systems Series). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.

McMito, Robert, and Nora Mikes. ” After the ’Sweet Sixteen’: Linus Torvalds's
Take on the State of Linux." Linux World, March 1999.

http ;!! w w w.1i nu x world.com.'I i nu x world/ 1w- 1999-03/] w03-tOrval ds,ht ml

Aletco/fe, Bob, "Linux's '60s Technology: Open- Sores Ideology Won't Beat
W 2 K , but What Will?" June 19, 1999.

http :/./ w ww.info world. com/artides/op/xm 1/990621 opmctcal fe.xml

i n their corporate rabbit hutches. These studies just measured ’ creativity" and
1
found that the unpaid folks were more "creative. ' That's not necessarily a
compliment. In fact, the word is often used as a euphemism for "strange/'
"weird," or just plain "bad." It's more often a measure o f just how different
something is instead o f how good it is. Would you rather eat at the house o f a
creative chef or a good chef?

This love o f creativity can be a problem for the free source world. Most people
don’t want to use a creative spreadsheet to do their accounting-it could get them
i n trouble w i t h the SEC or the IRS, They want a solid team player for many o f
their jobs, not a way cool creative one.

The free source world is often seen as too artistic and temperamental to
undertake the long, arduous task of creating good, solid software that solves the
jobs of banks, pharmacies, airlines, and everyone else. Many of these tasks are
both mind-numbingly boring and difficult to do. While they just involve adding
a few numbers and matching up some data, the tasks have to be done right or
airplanes w i l l crash. The free source world can't rely on love or creativity to
motivate people to take on these tasks. The only solution might be money.
both mind-numbingly boring and difficult to do. While they just involve adding
a few numbers and matching up some data, the tasks have to be done right or
airplanes w i l l crash. The free source world can't rely on love or creativity to
motivate people to take on these tasks. The only solution might be money.

Of course, it s important to recognize that even seemingly boring jobs can have
very creative solutions. Stallman's G N U Emacs is a fascinating and over-the-top,
creative solution to the simple job of manipulating text. Word processors and
text editors might not be that exciting anymore, but finding creative ways to
accomplish the task is still possible.

1. CORPORATIONS

Many movies about teenagers follow a time- proven formula: once the magic
summer is over, the gang is going to split up and i t w i l l never be the same again.
Bob's going to college; Rick is getting married; and Harry is going to be stuck i n
the old town forever. Right now, the free software world is playing out tlie same
emotions and dramas as the greater world discovers open source software. In the
fall, the corporations are coming and the old, cool world o f late-night hackfests
fueled by pizza and Jolt are in danger. Some people in the realm of free source
software are going to grow up, get educated, and join the establishment; some
w i l l get married; and some w i l l get left behind wondering why the old game isn't
as cool anymore.
to ftp-sites etc. Those have become effectively official releases, and 1 don't
expect tliis to change for some time: not because I feel I have some moral right
to it, but because 1 haven’t heard too many complaints."

As he added new features to his OS, he shipped new copies frequently, rhe
Internet made this easy to do. He would just pop a new version up on a server
and post a notice for all to read; come download the latest version.

He made i t clear that people could vote to depose him at any time. "If people feel
1 do a bad job, they can do it themselves." They could just Lake all of his Linux
code and start their own version using Torvalds's work as a foundation.

Anyone could break off from Torvalds's project because Torvalds decided to ship
the source code to his project under Richard Stallman's GNU General Public
License, or GPL. In the beginning, he issued it with a more restrictive license
that prohibited any ''commercial 11use, but eventually moved to the GNU license.
This was a crucial decision because it cemented a promise with anyone who
spent a few minutes playing with his toy operating system for the 386. It stated
that all of the source code that Torvalds or anyone else wrote would be freely
accessible and shared with everyone. This decision was a double-edged sword
that prohibited any "commercial' use, but eventually moved lo the G N U license.
This was a crucial decision because i t cemented a promise with anyone who
spent a few minutes playing with his toy operating system for the 386. I t stated
that all of the source code that Torvalds or anyone else wrote would be freely
accessible and shared with everyone. This decision was a double-edged sword
for the community. Everyone could take the software for free,

but i f they started circulating some new software built with the code, they would
have to donate their changes back to the project. I t was like flypaper. Anyone
who started working with the project grew attached lo it. They couldn't run off
into their own corner. Some programmers joke that this flypaper license is like
sex. I f you make one mistake by hooking up with a project protected by GPL,
you pay for it forever, i f you ever ship a version of the project, you must include
all of the source code. It can be distributed freely forever.

While some people complained about the sticky nature of the GPL, enough saw
it as a virtue. They liked Torvalds's source code, and they liked the fact that the
CP! made them full partners i n the project. Anyone could donate their time and
be sure it wasn't going to disappear. The source code became a body of work
held in common trust for everyone. N o one could rope it off, fence i t in, or take
control.

I n time, Torvalds's pet science project and hacking hobby grew as more people
got interested in playing with the guts of machines. The price was right, and idle
paragraphs had to be deleted from the book i n the end. 1 pointed out that 1
couldn't give the hundreds o f people I spoke with veto power over the
manuscript. I t would be impossible to complete. The book wasn't being written
by a committee. N o one at NetBSD budged.

D e Raadt, o n the other hand, spoke quite freely with no preconditions or

limitations. H e still keeps a log file w i t h a good number of email letters
exchanged during the separation and makes it easy to read them on his personal
website. That's about as open as you can get. The NetBSD folks who refused to
talk to me, o n the other hand, seemed intent on keeping control o f the story.
Their silence came from a different world than the website offering the phone
number o f the local pizza place as a hint. They w ere Dragnet; de Raadt was
Politically Incorrect,

When the NetBSD folks decided to do something, they took away de Raadt's
access to the source tree. H e couldn't just poke around die code making changes
as he went along. Well, he could poke around and make changes, but not to the
official tree w i t h the latest version. The project was open source, after all. H e
could download the latest release and start fiddling, but he couldn't make quasi-
official decisions about what source was part of the latest official unreleased
access to the source tree. He couldn't just poke around the code making changes
as he went along. Well, lie could poke around and make changes, but not to the
official tree with the latest version. The project was open source, after all. He
could download the latest release and start fiddling, but he couldn't make quasi-
official decisions about what source was part of the latest official unreleased
version.

De Raadt thought this was a real barrier to work. H e couldn't view the latest
version of the code because it was kept out of his view. H e was stuck with the
last release, which might be several months old. That put him at an extreme
disadvantage because he might start working on a problem only to discover that
someone had either fixed it or changed it.

Chris Demetriou found himself with the task of kicking de Raadt off of the team.
His letter, which can still be found on the OpenBSD site, said that de Raadt's
rough behavior and abusive messages had driven away people who might have
contributed to the project. Demetriou also refused to talk about NetBSD unless
he could review the sections of the book that contained his comments. H e also
threatened to take all possible action against anyone who even quoted his letters
i n a commercial book without his permission.

De Raadt collected this note from Demetriou and the firestorm that followed in a
30Dk file that he keeps on his website. The NetBSD core tried to be polite and
firm, but the matter soon degenerated into a seven-month-long flame war. After
society couldn't make the jump. The scruffy kids didn't bother to try to market it
to die rest of society. They were artists.

Most people who looked at such a situation would have concluded that this
strange clan of techno-outsiders was doomed to inhabit the periphery of society
forever. There was no marketing of the product because there was no money in
the budget and there would never be money in the budget because the software
was free. Young recognized that you could still market the software without
owning it. You could still slap on a veneer of cool without writing the code
yourself. Sugar water costs practically nothing, too.

Young's plan to brand the OS with a veneer of coo] produced more success than
anyone could imagine. Red Hat is by far the market leader in providing Linux to
the masses, despite the fact that many can and do "steal" a low-cost version. Of
course, "steal'' isn't the right word, because Red Hat did the same thing.
"Borrow" isn't right, "grab" is a bit casual, and "join in everlasting communion
with the great free software continuum" is just too enthusiastic to be cool.

i n August 1999, Red Hat completed an initial public offering of the shares of its
stock, the common benchmark for success in the cash-driven world of Silicon
"Borrow" isn't right, "grab" is a bit casual, and "join i n everlasting communion
with the groat free software continuum" is just too enthusiastic to he cool.

I n August 1999, Red Hat completed an initial public offering of the shares of its
stock, the common benchmark for success i n the cash driven world of Silicon
Valley- Many of the principals at Red Hat got rich when the stock opened at S14
a share on August 11 and closed the day at $52. Bob Young, the CEO of Red
Hat, started the day with a bit more than 9 million shares or 15 percent of the
company. Technically, not all of this was his because he had distributed some
(3,222,746 shares, to be exact) to his wife, Nancy, and put some more
(1,418,160) i n various trusts for his children, Still, this cut adds up to about S468
million. Marc Ewing, executive vice president and chief technology officer, also
ended up with a similar amount of money divided between trusts and his own
pocket. Matthew Sulzik, the president, who joined in November 1998, got a bit
less (2,736,248 shares) in his pot, but he was a relative newcomer. The b i g
investors, Greylock I X Limited Partnership, Benchmark Capital Partners II, and
Intel, split up the big part of the rest of the shares.

Now, what happened to the boys who wrote the code? Did Richard Stallman get
any of it? Did Linus Torvalds? Some of the major developers like Alan Cox and
David Miller already work for Red Hat, so they probably drew shares out of the
employee pool. There are thousands of names, however, who aren't on anyone’s
radar screen. They've written many lines of cotie for naught.
 L ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This is just a book about the free software movement I t wouldn't be possible
without the hard work and the dedication o f the thousands i f not millions of
people who like to spend their free time hacking code. I salute you. Thank you.

"kmr nrtnnln r n/il/rk frx m rlnrmri fkr-i nrnrnrr rif nrrnml-klinrt hlnir ~i nt r l 11
This is just a book about the free software movement. Il wouldn't be possible
without the hard work and the dedication of the thousands if not millions of
people who like to spend their free time hacking code. I salute you. Thank you.

Many people spoke to me during the process of assembling this book, and it
would be impossible to cite them all. The list should begin with the millions of
people who write and contribute to the various free software lists. The letters,
notes, and postings to these lists are a wonderful history of the evolution of free
software and an invaluable resource.

The list should also include the dozens of journalists at places like Slashdot.org,
Linux World, Linux magazine, Linux Weekly News, Kernel Traffic, Salon, and
the New York Times. 1 should specifically mention the work of Joe Barr, Jeff
Bates, Janelie Brown, Zack Brown, Jonathan Corbet. Elizabeth Coolbaugh, A m y
Harmon, Andrew Leonard, Rob Maida, John Markoff, Mark Nielsen, Nicholas
Peireley, Harald Radke, and Dave Whiiinger, They wrote wonderful pieces that
w i l l make a great first draft of the history of the open source movement. Only a
few of the pieces are cited directly in the footnotes, largely for practical reasons.
The entire body o f websites like Slashdot, Linux Journal, Linux World, Kernel
Notes, or Linux Weekly News should be required reading for anyone interested
in the free software movement.

There are hundreds of folks at Linux trade shows who took the time to show me
their products, T-shirts, or, in one case, cooler filled with heer, Almost everyone
artifacts. A binary object is a thing. Open source is part of thinking of computers
as a process/' In oilier words, we've done a good job of creating computers you
can buy off the shelf and software that can be bought i n shrink-wrapped boxes,
but we haven't done a good job of making i t possible for people to talk to the
machines.

To a large extent, the process has been a search for a good language to use to
communicate w i t h the computer. Most of the recent development followed the
work at Xerox PARC that created some of the first graphical user interfaces,
Apple followed their lead and Microsoft followed Apple, Each bought into the
notion that creating a neat picture representing the files on a screen would make
a neat metaphor that could make i t easier for people to interact with the
computers. Dragging a file to the trash was somehow easier for people to do than
typing a cryptic command like ’ rm."

In the 1980s, dial sort of graphical thinking was considered brilliant. Pictures
were prettier than words, so it was easy to look at die clean, pretty Macintosh
screen and think it was easier to use just because it was easier to look at.

But the pretty features merely h i d a massive amount o f complexity, and i t was
I n the 1980s, that sort of graphical thinking was considered brilliant. Pictures
were prettier than words, so it was easy to look at the clean, pretty Macintosh
screen and think it was easier to use just because it was easier to look at.

But the pretty features merely h i d a massive amount of complexity, and i t was
still hard to work with the machines. Don Norman, a human/computer interface
engineer at Apple, once wrote a fascinating discussion of the company's design
of i heir computer s on-off switch. He pointed out that the switch couldn't be a
simple power switch that could cut the power on and off because the computer
needed to orchestrate the start-up and shutdown procedure. I t needed to close up
files, store data safely, and make sure every thing was ready to start up again,

The design of the power switch was made even more complicated by the fact
that it was supposed to work even when the computer crashed. That is, i f bad
programming jumbles the memory and screws up the central processor, the
power switch is still supposed to shut down the machine. Of course, the
computer couldn't even add two numbers together after it crashed, so it couldn't
even begin to move through all the clerical work necessary to shut down the
machine. The Macintosh on which 1 wrote this book can crash so badly that die
power switch doesn't work, and I can only reset it by sticking a paper clip into a
hidden hole.

Norman's work shows how hard it can be to come up with a simple language that
allows humans and computers to communicate ahout a task that used to be
the computer industry, the government recognized that high-quality encryption
software like OpenBSD was common throughout die world. I t also recognized
that the quality was so good that many within the United States imported it. The
government loosened restrictions and practically eliminated them for open
source software. While many people are still not happy w i t h the new regulations,
open source encryption software can now flow out o f the United States. The
distributors need only notify the U.S. government about where the software is
available. The commercial, proprietary encryption software was not as lucky.
The regulations are now substantially easier o n the corporations but they still
require substantial review before an export license is granted.

The difference i n treatment probably did not result from any secret love for
Linux or OpenBSD lurking i n the hearts o f the regulators i n the Bureau of
Export Affairs at the Department o f Commerce. The regulators are probably
more afraid o f losing a lawsuit brought by Daniel Bernstein. In the latest
decision released i n May 1999, two out of three judges on an appeals panel
concluded that the U.S. government's encryption regulations violated Bernstein’s
rights of free speech. The government argued that source code is a device not
speech. The case is currently being appealed. The new regulations seem targeted
rn cjiprifirpllv adrlrp<;<; rhp nrnhlpm*; rhp rnnrr foiinri w i t h thp rnrrpnt fppiilat inn*;
decision released i n May 1999, two out of three judges on an appeals panel
concluded that rhe U.S. government's encryption regulations violated Bernstein's
rights of free speech. The government argued that source code is a device not
speech. The case is currently being appealed. The new regulations seem targeted
to specifically address the problems the court found with the current regulations.

Encryption software is just the beginning of the travails as the government tries
to decide what to do about the free exchange of source code on the Net. Taxes
may be next. While people joke that they would he glad to pay 10 percent sales
tax on the zero dollars they've spent on G N U software, they're missing some of
the deeper philosophical issues behind taxation. Many states don't officially tax
the sale of an object; they demand the money for the use of it. That means i f you
buy a stereo in Europe, you're still supposed to pay some "use tax" when you
turn it on in a state. The states try to use this as a cudgel to demand sales tax
revenue from out-of-state catalog and mail-order shops, but they haven't gotten
very far. But this hasn't stopped them from trying.

What tax could be due on a piece of free software? Well, the state could simply
look at the software, assign a value to it, and send the user a bill. Many states do
just that with automobiles. You might have a rusted clunker, but they use the
Blue Book value of a car to determine the tax for the year and each year they
send a new hill. This concept proved to be so annoying to citizens of Virginia
that Jim Gilmore won the election for governor with a mandate to repeal it. But
just because he removed it doesn't mean that others w i l l leave the issue alone.
programmers and channel their energy toward putting more money i n the
pockets o f the corporation. The suits hope to keep programmers devoted by
giving them fat paychecks, hut it's not clear that programmers really want the
cash. The freedom to do whatever you want w i t h source code is intrinsically
rewarding. The suits want to keep software under lock and key so they can sei] it
and maximize revenues. The free software revolution is really about a bunch o f
programmers saying, "Screw the cash. 1 really want the source code."

The revolution is also about defining wealth i n cyberspace. Microsoft promises

to build neat tools that w i l l help us get wherever we want to go today—i f we keep
writing larger and larger checks. The open source movement promises software
with practically n o limitations. Which is a better deal? The Microsoft
millionaires probably believe in proprietary software and suggest that the
company wouldn’t have succeeded as i t did i f it didn't provide something society
wanted. They created good things, and the people rewarded them.

But the open source movement has also created great software that many think is
better than anything Microsoft has built. Is society better off w i t h a computer
infrastructure controlled by a b i g corporate machine driven by cash? Or does
sharing the source code create better software? A r e we at a ooint where monev is
But the open source movement has also created great software that many think is
better than anything Microsoft has built, is society better off with a computer
infrastructure controlled by a big corporate machine driven by cash? O r does
sharing the source code create better software? Are we at a point where money is
not the best vehicle for lubricating the engines of societal advancement? Many in
the free software world are pondering these questions.

Anyone who tunes i n to the battle between Microsoft and the world expecting to
see a good old-fashioned fight for marketplace domination is going to miss the
real excitement, Sure, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Mach, and the
thousands of other free software projects are going to come out swinging.
Microsoft is going to counterpunch with thousands of patents defended by
armies of lawyers. Some of the programmers might even be a bit weird, and a
few w i l l be entitled io wear the adjective "ragtag." But the real revolution has
nothing to do with whether B i l l Gates keeps his title as King of the H i l ] J t has
nothing to do with whether the programmers stay up late and work in the nude. I t
has nothing to do with poor grooming, extravagant beards, Coke-bottle glasses,
black trench coats, or any of the other stereotypes that fuel the media's image.

It's about the gradual commodification of software and hardware. Its about the
need for freedom and the quest to create cool software. It’s about a world just
discovering how much can be accomplished when information can be duplicated
for next to nothing.
verbatim copy of the disk without bothering with the encryption. That leads
others to suspect dial die true motive is to sharply limit the companies that
produce machines that can display D V D movies.

One group that is locked out of the fray is the Linux community. While software
for playing D V D movies exists for Macintoshes and PCs, there's none for Linux.
DeCSS should not be seen as a hacker's tool, but merely a device that allows
Linux users to watch the legitimate copies of the DVDs that they bought.
Locking out Linux is like locking in Apple and Microsoft.

The battle between the motion picture community and the Linux world is just
heating up as I write this. There will be more lawsuits and prehaps more jail time
ahead for the developers who produced DeCSS and the people who shared it
through their websites.

Most of the battles are not so dramatic They're largely technical, and the free
source world should win these easily. Open source solutions haven't had the
same sophisticated graphical interface as Apple or Windows products. Most of
the programmers who enjoy Linux or the various versions of BSD don’t need the
graphical interface and may not care about it. The good news is that projects like
Most of the battles are not so dramatic, They’re largely technical, and the free
source world should win these easily. Open source solutions haven't had the
same sophisticated graphical interface as Apple or Windows products. Most of
the programmers who enjoy Linux or the various versions of BSD don’t need the
graphical interface and may not care about it. The good news is that projects like
KDE and G N O M E are great tools already. The open source world must continue
to tackle this area and fight to produce something that the average guy can use.

The good news is that open source software usually wins most technical battles.
The free versions of U N I X are already much more stable than the products
coming from Microsoft and Apple, and it seems unlikely that this w i l l change.
'Che latest version of Apple's OS has free versions of BSD i n its core. That battle
is won. Microsoft's version of N T can beat these free OSs in some extreme
cases, but these are getting to be rarer by the day. Sun's Solaris is still superior in
some ways, but the company is sharing the source code with its users in a way
that emulates the open source world. More attention means more programmers
and more bug fixes. Technical struggles are easy for open source to win.

Microsoft's greatest asset is the installed base of Windows, and it will try to use
this to the best of its ability to defeat Linux. A t this writing, Microsoft is rolling
out a new version of the Domain Name Server (DNS), which acts like a
telephone book for the Internet, I n the past, many of the DNS machines were
UNIX boxes because U N I X helped define the Internet. Windows 2000 includes
new extensions to DNS that practically force offices to switch over to Windows
directions. Cox is an expert on the networking guts of the system and is
responsible for making sure dial most of the new ideas that people suggest for
Linux are considered carefully and integrated correctly. Torvalds defers to Cox
o n many matters about how Linux-based computers talk with other computers
over a network. Cox works long and hard to find efficient ways for L i n u x to
juggle multiple connections without slowing down or deadlocking.

The group that works with Cox and Torvalds operates with no official structure.
Millions of people use Linux to keep their computers running, and all of them
have copies of the source code. In the 1980s, most companies began keeping the
source code to their software as private as possible because they worried that a
competitor might come along and steal the ideas the source spelled out. The
source code, which is written i n languages like C, Java, FORTRAN, B A S I C , o r
Pascal, is meant to be read by programmers. Most companies didn’t want other
programmers understanding too much about the guts of their software.
Information is power, and the companies instinctively played their cards close to
their chests.

When Linus Torvalds first started writing Linux i n 1991, however, he decided to
r
sive aw av the operating system for free. H e included all the source code because
Information is power, and the companies instinctively played their cards dose to
their chests.

When Linus Torvalds first started writing Linux in 1991, however, he decided to
give away the operating system for free, H e included all the source code because
he wanted others to read it, comment upon it, and perhaps improve it. His
decision was as much a radical break from standard programming procedure as a
practical decision. He was a poor student at the time, and this operating system
was merely a hobby. I f he had tried to sell it, he wouldn't have gotten anything
for it. He certainly had no money to build a company that could polish the
software and market it. So he just sent out copies over the Internet,

Sharing software had already been endorsed by Richard Stallman, a legendary

programmer from MIT who believed that keeping source code private was a sin
and a crime against humanity. A programmer who shares the source code lets
others learn, and those others can contribute their ideas back into the mix.
Closed source code leaves users frustrated because they canr t learn about the
software Or fix any hugs. Stallman broke away from M I T i n 1984 w hen he
founded the Free Software Foundation. This became the organization that
sponsored Stallman's grand project to free source code, a project he called GNU.
I n the 1980s, Stallman created very advanced tools like the G N U Emacs text
editor, which people could use to write programs and articles. Others donated
their work and the G N U project soon included a wide range of tools, utilities,
and games. A 11of them were distributed for free.
trouble of coming up with their own compiler tools and also get something that
was fairly familiar io their customers. Folks who used GCC on Motorola's chip
last year were open to trying out National Semiconductor's new chip i f it also ran
GCC. Supporting free software may not have found many takers, but Cygnus
found more than enough people who wanted standard systems for their
embedded processors.

Selling processor manufacturers o n the conversion contracts was also a b i t

easier. Businesses wondered what they were doing paying good money for free
software. I t just didn't compute. The chip manufacturers stopped worrying about
this when they realized that the free compilers were just incentives to get people
to use their chips. The companies spent millions buying pens, T-shirts, and other
doodads that they gave away to market the chips. What was different about
buying software? I f it made the customers happy, great. The chip companies
didn't worry as much about losing a competitive advantage by giving away their
work. It was just lagniappe.

Cygnus, o f course, had to worry about competition. There was usually some guy
who worked at the chip company or knew someone who worked at die chip
company who would sav. "Hev. I know compilers as well as diose guvs at
work. I t was just lagniappe.

Cygnus, of course, had to worry about competition, There was usually some guy
who worked at the chip company or knewr someone who worked at the chip
company who would say, "Hey, I know compilers as well as those guys at
Cygnus. I can download GCC too and underbid them,"

Henkel- Wall ace says, "Cygnus was rarely the lowest bidder. People who cared
about price more than anyone else were often the hardest customers anyway. We
did deals on a fair price and 1 think people were happy with the result. We rarely
competed on price. What really matters to you? Getting a working tool set or a
cheap price?"

17.2 H OW THE GPL BUILT CYGNUS'S MONOPOLY

The G N U General Public License was also a bit of a secret weapon for Cygnus.
When their competitors won a contract, they had to release the source cotie for
their version when they wrere done with it. A l l of the new features and insights
developed by competitors would flow directly back to Cygnus.

Michael Tiemann sounds surprisingly like Bill Gates when he speaks about this
power: "Fortunately, the open source model comes to the rescue again. Unless
and until a competitor can match the one hundred-plus engineers we have on
The source is also still available. Sure, the corporate suits can come in, cut deals,
issue press releases, raise venture capital, and do some IPOs, but that doesn't
change the fact that the source code is now widely distributed. Wasn't that the
goal o f Stallman's revolution? Didn't he want to be able to get at the guts of
software and f i x it? The source is now more omnipresent than even The
corporations are practically begging folks to download it and send i n bug fixes.

O f course, access to the source was only half of Stallman’s battle. A cynic might
growl that the corporations seem to be begging folks to do their research, testing,
and development work for them. They're looking for free beers. Stallman wanted
freedom to do whatever he wanted with the source and many of the companies
aren’t ready to throw away all o f their control,

Apple sells its brand, and it was careful not to open up the source code to its
classic desktop interface. They kept that locked away. Most of the source code
that Apple released is from its next version of the operating system, Mac OS X,
which came from the folks at NeXT when Apple acquired that company. Where
d i d that code come from? Large portions came from the various free versions o f
B S D like NetBSD or Mach. It's easy to be generous when you only wrote a
fraction o f the code.
that Apple released is from its next version of the operating system, Mac OS X,
which came from the folks at NeXT when Apple acquired that company. Where
did that code come from? Large portions came from the various free versions of
BSD like NetBSD or Mach, It's easy to be generous when you only wrote a
fraction of the code.

Ernest Prabhakar, the project manager for Apple's first open source effort known
as Darwin, describes the tack he took to get Apple's management to embrace this
small core version of the BSD operating system tuned to the Macintosh
hardware platform.

"The first catalysis were the universities. There were a lot of universities like
MIT and University of Michigan (hat had some specialized network
infrastructure needs," he said,

"We realized that the pieces they're most interested i n are the most
commoditized There wasn't really any proprietary technology added that we had
to worry about them copying. There are people who know them better than we
do like the B S D community. We started making the case, if we really want to
partner with the universities we should just open the source code and release it as
a complete BSD-sly le operating system.

"We wanted people to use this in classes, really embed it in the whole
educational process without constraining teaching to fit some corporate model,'
Red Hat has managed to sell enough C D - R O M disks to fund the development of
new projects. They've created a good selection of installation tools that make it
relatively easy for people to use Linux. They also help pay salaries for people
like Alan Cox who contribute a great deal to the evolution o f the kernel. They do
all o f this while others are free to copy their distribution disks verbatim

McVoy doesn't argue w i t h these facts, but feels that they're just a temporary
occurrence. The huge growth of interest i n Linux means that many new folks are
exploring the operating system. There's a great demand for the hand-holding and
packaging that Red Hat offers. Tn time, though, everyone w i l l figure out how to
use rhe product and the revenue stream should disappear as competition drives
out the ability to charge $50 for each disk.

Of course, the folks at Cygnus or Red Hat might not disagree w i t h McVoy either.
They know it’s a competitive world and they figure that their only choice is to
remain competitive by finding something tliat people w i l l want to pay for.
They've done it i n the past and they should probably be able to do it i n the future.
There are always new features.

17,4 BOUNTIES FOR QUICKER TYPER-UPPERS

remain competitive by finding something that people will want to pay for.
They’ve done it in the past and they should probably be able to do it in the future.
There are always new features.

17.4 BOUNTIES FOR QUICKER TYPER-UPPERS

Some developers are starting to explore a third way of blending capital with
open source development by trying to let companies and people put bounties out
on source code. The concept is pretty simple and tuned to the open software
world. Let's say you have an annoying habit of placing French bon mots in the
middle of sentences. Although this looks stupide to your friends, you think it’s
quite chic. The problem is that your old word processor's spell checker isn't quite
la mode and it only operates avec une seule langue. The problem is that you've
spent too much time studying fian ais and drinking de caf and not enough time
studying Java, the programming language. You're tr s d sol by your word
processor's inability to grok just how BCBG you can be and spell -check in deux
languages.

The bounty system could be your savior. You would post a message saying,
"Attention! I will reward with a check for S i 00 anyone who creates a two-
language spell-checker." I f you're lucky, someone who knows something about
the spell-checkers source code w i l l add the feature i n a few minutes. One
The B S D world, on the other hand, is like the biblical realm i n Monty Python's
film The L i f e of Brian, In it, one character enumerates die various splinter
groups opposing the occupation by the Romans. There is the People's Front of
Judea, the Judean People's Front, the Front o f Judean People, and several others.
AH are after rhe same thing and all are manifestly separate. The B S D world may
share a fair amount o f code; it may share the same goals, but it just presents it as
coming from three different camps.

John Gilmore, one o f the founders o f the free software company Cygnus and a
firm believer i n the advantages o f the GNU General Public License, says, "In
Linux, each package has a maintainer, and patches from all distributions go back
through that maintainer. There is a sense o f cohesion. People at each distribution
work to reduce their differences from the version released by the maintainer. In
the B S D world, each tree thinks they own each program--they don't send
11
changes back to a central place because that violates the ego model.

Jordan Hubbard, the leader o f FreeBSD, is critical of Raymond's characterization

o f the B S D world. "I've always had a special place i n my heart for that paper
because he painted positions that didn't exist," Hubbard said o f Raymond's piece
"The Cathedral and the Bazaar." "You could point to iust the L i n u x communitv
Iordan Hubbard, the leader of FreeBSD, is critical of Raymond's characterization
of the BSD world, "I’ve always had a special place in my heart for that paper
because he painted positions that didn't exist," Hubbard said of Raymond’s piece
"The Cathedra] and the Bazaar." "You could point to just the Linux community
and decide which part was cathedral-oriented and which part was bazaar-
oriented.

"Every single OS has cathedral parts and bazaar parts. There are some aspects of
development that you leave deliberately unfocused and you let people contribute
at their own pace. It's sort of a bubble-up model and that's the bazaar part. Then
you have the organizational part of every project. That's the cathedral part.
They're the gatekeepers and the standards setters. They're necessary, too," he
said.

When it comes right down to it, there's even plenty of forking going on about the
definition of a fork. When some of the Linux team point at the B S D world and
start making fun about the forks, the BSD team gets defensive. The BSD guys
always get defensive because their founder isn’t on the cover of all the
magazines. The Linux team hints that maybe, if they weren’t forking, they would
have someone with a name in lights, too.

Hubbard is right. Linux forks just as much, they just call it a distribution or an
experimental kernel o r a patch kit. No one has the chutzpah to spin off their own
volunteering works. The guy posted a note to the list that described his Diamond
RIO portable music device dial lets y o u listen to MP3 files whenever y o u want.
" I think the W I N E development team should drop everything and work on
getting this program to work as it doesn't seem like Diamond wants to release a
Linux utility for the Rio," he wrote.

W I N E stands for " W I N E Is Not an Emulator/" which is a joke that only

programmers and free software lovers can get. It's first a play on the recursive
acronym for the G N U project ("GNU is not UNIX”). It's also a bit o f a political
statement for programmers. A n emulator is a piece of software that makes one
computer act like another. A company named Connectix, for instance, sells an
emulator that lets a Macintosh behave like a Windows PC so anyone can use
their Windows software on the Mac. Emulators, however, are pretty slow
because they're constantly translating information on the fly. Anyone who has
tried to hold a conversation with someone who speaks a different language
knows how frustrating it can be to require a translator.

The W I N E project is an ambitious attempt to knock out one of the most

important structural elements o f the Microsoft monopoly. Software written for
Windows only functions when people buy a version o f Windows from
knows how frustrating It can be io require a translator.

rhe W I N E project is an ambitious attempt to knock out one of the most

important structural elements of the Microsoft monopoly. Software written for
Windows only functions wrhen people buy a version of Windows from
Microsoft. When you purchase a Connectix emulator for the Mac, you get a
version of Windows bundled with it.

The WINE project is a group of people who are trying to clone Windows. Well,
not clone all of it . They just want to clone what is known as the Win32 API, a
panoply of features that make it easier to write software for a Microsoft machine.
A programmer who wants to create a new button for a Windows computer
doesn't need to write all of the instructions for drawing a frame with three*
dimensional shading. A Microsoft employee has already bundled those
instructions into the Win32 API. There are millions of functions in these kits that
help programmers. Some play audio files, others draw complex images or
movies, these features make i t easy for programmers to write software for
Windows because some of the most repetitive work is already finished.

The WINE clone of the Win32 is a fascinating example of how open source
starts slowly and picks up steam. Bob Arnstadt started the project in 1993, but
soon turned it over to Alexandre JuI Hard, who has been the main force behind it.
The project, although still far from finished, has produced Some dramatic
accomplishments, making i t possible to run major programs like Microsoft Word
Stallman can do to enforce the G N U General Public License is sue someone in
court. He, like the Pope, has no great armies ready to keep people in line. None
o f the L i n u x companies have much power to force people to do anything. The
G N U General Public License is l i k e a vast disarmament treaty. Everyone is free
to do what they want with the software, and there are no legal cudgels to stop
them. The only way to violate the license is to publish the software and not
release the source code,

Many people who approach the free software world for the first time see only
communism. Bob Metcalfe, an entrepreneur, has proved himself several times
over by starting companies like 3Coni and inventing the Ethernet. Yet he looked
at the free software world and condemned i t with a derisive essay entitled
"Linux’s 60’s technology, open-sores ideology won’t beat W 2 K , but what will?”

Using the term "open sores" may be clever, but it belies a lack of understanding
o f some of the basic tenets. The bugs and problems i n the software are open for
everyone to see. Ideally, someone w i l l fix them. Does he prefer the closed world
o f proprietary software where the bugs just magically appear? Does he prefer a
hidden cancer to melanoma?
of some of the basic tenets. The bugs and problems i n the software are open for
everyone to see. Ideally; someone will fix them. Does he prefer the closed world
of proprietary software where the bugs just magically appear? Does he prefer a
hidden cancer to melanoma?

The essay makes more confounding points equating Richard Stallman to Karl
Marx for his writing and Linus Torvalds to Vladimir Lenin because of his aim to
dominate the software world with his OS. For grins, he compares Eric Raymond
to "Trotsky waiting for The People's ice pick 1' for no clear reason. Before this
gets out of hand, he backpedals a bit and claims, "OK, communism is too harsh
on Linux. Lenin too harsh on Torvalds [sicl ' Then he sets off comparing the
world o f open source to the tree-hugging, back-to-1he-earth movement.

Of course, it's easy to see how the open source world is much different from the
Soviet-style world of communism. That experiment failed because it placed the
good of the many above the freedom of the individual. I t was a dictatorship that
did not shirk from state’ sponsored terrorism or pervasive spying. It was no
surprise, for instance, to discover that East German athletes were doped with
performance-enhancing drugs without their knowledge. I t was for the glory of
Lenin or Marx o r Stalin, or whoever held the reins. Does the country need
someone to live in Siberia to mine for minerals? Does the country need land for
vast collective farms? The stale makes the cal] and people go.

The Soviet Union didn't really fail because it clung too deeply to the notion that
accumulating inventories-all long before any return is received, all without
assurance that the enterprise will not fail—constitute a pattern of giving that
dwarfs i n extent and i n essential generosity any primitive rite of exchange.
G i v i n g is the vital impulse and moral center o f capitalism/' he writes.

The socialists who've railed against the injustices and brutalities of market
capitalism at work would disagree with the strength o f his statement, but there
are plenty of good examples. The American C i v i l War was the battle between
the northern states where workers were occasionally chained to looms during
their shifts and the southern states where the workers were always slaves. In the
end, the least cruel society won, in part because of the strength of its industry
and its ability to innovate. Companies that discovered this fact flourished and
those that didn't eventually failed. By the end of the 20th century, the demand for
labor in the United States was so high that companies were actively competing
i n offering plush treatment for their workers.

The free software world, o f course, is a perfect example of the altruistic nature o f
the potlatch. Software is given away with no guarantee o f any return. People are
free to use the software and change it i n any way. The G N U Public License is
not much different from the social elue that forces tribe members to have a lareer
The free software world, of course, is a perfect example of the altruistic nature of
the potlatch. Software is given away with no guarantee of any return. People are
free to use the software and change i t in any way. The G N U Public License is
not much different from the social glue that forces tribe members to have a larger
party the next year and give back even more. I f someone ends up creating
something new or interesting after using GPL code as a foundation, then they
become required to give the code back to the tribe.

Of course, it's hard to get much guidance from Glider over whether the GPL is
better than the BSD license. H e constantly frames investment as a ’ gift” to try to
deemphasize the greed of capitalism. Of course, anyone who has been through a
mortgage foreclosure or a debt refinancing knows that the banks don't act as i f
they've given away a gift. There arc legal solutions for strong-arming the folks
who don't give back enough He was trying to get readers to forget these tactics a
bit and get them to realize that after all of the arms are broken, the bank is still
left with whatever the loan produced. There were no ultimate guarantees that all
of the money would come back.

Gilder smooths over this with a sharply drawn analogy. Everyone, he says, has
experienced the uncomfortable feeling that comes from getting a gift that is the
wrong size, the wrong style, or just wrong altogether. "Indeed, it is the very-
genius of capitalism that i t recognizes the difficulty of successful giving,
understands the hard work and sacrifice entailed in the mandate to help one's
development at Berkeley. Fabry sold the agency on a software package that
would be usable on many o f the new machines being installed in research labs
throughout the country. I t would be more easily portable so that research would
not need to stop every lime a new computer arrived. The work o n this project
became versions 3 and 4 o f BSD.

During this time, the relationship between AT&T and the universities was
cordial. AT&T owned the commercial market for U N I X and Berkeley supplied
many o f the versions used i n universities. While the universities got B S D for
free, they still needed to negotiate a license with AT&T, and companies paid a
fortune. This wasn't too much of a problem because universities are often
terribly myopic. I f they share their work w i t h other universities and professors,
they usually consider their sharing done. There may be folks out there without
university appointments, but those folks are usually viewed as cranks who can
bo safely ignored. Occasionally, those cranks write their o w n OS that grows up
to be Linux. The B S D version o f freedom was still a far cry from Stallman s, but
then Stallman hadn't articulated i t yet. His manifesto was still a few years off.

The intellectual tension between Stallman and Berkeley grew during the 1930s.
W h i l e Stallman began what many thought was a Quixotic iournev to build a
to be Linux. The BSD version of freedom was still a far cry from Stallman's, but
then Stallman hadn't articulated i t yet. His manifesto was still a few years off.

The intellectual tension between Stallman and Berkeley grew during (he 1980s,
While Stallman began what many thought was a quixotic journey to build a
completely free OS, Berkeley students and professors continued to layer their
improvements to U N I X on top of AT&T's code. The AT&T code was good, it
was available, and many of the folks at Berkeley had either directly or indirectly
helped influence it I hey were generally happy keeping AT&T code at the core
despite the fact that all of the BSD users needed to negotiate with AT&T. This
process grew more and more expensive as AT&T tried to make more and more
money off of UNIX.

O f course, Stallman didn't like the freedom of the BSD-style license. To him, it
meant that companies could run off with the hard work and shared source code
of another, make a pile of money, and give nothing back. The companies and
individuals who were getting the B S D network release were getting the
cumulative hard work of many students and professors at Berkeley (and other
places) who donated their time and effort to building a decent OS. The least
these companies owed the students were the bug fixes, the extensions, and the
enhancements they created when they were playing with the source code and
gluing it into their products.

Stallman had a point. Many of these companies ''shared" by selling the software
Torvalds's true genius was organizing an army to work on Linux. The coding
itself was a distant second.

O f course, waiting for a user to find the bugs depended o n there being someone
w i t h enough time and commitment Most users aren’t talented programmers, and
most have day jobs. Raymond and the rest o f the free source community
acknowledge this limitation, but point out that the right person often comes
along i f the bug occurs often enough to be a real problem. I f the bug is serious
enough, a non- programmer may even hire a programmer to poke into the source
code.

Waiting for the bug and the programmer to find each other is l i k e waiting for
Arthur to find the sword i n the stone. But Raymond and the rest of the free
source community have even turned this limitation on its head and touted it as an
advantage. Relying on users to scratch itches means (hat problems only get
addressed if they have real constituencies with a b i g enough population to
generate the one true believer w i t h enough time on his hands. It's sort of a free
market i n people's time for fixing bugs. I f the demand is there, the solution will
be created. It's Say's Law recast for software development: "the supply o f bugs
creates the talent for fixes."
addressed i f they have real constituencies with a big enough population to
generate the one true believer with enough time on his hands. It's sort of a free
market in people's time for fixing bugs, i f the demand is there, the solution will
be created. It's Say's Law recast for software development: 'the supply of bugs
creates the talent for fixes."

Corporate development, on the other hand, has long been obsessed with adding
more and more features to programs to give people enough reason to buy the
upgrade. Managers have long known that its better to put more time into adding
more doohickeys and widgets to a program than Into fixing its bugs. Thai's why
Microsoft Word can do so many different things with die headers and footers of
documents but can't stop a Word Macro virus from reproducing. The folks at
Microsoft know that when the corporate managers sit down to decide whether to
spend the thousands of dollars to upgrade their machines, they'll need a set of
new compelling features. People don't like to pay for bug fixes.

Of course, corporations also have some advantages. Money makes sure that
someone is actively trying to solve the bugs in the program. The same free
market vision guarantees that the companies that consistently disappoint their
customers w i l l go out of business. This developer has the advantage of studying
the same source code day i n and day out. Eventually he'll learn enough about the
guts of the Source to be much more effective than the guy with the jammed
printer and modem, H e should he able to nab the bug ID limes more quickly then
the free source hobbyist just because he's an expert in the system.
design and code to look for weaknesses."

Today, security products that come w i t h open source code are the most trusted i n
the industry. Private companies like RSA Data Security or Entrust can brag about
the quality of their in-house scientists or the number of outside contractors
who’ve audited the code, but nothing compares to letting everyone look over the
code.

When Zimmerman launched PGP, however, he knew it was an explicitly

political act designed to create the kind of veil of privacy that worried the
eavesdroppers. H e framed his decision, however, i n crisp terms that implicitly
gave each person the right to control their thoughts and words. "It's personal. It's
private. A n d it's no one's business but yours," he wrote i n the Introduction to the
manual accompanying the software. "You may be planning a political campaign,
discussing your taxes, or having an illicit affair. Or you may be doing something
that you feel shouldn't be illegal, but is. Whatever it is, y o u don't want your
private electronic mail (e-mail) or confidential documents read by anyone else.
There's nothing wrong with asserting your privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as die
Constitution
that you feel shouldn't be illegal, but is. Whatever it is, you don't want your
private electronic mail (e-mail) or confidential documents read by anyone else.
There’s nothing wrong with asserting your privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as the
Constitution.1'

Initially, Zimmerman distributed PGP under the GPL, but backed away from that
when he discovered that the GPL didn't give him much control over
improvements. I n fact, they proliferated and it made it hard to keep track of who
created them, Today, the source code comes with a license that is very similar to
the BSD license and lets people circulate the source code as much as they want.

" I place no restraints on your modifying the source code for your own u s e / he
writes in the accompanying documentation, and then catches himself, 'However,
do not distribute a modified version of PGP under the name 1PGP' without first
getting permission from me. Please respect this restriction. PGP’s reputation for
cryptographic integrity depends on maintaining strict quality control on PGP'S
cryptographic algorithms and protocols.,r

Zimmerman's laissez-faire attitude, however, doesn't mean that the software is

available with no restrictions. A holding company named Public Key Partners
controlled several fundamental patents, including the ones created by Ron
Rivest, A d i Shamir, and Len Adleman. Zimmerman's PGP used this algorithm,
and technically anyone using the software was infringing the patent.
to tools for programmers in 1989, proprietary software was in a dismal state.
First, the tools were primitive i n the features they offered. Second, die features,
when available, often had built-in limitations that tended to break when projects
started to get complicated. Third, support from proprietary vendors was terrible.
.. finally, every vendor implemented their own proprietary extensions, so that
when you did use the meager features o f one platform, you became,
imperceptibly at first, then more obviously later, inextricably tied to that
platform,"

The solution was to clean up the GNU tools, add some features, and sell the
package to people who had shops filled with different machines. HenkeI -Wai lace
said, "We were going to have t w o products: compiler tools and shell tools. Open
systems people w i l l buy a bunch o f SGIs, a bunch o f HPs, a bunch o f Unix
machines. Well, we thought people who have the same environment would want
to have the same tools."

This vision didn't work out. They sold no contracts that offered that kind o f
support. They d i d find, however, that people wanted them to move the compiler
to other platforms. "The compilers people got from the vendors weren't as good
and the compiler side of the business was making monev from dav one," savs
This vision didn't work out. They sold no contracts that offered that kind of
support. They did find, however, that people wanted them i o move l he compiler
to other platforms. "The compilers people got from the vendors weren't as good
and the compiler side of the business was making money from day one," says
Henkel-Wallace.

The company began to specialize in porting GCC, the G N U compiler written

first by Richard Stallman, to new chips that came along. While much of the
visible world of computers was frantically standardizing on Intel chips running
Microsoft operating systems, an invisible world was fragmenting as competition
for the embedded systems blossomed. Everyone was making different chips to
run the guts of microwave ovens, cell phones, laser printers, network routers,
and other devices. These manufacturers didn't care whether a chip ran the latest
MS software, they just wanted it io run. The appliance makers would sei up the
chip makers to compete against each other to provide the best solution with the
cheapest price, and the chip manufacturers responded by churning out a stream
of new, smaller, faster, and cheaper chips.

Cygnus began purring the GCC to each of these new chips, usually after being
paid by the manufacturer. In the past, the chip companies would write or license
their own proprietary compilers i n the hope of generating something unique that
would attract sales. Cygnus undercut this idea by offering something standard
and significantly cheaper. The chip companies would save themselves the
While "infringing on a patent" has a certain legal gravitas, its real effects are
hard to quantify. The l a w grants die patent holders the right to stop anyone from
doing what is spelled out in the patent, but it only allows them to use a lawsuit to
collect damages. In fact, patent holders can collect triple damages i f they can
prove that the infringers knew about the patent. These lawsuits can be quite a
hassle for a b i g company like Microsoft, because Microsoft is selling a product
and making a profit. Finding a number to multiply by three is easy to do. B u t the
effects o f the lawsuits on relatively poor, bearded peace activists w h o aren’t
making money is harder to judge. What's three times zero? The lawsuits make
even less sense against some guy who's using PGP in his basement.

Still, the threat of a lawsuit was enough of a cudgel to worry Zimmerman. The
costs, however, put a l i m i t on what PKP could demand, i n the end, the two
parties agreed that PGP could be distributed for non-commerdal use i f i t retied
upon a toolkit known as RSAREF made by PKP's sister company, RS A Data
Security. Apparently, this would encourage people to use RSAREF i n their
commercial products and act like some free advertising for the toolkit.

The patent lawsuit, however, was really a minor threat for Zimmerman. I n 1994,
die U.S. government started investigating whether Zimmerman had somehow
Security. Apparently, this would encourage people to use RS A REF in their
commercial products and act like some free advertising for the toolkit.

The patent lawsuit, however, was really a minor threat for Zimmerman. In 1994,
the U.S, government started investigating whether Zimmerman had somehow
exported encryption software by making i t available on the Internet for
download. While Zimmerman explicitly denounced violating the laws and took
pains to keep the software inside the country, a copy leaked out. Some suggest it
was through a posting on the Net that inadvertently got routed throughout the
world. Was Zimmerman responsible? A branch of the U.S. Customs launched a
criminal investigation in the Northern District of California to find out.

Of course, determining how the source code got out of the country was a nearly
impossible exercise. Unless Zimmerman confessed or somehow kept some
incriminating evidence around, the prosecutors faced a tough job painting him as
a lawbreaker. The software was available for free to anyone inside the country,
and that meant that everyone had at least an opportunity to break the law. There
were no purchase records or registration records, No one knew who had PGP on
their disk. Maybe someone carried it across the border after forgetting that the
source code was on a hard disk. Maybe a foreigner deliberately came into the
U.S. and carried it out. Who knows? Zimmerman says it blew across the border
"like dandelion seeds blowing i n the wind."

To make matters worse for the forces in the U.S. government that wanted to
pull (he license. N o one wanted to take that chance. Flame wars erupted and
Perens started publicly disagreeing with Raymond. To Ferens, die Apple license
just wasn't open enough to he called "open source."

Raymond didn't take this too w e l l He had worked hard to build a strong
coalition. H e had worked hard to convince corporations that open source was
much more than a way for teenagers to experiment with communism while they
were living o n their parents' dime. H e wanted the open source world to be a
smoothly running, suave machine that gracefully welcomed Apple into its fold.
Now his buddy Bruce Perens was effectively aping L l o y d Bentsen's famous
putdown o f Dan Quayle: rTve known open source; I've worked w i t h open
source; and Eric, this license isn't open source." His whole announcement was
supposed to unroll w i t h the clockwork precision of great corporate PR, and nowr
someone had lobbed a grenade.

Raymond fired back a terse e-mail that said, " I f y o u ever again behave like that
kind o f disruptive asshole i n public, insult me, and jeopardize lhe interests o f our
entire tribe, I’ll take i t just as personally and I w i l l find a way to make you regret
i L Watch your step."
Raymond fired back a terse e-mail that said, "If you ever again behave like that
kind of disruptive asshole i n public, insult me, and jeopardize the interests of our
entire tribe, HI lake it just as personally and l w i l l find a way to make you regret
it, Watch your step,"

This note rattled Perens, so he started sending copies around the Net. Then he
got serious and called the police. Officially, he was publicizing the disagreement
to preserve his health because Raymond is quite vocal about his support for the
second amendment. Therefore the phrase "Watch your step" should be taken as a
veiled threat of violence.

Perens defended his decision to call the police and told me afterward, "When I
don't like something, I write about it. Well, gee, maybe Eric was threatening to
just write about me. In the signature at the bottom of rhe page was a Thomas
Jefferson quote, which claimed the pistol was the best form of exercise. The next
day, Perens decided that he was overreacting a bit and posted a new note; "Eric
says he only meant to threaten me with 'defamation of character,' not with any
kind of violence. Thus, I think I'll just let this issue drop now."

When I asked him about the matter several months later after tempers had
cooled, Raymond said that the disagreement began several months before the
Apple event when Perens and Raymond clashed over whether the book publisher
O'Reilly should be allowed to use the term ' open source" i n the name of their
conference. "He was /taming, and not the initiative itself but a critical supporter,"
one thing: reading the source code is essential,

1. POLITICS

One of the great questions about the free source movement is its politics. The
world loves to divide every issue into two sides and then start picking teams.
You're either part of the problem or part of the solution. You're either for us or
against us. You're either on the red team or the blue team.

The notion o f giving software and source code away isn’t really a radical
concept. People give stuff away all die time. But when the process actually starts
to work and folks start joining up, the slakes change. Suddenly it's not about
random acts of kindness and isolated instances o f charity— it's now a movement
with emotional inertia and political heft. When things start working, people want
to know what this group is going to do and how its actions are going to affect
them. They want to know who gets the credit and who gets the blame.

The questions about the politics of the free source world usually boil down to a
simple dilemma: some think it's a communist utopia and others think it’s a free
to know what this group is going to do and how its actions are going to affect
them. They want to know who gels the credit and who gets the blame.

The questions about the politics of the free source world usually boil down to a
simple dilemma: some think it's a communist utopia and others think it's a free
market nirvana. Normally, the two ideas sit on the opposite ends of the spectrum
looking at each other with contempt and disdain. In the strange world of
software, ideas aren’t so easy to place. Anyone can duplicate software as many
limes as they want and it's still useful. The communist notion of sharing equally
is much easier to achieve i n this realm than i n the world of, say, grain, which
requires hard work i n the sun to make it grow. On the other hand, the ease of
exchange also means that people are able to swap and trade versions of software
with little overhead or restriction. The we 11-greased marketplace i n the free
marketer's dreams is also easy co create. The act of giving a disk to a friend
could either be a bona fide example of universal brotherhood or the vigorously
competitive act of trying to win ihe hearts and minds of a software consumer.
Take your pick.

The nature of software also mitigates many of the problems that naturally occur
in each of these worlds. There is no scarcity, so there is no reason why sharing
has to be so complicated or orchestrated from the central planning committees of
the Soviets. People just give. On the other hand, the lack of scarcity also limits
the differences between the rich and the poor. There's no reason why everyone
can't have the same software as the rich because it's so easy to duplicate. Folks
Virtually everyone believes that strong codes and cryptography are essential for
protecting a person's privacy online. The U.S. government's attempt to control
the technology by regulating its export is widely seen as a silly example of how
governments are trying to grab power at the expense o f their citizens. The
criminals already have the secret codes; why shouldn't the honest people be able
to protect their data?

Pornography or references to sex i n the discussions are rare, i f only because the
world of the libido is o f f the main topic. It's not that sex isn't on the minds of the
free software community, it's just that the images are so freely available that
they're uninteresting. Anyone can go to www.playboy.com, but not everyone can
write a recursively descending code optimizer. People also rarely swear. While
four-letter words are common on Wall Street and other highly charged
environments, they're rare i n the technology world.

Much of the community are boys and men, or perhaps more correctly "guys.11
W h i l e there are some older programmers who continue to dig the excitement and
tussle o f the free source world, many are high school and college guys w i t h
plenty of extra time on their hands. Many of them are too smart for school, and
writing neat software is a challenge for them. Older Deoole usually get bogged
Much of die community are boys and men, or perhaps more correctly "guys."
While there are some older programmers who continue to dig the excitement and
tussle of the free source world, many are high school and college guys with
plenty of extra time on their hands. Many of them are too smart for school, and
writing neat software is a challenge for them. Older people usually get bogged
down with a job and mortgage payments. It’s hard for them to take advantage of
the freedom that comes with the source code. Still, the older ones who survive
are often the best. They have both deep knowledge and experience.

The average population, however, is aging quickly. As the software becomes

better, it is easier for working stiffs to bring it into the corporate environments.
Many folks brag about sneaking Linux into their office and replacing Microsoft
on some hidden serve]. As more and more users find a way to make money with
the free software, more and more older people (Le., over 25} are able to devote
some time to the revolution,

I suppose I would like to report that there's a healthy contingent of women taking
part i n the free source world, but I can't. I t would be nice to isolate the free
software community from the criticism that usually finds any group of men. By
some definition or legal reasoning, these guys must be practicing some de facto
discrimination. Somebody will probably try to sue someone someday. Still, the
women are scarce and it's impossible to use many of the standard explanations.
The software is, after all, free. It runs well on machines that are several
generations old and available from corporate scrap heaps for several hundred
into other lines, (www.freebsd.org)

Free Software Foundation A n organization set up by Richard Stallman to raise

money for the creation o f new free software. Stallman donates his time to the
organization and takes n o salary. The money is spent on hiring programmers to
create new free software.

GIMP The GNU Image Manipulation Program, which can manipulate image
files i n much the same way as Adobe Photoshop, (www.gimp.org)

GNOME The G N U Network Object Mode] Environment, which might be

summarized as " A l l of the functionality of Microsoft Windows for Linux." It’s
actually more. There are many enhancements that make the tool easier to use and
more flexible than the prototype from Redmond. See also K D E , another package
that accomplishes much of the same, (www.gnome.org)

GNU A recursive acronym that stands for " G N U is Not UNIX." The project was
started by Richard Stallman in the 1980s to fight against the tide of proprietary
software. The project began w i t h several vety nice programs like GNU Emacs
and GCC, the C compiler that was protected by Stallman's G N U Genera]
GNU A recursive acronym (hat stands for " G N U is Not UNIX." The project was
started by Richard Stallman in the 1980s to fight against the tide o f proprietary
software. The project began with several very nice programs like GNU Emacs
and GCC, the C compiler that was protected by Stallman's G N U General
Purpose l icense, l i has since grown io issue software packages that handle many
different tasks from games ( G N U Chess) to privacy ( G N U Privacy Guard). See
also GPL and Free Software Foundation (www.gnu.OQj). Its main goal is to
produce a free operating system that provides a user with the ability to do
everything they want with software that comes with the source code.

GNU/LinuxThe name some people use for Linux as a way of giving credit to the
G N U project for its leadership and contribution of code.

GPL A n abbreviation that stands for "General Purpose License." This license
was first written by Richard Stallman to control the usage of software created by
the G N U project. A user is free to read and modify the source code of a GPL-
protected package, but the user must agree to distribute any changes or
improvements i f they distribute the software at all. Stallman views the license as
a way to force people to share their own improvements and contribute back to
the project i f they benefit from the project’s hard work. See also BSD.

higher-level languages Modern computer programmers almost always write their

software i n languages like C, Java, Pascal, or Lisp, which are known as higher-
level languages. The word "higher" is a modifier that measures the amount of
400 people who received just notoriety and some thanks afterward. The 400-plus
names are printed in the book he wrote with McKusick and Karels i n 1996.

When Bostic came close to finishing, he slopped by McKusick's office and

asked how the kernel was coming along. This called McKusick and Karels's
bluff and forced them to do some hard engineering work. In some respects,
Bostic had the easier job. Writing small utility programs that his team used was
hard work, but it was essentially preorganized and segmented. Many folks over
the years created manual files that documented exactly what the programs were
supposed to do. Each program could be assigned separately and people didn't
need to coordinate their work too much. These were just dishes for a potluck
supper.

Cleaning up the kernel, however, was a different matter. I t was much larger than
many of the smaller utilities and was filled with more complicated code that
formed a Lightly coordinated mechanism. Sloppy work i n one of the utility files
would probably affect only that one utility, but a glitch i n the kernel would
routinely bring down the entire system. I f Bostic was coordinating a potluck
supper, McKusick and Karels had to find a way to create an entire restaurant that
served thousands o f meals a dav to thousands of customers. Every detail needed
formed a Lightly coordinated mechanism. Sloppy work in one of die utility files
would probably affect only that one utility, but a glitch in the kernel would
routinely bring down the entire system, I f Bostic was coordinating a potluck
supper, McKusick and Karels had to find a way to create an entire restaurant that
served thousands of meals a day to thousands of customers, Every detail needed
to work together smoothly,

To make matters more complicated, Berkeley's contributions to the kernel were

mixed i n with AT&T's contributions. Both had added on parts, glued in new
features, and created new powers over the years. They were de facto partners on
the project. Back i n the good old days, they had both shared their source code
without any long-term considerations or cares. But now that AT&T claimed
ownership of it all, they had to find a way to unwind all of the changes and
figure out who wrote what.

McKusick says, ' We built a converted database up line by line. We took every
line of code and inserted it into the database. You end up finding pretty quickly
where the code migrated to and then you decide whether i t is sufficiently large
enough to see i f it needed recoding."

This database made life much easier for them and they were able to plow
through the code, quickly recoding islets of AT&T code here and there. They
could easily pull up a file filled with source code and let the database mark up
the pans that might be owned by AT&T Some parts went quickly, but other
Most software licenses are not as bad or as restrictive as the Microsoft Agent
license, but many cause their own share of grief. Companies continue to try to
come up w i t h more restrictive solutions for coinbaling piracy, and i n the end
they bother the legitimate users. People are often buying new computers or
upgrading a hard disk, and both of these acts require making a copy of old
software. Companies that make it too difficult to do these things end up rubbing
salt i n the wounds of legitimate users who lose a hard disk.

In this context, the free source world isn’t a new flowering of mutual respect and
sharing, it’s just a return to the good old days when you could take apart what
was yours. I f you bought the software, you can fiddle w i t h it. This isn't the Age
o f Aquarius, it is the second coming o f Mayberry R.F.D., Home Improvement,
and the Dukes o f Hazzard.

21.3 OTHER PROFESSIONS WERE OPEN F R O M THE START

This comparison doesn’t have to be limited to the cat guys i n the garage. Many
other professions freely share ideas and operate without the very restrictive
This comparison doesn't have to be limited to the car guys i n the garage. Many
other professions freely share ideas and operate without the very restrictive
covenants of the software industry. The legal business is a great example of a
world where people are free to beg., borrow, and steal ideas from others. I f
someone finds a neat loophole, they can't patent it or prevent others from
exploiting it. Once other lawyers hear about it, they'll be filing their own
lawsuits for their own clients. P 14]

[14]: I T h e legal system is not perfect. Too many cases are now filed under seal,
and the courts are too willing to act as private dispute agencies for b i g
corporations. When the law is locked up in this way, it is not a great example for
the free software wrorld.

Consider the world of tobacco liability. Once one state advanced the legal
opinion that the tobacco companies were liable for the cost of treating any
disease that might emerge from smoking cigarettes, the other states and plenty of
lawyers were able to jump on board. Once they settled, the lawyers turned their
sights on the gun companies. By the time you read this, they'll probably have
moved on to the fat delivery vehicle manufacturers i n the fast-food industry and
the stress induction groups, aka your employer. The exercise reduction industry,
made up of a megalomaniacal consortium of moviemakers, television producers,
A T-shirt once offered this wisdom to the world: " I f you love someone, set them
free. If they come back to you, it was meant to be. I f they don't come back, hunt
them down and k i l l them," The world of free software revolves around letting
your source code go off into the world,. If things go well, others will love the
source code, shower it w i t h bug fixes, and send all o f this hard work flowing
back to you. It w i l l be a shining example o f harmony and another reason why the
free software world is great. But i f things don't work out, someone might fork
you and there's nothing you can do about it.

"Fork" is a U N I X command that allows you to split a job i n half. U N I X is an

operating system that allows several people to use the same computer to do
different tasks, and the operating system pretends to run them simultaneously by
quickly jumping from task to task. A typical UNIX computer has at least 100
different tasks running. Some watch the network for incoming data, some run
programs for the user, some watch over the file system, and others do many
menial tasks.

I f y o u "fork a job," you arrange to split it into two parts that the computer treats
UlUettLIL Ldbfib I UlllJIlig, JUUie WdLCU Ult lieiWUlh lUi IIICUIllJEIg Udld, SOElie JUII
programs for the user, some watch over the file system, and others do many
menial tasks.

i f you "fork a job/' you arrange to split it into two parts that the computer treats
as two separate jobs. This can be quite useful i f both jobs are often interrupted,
because one can continue while the other one stalls. This solution is great if two
tasks, A and B r need to he accomplished independently of each other. I f you use
one task and try to accomplish A first, then B won't start until A finishes. This
can be quite inefficient if A stalls. A better solution is to fork the job and treat A
and B as two separate tasks.

Most programmers don't spend much time talking about these kinds of forks.
They're mainly concerned about forks i n the political process.

Programmers use "fork 1' to describe a similar process in the organization of a

project, but the meaning is quite different. Forks of a team mean that the group
splits and goes in different directions. One part might concentrate on adding
support for buzzword Alpha while the other might aim for full buzzword Beta
compatibility.

I n some cases, there are deep divisions behind the decision to fork. One group
thinks buzzword Alpha is a sloppy, brain-dead kludge job that's going to blow up
in a few years. The other group hates buzzword Beta with a passion. Disputes
like this happen all the time. They often get resolved peacefully when someone
understood that a university's need for money would eventually trump his belief
in total sharing of source code. Stallman was just a staff member who kept the
computers running. H e wasn't a tenured professor who could officially do
anything. So he started the Free Software Foundation and never looked back.
MIT helped him at the beginning by loaning h i m space, but i t was clear that the
relationship was near the end. Universities needed money to function. Professors
at many institutions had quotas specifying how much grant money they needed
to raise, Stallman wasn’t bringing i n cash by giving away his software,

Meanwhile, on the other coast, the lawsuit tied up Berkeley and the B S D project
for several years, and the project lost valuable energy and time by devoting them
to the legal fight. In the meantime, several other completely free software
projects started springing up around the globe. These began i n basements and
depended on machines that the programmer owrned. One of these projects was
started by Linus Torvalds and would eventually grow to become Linux, the
unstoppable engine o f hype and glory. He didn’t have the money of the Berkeley
computer science department, and he didn't have rhe latest machines that
corporations gave them. B u t he had freedom and the pile of source code that
came from unaffiliated, free projects like GNU that refused to compromise and
n i t intpllprfi n l mrnpr«; Alrhonph Tnrvalrk niiehr nnt have rpalizpd it ar rhp rimp
unstoppable engine of hype and glory. He didn't have the money of the Berkeley
computer science department, and he didn't have the latest machines that
corporations gave them. But he had freedom and the pile of source code that
came from unaff dialed, free projects like G N U that refused to compromise and
cut intellectual comers. Although Torvalds might not have realized it al the time,
freedom turned out to be most valuable of all.

1. QUICKSAND
web server, IBM's sales force can just say '’This little baby handles X billion hits
a day and it runs the industry- leading Apache server." IBM's arrival isn't much
different from the arrival o f a straightlaced, no-nonsense guy who strolls i n from
the Net and wants to contribute to Apache so he can get ahead i n his job as a
webmaster. I n this case, it's just a corporation, not a person.

Many suggest that I B M w i l l gradually try to absorb more and more control over
Apache because that's what corporations do. They generate inscrutable contracts
and unleash armies of lawyers. This view is shortsighted because it ignores how
much IBM gains by maintaining an arm'slength relationship. I f Apache is a
general program used on machines throughout the industry, then I B M doesn’t
need to educate customers on how to use it. Many o f them learned i n college or
i n their spare time on their home machines. Many of them read books published
by third parties, and some took courses offered by others. IBM is effectively
offloading much of its education and support costs onto a marketplace of third-
party providers.

Would I B M he happier i f Apache was both the leading product i n the market and
completely owned by I B M ? Sure, but that's not how it turned out. I B M designed
the PC, but they couldn't push OS/2 on everyone. They can make areat
pai’ty providers.

Would I B M be happier i f Apache was both the leading product in die market and
completely owned by I B M ? Sure, but that’s not how it turned out. I B M designed
the PC, but they couldn’t push OS/2 on everyone. They can make great
computers, however, and that's not a bad business to be in. At least Apache isn't
controlled by anyone else, and that makes the compromise pretty easy on the
ego.

Some worry that there's a greater question left unanswered by the arrival of
corporations, in the past, tliere was a general link between the creator of a
product and the consumer. If the creator didn't do a good job, then the consumer
could punish the creator by not buying another version. This marketplace would
ensure that only the best survived.

Patrick Reilly writes, "In a free market, identifiable manufacturers own the
product. They are responsible for product performance, and they can be held
liable for inexcusable flaws."

What happens i f a bug emerges i n some version of the Linux kernel and it makes
it into several distributions? Il's not really the fault of the distribution creators,
because they were just shipping the latest version of the kernel. And it's not
really the kernel creators' fault, because they weren't marketing the kernel as
ready for everyone to run. They were just floating some cool software on the Net
some time, people started having meta-argumcnts, debating whether the real
argument was more or less like die bickering of a husband and wife who happen
to work at the same company. Husbands and wives should keep their personal
fights out o f the workplace, they argued. A n d so they bickered over whether de
Raadt's nastygrams were part of his "job" or just part o f his social time.

Through i t all, de Raadt tried to get back his access to the source tree of NctBSD
and the group tried to propose all sorts o f mechanisms for making sure he was
making a "positive" contribution and getting along with everyone. A t one time,
they offered h i m a letter to sign. These negotiations went nowhere, as de Raadt
objected to being forced to make promises that other contributors didn't have to.

D e Raadt wrote free software because he wanted to be free to make changes or

write code the way he wanted to do it. I f he had wanted to wear the happy- face
o f a positive contributor, he could have gotten a job at a corporation. G i v i n g up
the right to get in flame wars and speak at will may not be that much of a trade-
off for normal people with fulltime jobs. Normal folks swallow their pride daily.
Normal people don't joke about turning their cats into soup. But de Raadt figured
i t was like losing a bit of his humanity and signing up willingly for a set of
manacles. It just wasn't livable.
the light to get i n flame wars and speak at will may not be that much of a trade-
off for normal people with fulltime jobs. Normal folks swallow their pride daily.
Normal people don't joke about turning their cats into soup. But de Raadt figured
it was like losing a bit of his humanity and signing up willingly for a set of
manacles. I t just wasn't livable.

The argument lasted months. De Raadt felt that he tried and tried to rejoin the
project without giving away his honor. The core NeiBSD team argued that they
just wanted to make sure he would be positive. They wanted to make sure he
wouldn't drive away perfectly good contributors with brash antics. No one ever
gained any ground i n the negotiations and i n the end, de Raadt was gone.

The good news is that the fork didn’t end badly. De Raadt decided he wasn’t
going to take the demotion. He just couldn't do good work if he had to nm all of
his changes by one o f the team that kicked him o f f the project. It took too long to
ask "Mother, may I?" to fix every little bug. I f he was going to have to run his
own tree, he might as well go whole hog and start his own version of BSD. He
called it OpenBSD. I t was going to be completely open. There were going to be
relatively few controls on the members. I f the NetBSD core ran its world like the
Puritan villagers in a Nathaniel Hawthorne Story, then de Raadt was going to run
his like Club Med.

OpenBSD struggled for several months as de Raadt tried to attract more

designers and coders to his project. It was a battle for popularity i n many ways,
code was ready to b e included.

10.2 C O P Y L E F T

I f Stallman's first great insight was that the world did not need to put up with
proprietary source code, then his second was that he could strictly control die use
o f G N U software with an innovative legal document entitled G N U General
Public License, or GPL. To illustrate the difference, he called the agreement a
"copyleft'" and set about creating a legal document defining what i t meant for
software to be "free." Well, defining what he thought i t should mean.

The GPL was a carefully crafted legal document that didn’t put the software into
the "public domain," a designation that would have allowed people to truly du
anything they wanted w i t h the software. The license, i n fact, copyrighted the
software and then extended users very liberal rights for making innumerable
copies as long as die users didn't hurt ocher people's rights to use the software.

The definition of stepping on other people's rights is one that keeps political
any tn mg they wanted witn the software, me license, tn tact, copyrighted the
software and then extended users very liberal rights for making innumerable
copies as long as the users didn't hurt other people's rights to use the software.

The definition of stepping on other people's rights is one that keeps political
science departments at universities i n business. There are many constituencies
that all frame their arguments in terms of protecting someone's rights. Stallman
saw protecting the rights of other users i n very strong terms and strengthened his
grip a bit by inserting a controversial clause. He insisted that a person who
distributes an improved version of the program must also share the source code.
That meant that some greedy company couldn't download his GNU Emacs
editor, slap on a few new features, and then sell the whole package without
including all of the source code they created. If people were going to benefit
from the G N U sharing, they were going to have to share back, it was freedom
with a price.

This strong compact was ready -built for some ironic moments. When Apple
began trying to expand the scope of intellectual property laws by suing
companies like Microsoft for stealing their "look and feel," Stallman became
incensed and decided that he wouldn't develop software for Apple machines as a
form of protest and spite. I f Apple was going to pollute the legal landscape with
terrible impediments to sharing ideas, then Stallman wasn't going to help them
sell machines by writing software for the machines. But the GNU copyleft
license specifically allowed anyone to freely distribute the source code and use it
o f coquetry and teasing was bound to land someone in a fight. McKusick, for
instance, says that die CSRG designed (lie B S D license to be very libera) to
please the corporate donors. "Hewlett-Packard put i n hundreds o f thousands o f
dollars and they were doing so under the understanding that they were going to
use the code/’ he said. I f the B S D hadn't kept releasing code like Network
Release 2 i n a clear, easy-to-reuse legal form, he says, some o f the funding for
the group would have dried up.

But there's also a bit o f irony here. McKusick points out that AT&T was far from
the most generous company to support the CSRG. "In fact, w e even had to pay
for our license to U N I X , " he says before adding, ’’although i t was only ninety-
nine dollars at the time."

AT&T's support of the department was hardly bountiful. The b i g checks weren't
grants outright. They paid for the out-of-state tuition for AT&T employees who
came to Berkeley to receive their master's degrees. While AT&T could have sent
their employees elsewhere, there's no doubt that there are more generous ways to
send money to researchers.

McKusick also notes that AT&T didn't even send along much hardware, rhe
came to Berkeley to receive their master's degrees. While AT&T could have sent
their employees elsewhere, there's no doubt that there are more generous ways to
send money to researchers.

McKusick also notes that AT&T didn't even send along much hardware. The
only hardware he remembers receiving from them were some 5620 terminals
and a Datakit circuit-based switch that he says "was a huge headache that really
did us very little good." Berkeley was on the forefront of developing the packet-
based standards that would dominate the Internet, I f anything, the older circuit-
based switch convinced the Berkeley team that basing the Internet on the old
phone system would be a major mistake.

To make matters worse. AT&T often wanted rhe BSD team to include features
that would force all the BSD users to buy a newer, more expensive license from
AT&T. In addition, license verification was never a quick or easy task.
McKusick says, "We had a person whose fulltime job was to keep the AT&T
licensing person happy."

i n the end, he concludes, "They paid us next to nothing and got a huge windfall."

Choosing sides in this battle probably isn't worth the trouble at this point because
Berkeley eventually won. The hard work of Bostic's hundreds of volunteers and
the careful combing of the kernel by the C5RG paid off. AT&T's case slowly
withered away as the University of California was able to show how much ol the
jobs like fine-tuning a graphical interface, or making sure that the scheduling
software used by executives is as bulletproof as possible.

While the open development model has successfully tackled the problem of
creating some great tools, of building a strong OS, and of building very flexible
appliance applications like web browsers, it is a long way from winning the
battle for the desktop. Some free source people say the desktop applications for
average users are just around the comer and the next stop on the Free Software
Express. Others aren't so sure.

David Henkel-Wallace is one of the founders of the free software company

Cygnus. This company built its success around supporting the development tools
created by Stallman’s Free Software Foundation. They would sign contracts with
companies to answer any questions they had about using the free software tools.
At first companies would balk at paying for support until they realized (hat it
was cheaper than hiring in-house technical staff to do the work. John Gilmore,
one of the cofounders, liked to say, "We make free software affordable."

The company grew by helping chip manufacturers tune the FSF compiler, GCC,
for their chip. This was often a difficult and arduous task, but it was very
was cheaper than hiring in-house technical staff to do the work. John Gilmore,
one of the cofounders, liked to say, "We make free software affordable."

The company grew by helping chip manufacturers lune the FSF compiler, GCC,
for their chip. This was often a difficult and arduous task, but it was very
valuable to the chip manufacturer because potential customers knew they could
get a good compiler to produce software for the chip. While Intel continued to
dominate the desktop, the market for embedded chips to go into products like
stoves, microwave ovens, VCRs, or other smart boxes boomed as manufacturers
rolled out new chips to make it cheaper and easier to add smart features to
formerly dumb boxes. The engineers at the companies were often thrilled to
discover that they could continue to use GCC to write software for a new chip,
and this made it easier to sell the chip.

Cygnus always distributed to the Source their modifications to GCC as the G N U

General Public License demanded. This wasn't a big deal because the chip
manufacturers wanted the software to be free and easy for everyone to use. This
made Cygnus one of the clearing-houses for much of the information on how
GCC worked and how to make it faster.

Henkel -Wailace is quick to praise the power of publicly available source code
for Cygnus's customers. They were all programmers, after all. I f they saw
something they didn't like with GCC, they knew how to poke around on the
insides and fix it. That was their job.
disenfranchised? Will they quit i n despair? Will they move on to open source
experiments on die human genome?

"The money flowing in won't turn people off or break up the community, and
here’s why/ 1 says Eric Raymond. "The demand for programmers has been so
high for the last decade that anyone who really cared about money is already
gone. We1vc been selected for artistic passion/'

1. MONEY

Everyone who's made it past high school knows that money changes everything.
Jobs disappear, love crumbles, and wars begin when money gets tight. Of course,
a good number of free source believers aren't out of high school, but they'll
figure this out soon enough. Money is just the way that we pay for things we
need like food, clothing, housing, and of course newer, bigger, and faster
computers.

The concept of money has always been the Achilles heel of the free software
world. Everyone quickly realizes the advantages of sharing the source code with
need like food, clothing, housing, and of course newer, bigger, and faster
computers.

The concept of money has always been the Achilles heel of the free software
world. Everyone quickly realizes the advantages of sharing the source code with
everyone else. As diey say in the software business, "It's a no-brainer.' 1 But
figuring out a way to keep the fridge stocked with Jolt Cola confounds some of
the best advocates for free software.

Stallman carefully tried to spell out his solution in rhe GNU Manifesto. He
wrote, "There's nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to
maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive.
But the means customary in the field of software today are based on destruction.

"Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is

destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the way that the
program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives
from the program. When there is a del iberate choice to restrict, the harmful
consequences are deliberate destruction."

A l first glance, Richard Stallman doesn't have to worry loo much about making
ends meet. M I T gave him an office. He got a genius grant from the MacArthur
Foundation. Companies pay him to help port his free software to their platforms.
His golden reputation combined with a frugal lifestyle means that he can support
himself with two months of paid work a year. The rest of rhe time he donates to
Stallman's G N U project has been dealing with patents for a long time and has
some experience programming around them. The GNU Z i p program, for
instance, was written to avoid the patents on the Lempel-Ziv compression
algorithm claimed by U N I S Y S and I B M . The software is well-written and it
works as well as, i f not better than, the algorithm i t replaces. Now it’s pretty
standard on the web and very popular because it is open source and pate nt- free.
It's the politically correct compression algorithm to use because it's open to
eveiyone.

I t w i l l be pretty difficult f o r a company like Microsoft to find a patent that w i l l

allow it to deal a fatal b l o w to either the Linux or B S D distributions. The groups
will just clip out the offending code and then work around it.

Microsoft's greatest hope is to lock up the next generation of computing with

patents. New r technologies l i k e streaming multimedia or Internet audio are still
up for grabs. While people have been studying these topics i n universities for
some time, the Linux community is further behind. Microsoft wilt try to
dominate these areas with crucial patents that affect how operating systems deal
w i t h this k i n d of data. Their success at this is hard to predict. In any event, while
they mav be able to cripple the adoption of some new technologies like
up for grabs. While people have been studying these topics in universities for
some time, the Linux community is further behind. Microsoft w i l l try to
dominate these areas with crucial patents that affect how operating systems deal
with this kind of data. Their success at this is hard to predict. In any event, while
they may be able to cripple the adoption of some new technologies like
streaming multimedia, they won’t be able to smash the entire world.

The third and greatest defense for the free source ideology is a loophole in the
patent law that may also help many people in the free software world. I t is not
illegal to use a patented idea i f you're in the process of doing some research on
how to improve the state of the art in that area. The loophole is very narrow, but
many users of free software might fall within it. A l l of the distributions come
with source code, and many of the current users are programmers experimenting
with the code. Most of these programmers give their work back to the project
and this makes most of their work pretty noncommercial. The loophole probably
wouldn’t protect the corporations that are using free software simply because it is
cheap, but it would still be large enough to allow innovation to continue. A non-
commercial community built up around research could Still thrive even i f
Microsoft manages to come up with some patents that are very powerful.

The world of patents can still constrain the world of free software. Many
companies work hard on developing new technology and then rely upon patents
to guarantee them a return on investment. These companies have trouble
working well with the free software movement because there’s no revenue
proponents o f open source are IBM, Apple, Netscape/AOL, Sun, and Hewlett-
Packard. A l l except Netscape are major hardware companies dial watched
Microsoft turn the PC world into a software monopoly that ruled a commodity
hardware business.

Free source code changes the equation and shifts power away from software
companies like Microsoft. I B M and Hewlett-Packard are no longer as beholden
to Microsoft i f they can ship machines running a free OS. Apple is borrowing
open source software and using it for the core o f their new OS. These companies
know that the customers come to them looking for a computer that works nicely
when it comes from the factory. Who cares whether the software is free or not?
I f it does what the customer wants, then they can make their money on hardware.

The free software movement pushes software into the public realm, and this
makes it easier for the hardware companies to operate. Car companies don't sit
around and argue about who owns the locations of the pedals or die position of
the dials o n the dashboard. Those notions and design solutions are freely
available to a l l car companies equally. The lawyers don't need to get involved i n
that level o f car creation.
around and argue about who owns the locations of the pedals or the position of
the dials on the dashboard. Those notions and design solutions are freely
available to all car companies equally. The lawyers don't need to get involved in
that level of car creation.

Of course, the free software movement could lead to more consolidation i n the
hardware business. The car business coalesced over the years because the large
companies were able to use (heir economies of scale to push out the small
companies. No one had dominion over the idea of putting four wheels on a car or
building an engine with pistons, so the most efficient companies grew big.

This is also a threat hr die computer business. Microsoft licensed their OS to all
companies, big or small, that were willing to prostrate themselves before the
master. It was i n Microsoft’s best interests to foster free competition between the
computer companies. Free software takes this one step further. I f no company
has control over the dominant OS, then competition will shift to the most
efficient producers. The same forces that brought G M to the center of the car
industry could help aggregate the hardware business.

This vision would be more worrisome i f it hadn't happened already, intel

dominates the market for CPU chips and lakes home the lion's share of the price
of a PC. The marketplace already chose a winner of that battle. Now; free
software could unshackle Intel from its need to maintain a partnership with
Microsoft by making Intel stronger.
The software industry has lobbied long and hard to lift these regulations, but
they’ve had limited success. They've pointed out that much foreign software is as
good as i f not better than American encryption software. They’ve screamed that
they were losing sales to foreign competitors from places l i k e Germany,
Australia, and Canada, competitors who could import their software into die
U.S. and compete against American companies. None o f these arguments went
very far because the interests o f the U.S. intelligence community always won
when the president had to make a decision.

The free source code world tripped into this debate when a peace activist named
Phil Zimmerman sat down one day and wrote a program he called Pretty Good
Privacy, or simply PGP. Zimmerman's package was solid, pretty easy to use, and
free. To make matters worse for the government, Zimmerman gave away ah of
the source code and didn't even use a B S D or GPL license. I t was just out there
for all the world to see.

The free source code had several effects. First, it made it easy for everyone to
learn how to build encryption systems and add the features to their o w n
software. Somewhere there are probably several programmers being paid by
drug dealers to use PGP's source code to scramble their data. A t least one person
The free source code had several effects. First, i t made i t easy for everyone to
learn how to build encryption systems and add the features to their own
software. Somewhere there are probably several programmers being paid by
drug dealers to use PGP's source code to scramble their data. A t least one person
trading child pornography was caught using PGP.

Of course, many legitimate folks embraced it. Network Solutions, the branch of
SAIC, the techno powerhouse, uses digital signatures generated by PGP to
protect the integrity of the Internet's root server. Many companies use PGP to
protect their e-mail and proprietary documents, Banks continue to explore using
tools like PGP to run transaction networks. Parents use PGP to protect their kids’
e-mail from stalkers.

The free source code also opened the door to scrutiny. Users, programmers, and
other cryptographers took apart the PGP code and looked for bugs and mistakes.
After several years of poking, every one pretty much decided that the software
was secure and safe.

This type of assurance is important i n cryptography. Paul Kocher, an expert i n

Cryptography who runs Cryptography Research in San Francisco, explains that
free source software is an essential part of developing cryptography."You need
source code to test software, and careful testing Is the only way to eliminate
security problems in crypto-systems,' 1 he says. "Wo need everyone to review the
the world. Miguel de Icaza, the lead developer of the G N O M E desktop, comes
from Mexico, a country perceived as technically underdeveloped by many in die
United States.

Jon Hall, often called maddog, is one of the first members of corporate America
to recognize that neat things were going o n throughout the world o f open source
software. H e met Torvalds at a conference and shipped him a Digital computer
built around the Alpha chip when he found out that Torvalds wanted to
experiment w i t h porting his software to a 64-bit architecture. Hah loves t o
speculate about the spread of free software throughout the globe and says, " W h o
knows where the next great mind w i l l come from? I t could be Spain, Brazil,
India, Singapore, or dare I say Finland?"

In general, the free source revolution is worldwide and rarely encumbered by

racial and national barricades. Europe is just as filled w i t h Linux developers as
America, and the Third World i s rapidly skipping over costly Microsoft and into
inexpensive Linux. Interest i n Linux is booming i n China and India. English is,
o f course, the default language, but other languages continue to l i v e thanks to
automatic translation mechanisms like Babel fish.
America, and the Third World is rapidly skipping over costly Microsoft and into
inexpensive Linux. Interest in Linux is booming in China and India. English is,
of course, the default language, but other languages continue to live thanks to
automatic translation mechanisms like Babelfish.

This border-free existence can only help the spread of free source software.
Many countries, claiming national pride, would rather use software developed by
local people. Many countries explicitly distrust software coming from the United
States because it is well known that the U.S. government tries to restrict security
software like encryption at the request o f its intelligence-gathering agencies. I n
November 1999, the German government's Federal Ministry o f Finance and
Technology announced a grant for the G N U Privacy Guard project. Why would
a country want to send all of its money to Redmond, Washington, when it could
bolster a local group of hackers by embracing a free OS? For everyone but the
United States, installing a free OS may even be a patriotic gesture.

12.1 ICONS

The archetypes are often defined by prominent people, and no one is more
central to the free source world than Richard Stallman. Some follow the man like
a disciple, others say that his strong views color the movement and scare away
normal people. Everyone goes out of their way to praise the man and tell you
industry for some time. Many for-profit, proprietary firms are thrown for a loop
by some o f die patents granted to their competitors. The open source world will
have plenty o f allies who want to remake the system.

The patents are probably the most potent legal tool that proprietary software
companies can use to threaten the open source world. There is n o doubt that the
companies w i l l use it to fend off low-rcnt competition.

One of the biggest challenges for the free software community w i l l be

developing the leadership to undertake these battles. It is one thing to mess
around i n a garage w i t h your buddies and hang out i n some virtual he-
rn an/Micros of t-haters clubhouse cooking up neat code. It's a very different
challenge to actually achieve the world domination that the Linux world muses
about. When I started writing the book, I thought that an anthem for the free
software movement might be Spinal Tap's "Flower People." N o w I think it’s
going to be Buffalo Springfield's 'Tor What It's Worth/' which warns, "There's
something happening here / What it is ain't exactly clear/'

Tim O'Reilly emphasizes this point, when asked about some of the legal battles,
he said, "There's definitely going to be a war over this stuff, when 1 look back at
going to be Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth," which warns, "There's
something happening here / What it is ain't exactly clear/'

Tim O'Reilly emphasizes this point. When asked about some of the legal battles,
he said, "There's definitely going to be a war over this stuff. When 1 look back at
previous revolutions., I realize how violent they became. They threatened to burn
Galileo at the stake. They said ’Take it back,' and he backed down. But it didn't
make any difference in the end. But just because there's a backlash doesn't mean
that open source won't win i n the long run.'’

Companies like Microsoft don't let markets and turf just slip away. They have a
large budget for marketing their software. They know how to generate positive
press and plenty of fear in the hearts of managers who must make decisions.
They understand the value of intellectual property, and they aren't afraid of
dispatching teams of lawyers to ensure that their markets remain defended.

The open source community, however, is not without a wide variety of strengths,
although it may not he aware of them. I n fact, this diffuse power anil lack of self-
awareness and organization is one of its greatest strengths. There is no powerful
leadership telling die open source community 'Thou shall adopt these libraries
and write to this API." I he people in the trenches are testing code, proposing
solutions, and getting their hands dirty while making decisions. The realm is not
a juggernaut, a bandwagon, a dreadnought, or an unstoppable freight train
roaring down the track. It's creeping kudzu, an algae bloom, a teenage fad, and a
and only give the keys to registered dealers who would sign lots o f forms that
guaranteed that they would keep die workings of the cars secret. N o one could
change the spark plugs, chop the hood, add a nitro tank, or do anything with the
car except drive i t around i n a completely boring way. Some lawyers at the car
companies might love to start shipping cars w i t h such a license. Think how
much more they could charge for service! The smart executives might realize that
they wrere hurting their biggest fans, the people who liked to tune, tweak, fiddle,
and futz with their machines. They would be stripping away one of the great
pleasures of their devices and slowly but surely turning the cars into commodity
items that put the owners i n legal strait-jackets.

Some software companies take the licensing requirements to even greater

extremes. One o f the most famous examples is the Microsoft Agent software,
which allows a programmer to create little animated characters that might give
instructions. Some versions of Microsoft Office, for instance, come with a
talking paperclip that points out now and improved features. Microsoft released
this technology to the general programmer community hoping that people would
add the tools to their software and create their own talking characters.

The software is free and Microsoft posts a number of nice tools for usins the
talking paper clip that points out new and improved features. Microsoft released
this technology to rhe general programmer community 4 hoping that people would
add the tools to their software and create their own talking characters.

The software is free and Microsoft posts a number of nice tools for using the
code on their website. They couldn't leave well enough alone, though, because
anyone who wants to use the tool with their code needs to print out and file a
separate license with the Microsoft legal staff. Many of the clauses are pretty
simple and do useful things like force anyone using the software to try to keep
their versions up to date. But the most insidious one ensures that no one will

"...use the Character Animation Data and Image Files to disparage Microsoft, its
products or services or for promotional goods or for products which, i n
Microsoft's sole judgment, may diminish or otherwise damage Microsoft's
goodwill in the SOFTWARE PRODUCT including but not limited i o uses which
could be deemed under applicable law to be obscene or pornographic, uses
which are excessively violent, unlawful, or which purpose is to encourage
unlawful activities.’1

i n other words, i f you want to make the cute animated cartoon say something
unkind about Microsoft. Microsoft can simply shut you down. And don't even
think about creating a little animated marijuana cigarette for your Grateful Dead
soflwarepalooja. It’s practically illegal just to think bad thoughts in the vicinity
of a computer running Microsoft Agent.
years, but the institution of marriage continues to live on despite the battle scars
and wounds dial are almost mortal. Half may fail, but half succeed,

The free software community also flourishes by creating a strong, transcendent

version of love and binding it with a legal document that sets out the rules of the
compact Stallman wrote his first copyleft virus more than 15 years before this
book began, and the movement is just beginning to gain real strength. The free
software world isn't just a groovy love nest, it's a good example of how strong
fences, freedom, and mutual respect can build strong relationships.

The important thing to realize is that free software people aren't any closer to
being saints than the folks i n the proprietary software companies. They're just as
given to emotion, greed, and the lust for power. It's just that the free software
rules tend to restrain their worst instincts and prevent them from acting upon
them.

The rules are often quite necessary. E-mail and the news services give people the
ability to vent their anger quickly. Many of the programmers are very proficient
writers, so they can tear each other apart with verbal scalpels. The free source
w orld is cut up into hundreds if not thousands of political camps and many
The rules are often quite necessary. E-mail and the news services give people the
ability to vent their anger quickly. Many of the programmers are very proficient
writers, so they can (ear each other apart with verbal scalpels. The free source
world is cut up into hundreds i f not thousands of political camps and many
dislike each other immensely. One group begged with me not to ask them
questions about another group because just hearing someone’s name brought up
terrible memories of pain and discord.

Despite these quick-raging arguments, despite the powerful disagreements,

despite the personal animosities, the principles of the public licenses keep
everything running smoothly. The people are just as human as the rats running
around in the maze of the proprietary software business, hut the license keeps
them i n line.

The various public licenses counter human behavior in two key ways. First, they
encourage debate by making everyone a principal in the project. Everyone has a
right to read, change, and of course make comments about the software. Making
everything available opens the doors for discussion, and discussion usually leads
to arguments.

But when the arguments come to blows, as they often do, the second effect of
free source licenses kicks in and moderates the fallout by treating everyone
equally. I f Bob and John don’t like each other, then there's still nothing they can
situations, like when the printer is out of paper and the modem is overloaded by
a long file that is coming over die Internet. Then, and only then, the two buffers
may f i l l to the brim, bump into each other, and crash the computer. The rest o f
the time, die program floats along happily, encountering no problems.

These types o f bugs are notoriously hard for corporate testing environments to
discover and characterize. The companies try to be diligent by hiring several
young programmers and placing them i n a room w i t h a computer. T h e team
beats on the software all day long and develops a healthy animosity toward the
programming team that has to f i x the problems they discover. They can nab
many simple bugs, but what happens i f they don’t have a printer hooked up to
their machine? What happens i f they aren't constantly printing out things the way
some office users are? The weird bug goes unnoticed and probably unfixed*

The corporate development model tries to solve this limitation by shipping

hundreds, thousands, and often hundreds of thousands of copies to ambitious
users they called "heta testers." Others called them "suckers" or "free volunteers"
because once they finish helping develop the software, they get to pay for it.
Microsoft even charges some users for the pleasure o f being beta testers. Many
o f the users are nrafiinatic. They often have no choice but to oarticinate i n the
hundreds, thousands, and often hundreds of thousands of copies to ambitious
users they called 'beta testers." Others called them "suckers" or "free volunteers"
because once they finish helping develop the software, they get i o pay for it.
Microsoft even charges some users for the pleasure of being beta testers. Many
of the users are pragmatic. They often have no choice but to participate i n the
scheme because they often base their businesses on some of the software shipped
by these companies. If it didn't work, they would be out of a job.

While this broad distribution of beta copies is much more likely to find someone
who is printing and overloading a modem at the same time, it doesn't give the
user the tools to help find the problem. Their only choice is to write an e-mail
message to the company saying ’"I was printing yesterday and your software
crashed." That isn't very helpful for the engineer, and it's no surprise that many
of these reports are either ignored or unsolved.

Raymond pointed out that the free source world can do a great job with these
nasty bugs. He characterized this with the phrase, "Given enough eyeballs, all
bugs are shallow," which he characterized as "Linus's Law." That is, eventually
some programmer would start printing and using die internet at the same time.
After the system crashed a few times, some programmer would care enough
about the problem to dig into the free source, poke around, and spot the problem.
Eventually somebody would come along with the time and the energy and the
commitment l o diagnose the problem. Raymond named this "Linus's L a w " after
Linus Torvalds. Raymond is a great admirer of Towaids and thinks that
as they wanted. That meant that others could use the G N U code and convert it to
run on the Apple if they wanted to do so. Many did port much of the GNU
software to the M a c and distributed the source code w i t h it i n order to comply
w i t h the license. Stallman couldn't do anything about it. Sure, he was the great
leader of the FSF and the author o f some of its code, hut he had given away his
power w i t h the license. The only thing he could do was refuse to help the folks
moving the software to the Mac. When it came to principles, he placed freedom
to use the source code at the top o f the hierarchy

10.3 THE GNU VIRUS

Some programmers soon started referring to the sticky nature of the license as
the " G N U virus" because it infected software projects w i t h its freedom bug. I f a
developer wanted to save time and grab some of the neat GNU software, he was
stuck making the rest of his work just as free. These golden handcuffs often
scared away programmers who wanted to make money by charging for their
work.
developer wanted to save time and grab some of the neat G N U software, he was
stuck making the rest of his work just as free. These golden handcuffs often
scared away programmers who wanted to make money by charging for their
work.

Stallman hates that characterization, "To call anything ’like a vims’ is a very
vicious thing. People who say things like that are trying to find ways to make the
GPL look bad," he says.

Stallman did try to work around this problem by creating what he at first called
the "Library General Public License11 and now refers to as the 'Lesser General
Public License," a document that allowed software developers to share small
chunks of code with each other under less restrictive circumstances. A
programmer can use the L G PL to bind chunks of code known as libraries. Others
can share the libraries and use them with their source code as long as they don't
fully integrate them. Any changes they make to the library itself must be made
public, but there is no requirement to release the source code for the main
program that uses the library.

This license is essentially a concession to some rough edges at the comers where
the world of programming joins the world of law. While Stallman was dead set
on creating a perfect collection of free programs that would solve everyone’s
needs, he was far from finished. I f people were going to use his software, they
were going to have to use it on machines made by Sun, AT&T, I B M , or someone
This bazaar can be a powerful influence o n solving problems. Sure, it isn't
guided by a talented architect and teams o f priests, but it is a great free-for-all. It
is quite unlikely, for instance, that the guy w i t h the overloaded printer and
modem line will also be a talented programmer w i t h a grand vision to solve the
problem. Someone named Arthur only stumbles across the right stone with the
right sword every once and a bit. But i f the frustrated user can do a good job
characterizing it and reporting i t , then someone else can solve i t .

Dave Hitz was one of the programmers who helped Keith Bostic rewrite U N I X
so i t could be free o f AT&Ts copyright. Today, he runs Network Appliance, a
company that builds stripped-down file servers that run B S D at their core. He’s
been writing file systems ever since college, and the free software came i n quite
handy when he was starting his company. When they started building the b i g
machines, die engineers just reached into the pool of free source code for
operating systems and pulled out much of the code that would power his servers.
They modified the code heavily, but the body o f free software that he helped
create was a great starting point
machines, the engineers just reached into the pool of free source code for
operating systems and pul] cd out much of the code that would power his servers.
They modified the code heavily, but the body of free software that he helped
create was a great starting point.

I n his experience, many people would find a bug and patch it with a solution that
was good enough for them. Some were just kids in college. Others were
programmers who didn't have the time or the energy to read the Source and
understand (he best way to fix the problem. Some fixed the problem for
themselves, but inadvertently created another problem elsewhere. Sorting
through all of these problems was hard to do.

But Hiu says, "Even i f they fixed it entirely the wrong way, i f they found the
place where the problem went away, then they put a giant arrow on the
problem." Eventually, enough arrows would provide someone with enough
information to solve the problem correctly. Many of the new versions written by
people may be lost to time, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have an
important effect on the evolution of the Source.

" I think it's rarely the case that you got people who make a broad base of source
code their life," he said, "There are just a whole bunch of people who are
dilettantes. The message is, 'Don't underestimate the dilettantes.'"

11.3 H O W FREE SOFTWARE C A N B E A B A Z A A R OR A CATHEDRAL

People played GNU Chess at their offices. Others were donating their tools to
the GNU project. Everyone was getting some attention by sharing except the
folks at Berkeley who collaborated w i t h AT&T. This started to rub people the
wrong way.

Something had to be done, and the folks at Berkeley started feeling the pressure.
Some at Berkeley wondered why the professors had entered into such a Faustian
bargain w i t h a b i g corporation. Was the payoff great enough to surrender their
academic souls? Just where did AT&T get off telling us what we could publish?

Others outside of Berkeley looked i n and saw a treasure trove of software that
was written by academics. Many o f them were friends. Some of them had
studied at Berkeley. Some had even written some of the U N I X code before they
graduated. Some were companies competing with AT&T. AH of them figured
that they could solve their UNIX problems i f they could just get their hands on
the source code. There had to be some way to get it released.

Slowly, the t w o groups began making contact and actively speculating on how to
free Berkeley's version of U N I X from AT&Ts grip.
the source code. There had to be some way to get it released.

Slowly, the two groups began making contact and actively speculating on how to
free Berkeley's version of U N I X from AT&T's grip,

7,1 BREAKING THE BOND

The first move to separate Berkeley’s version of UNIX from AT&T's control
wasn’t really a revolution. N o one was starting a civil war by firing shots at Fort
Sumter or starting a revolution by dropping tea in the harbor, in fact, it started
long before the lawsuit and Linux. In 1989, some people wanted to start hooking
their PCs and other devices up to the Internet, and they didn't want to use U N I X .

Berkeley had written some of the software known as TCP/IP that defined how
computers on the Internet would communicate and share packets. They wrote the
software for UNIX because that was one of the favorite OSs around the labs.
Other companies got a copy o f the code by buying a source license for U N I X
from AT&T. The TCP/IP code was just part of the mix. Some say that the cost of
the license reached 5250,000 or more and required that the customer pay a per-
unit fee for every product that was shipped. Those prices didn't deter the big
companies like I B M o r DEC. They thought of U N I X as an OS for the hefty
workstations and minicomputers sold i o businesses and scientists. Those guys
had the budget to pay for b i g hardware, so it was possible to slip the cost of the
"Broken Windows Theory." New York Times, March 21, 1999.

"Interview with Linus Torva/ds." FatBrain.com, May 1999.

http: // w ww. kt .o pensrc *org/ i nteiv i ews/ti199905 28_lb . htm 1

Jeiinek, Jakuh "Re: Mach64 Problems in UltraPenguin 1.1.9." Linux Weekly

News, April 27, 1999.

http: // w ww. 1wn . net/ 1999/042 9/a/iup- dead ht m 1

Johnson, Richard B., and Chris Wedgwood. "Segfault i n syslogd [problem

shown]," A p r i l 1999,

http: // w ww. kt.ope nsrc .org/ kt 199904 1 5_ 14. htm 1#8

Joy BilL "Talk to Stanford EE 380 Students." November 1999.

Kahn, David. The Codebreakers. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Knhnnv. Leander. 11Onpn -Source Cun is Trade Jabs." Wired News. Anri I 10.
Joy, Bi?/. "Talk to Stanford EE 380 Students." November 1999.

Kohn, David, The Codebreakers. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Kcihney, Leander, "Open-Source Gurus Trade Jabs," Wired News, April 10,
1999.

http: //www. wired .com/ne ws/news/technology /story / 1 9049 .him I

"Apple Lifts License Restrictions." Wired News, A p r i l 21, 1999.

http ;// w w w. w i red .com/news/news/technology /story / 1 9233 . ht ml

Kidd, Eric, "Why You Might Want to Use the Library GPL for Your Next
Library." Linux Gazette, March 1999.

http:// w wwJ i nu xgazottc.com/i ssuc38 /k idd .h tml

Kohn, A/fa?. "Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator; Creativity and Intrinsic
Interest Diminish I f Task Is Done for Gain." Boston Globe, January 19, 1987.

Lconord, Andrew. "Open Season: Why an Industry of Cutthroat Competition Is

Suddenly Deciding Good Karma Is Great Business." Wired News, May 1999.

Linksvayec Mike. "Choice of the G N U Generation/' Meta Magazine.

So Torvalds started writing his own tiny operating system for this 386. it wasn't
going to be anything special, it wasn't going to topple AT&T or the burgeoning
Microsoft. I t was just going to be a fun experiment i n writing a computer
operating system that was ah his. H e wrote in January 1 9 9 2 / Many things
should have been done more portably i f it would have been a real project. I ' m not
making overly many excuses about it though: it was a design decision, and last
A p r i l when 1 started the thing, I didn’t think anybody would actually want to use
it/'

Still, Torvalds had high ambitions. He was writing a toy, but he wanted it to have
many, i f not all, of the features found i n full-strength U N I X versions on the
market. O n July 3, he started wondering how to accomplish this and placed a
posting on die USENET newsgroup comp.os.minix, writing:

Hello netlanders, Due to a project I'm working on (in minix), I ' m interested i n
the posix standard definition. Could somebody please point me to a (preferably)
machine-readable format o f the latest posix rules? Ftp-sites would be nice.

Torvalds's question was pretty simple, w h e n he wrote the message i n 1991,

U N I X was one of the major operating systems i n the world. The project that
the posix standard definition. Could somebody please point me to a (preferably)
machine-readable format of the latest posix roles? Ftp-sites would be nice.

Torvalds's question was pretty simple. When he wrote the message i n 1991 ,
U N I X was one of the major operating systems in the world. The project that
started at AT&T and Berkeley was shipping on computers from I B M . Sun,
Apple, and most manufacturers of higher-powered machines known as
workstations. Wall Street banks and scientists loved the more powerful
machines, and they loved the simplicity and hackability of U N I X machines. In
an attempt to unify the marketplace, computer manufacturers created a way to
standardize U N I X and called it POSIX. POSIX ensured that each U N I X
machine would behave i n a standardized way.

Torvalds worked quickly, By September he was posting notes to the group with
lr
the subject line What would you like to see most in Minix?” H e was adding
features to his clone, and he wanted to take a poll about where he should add
next.

Torvalds already had some good news to report. "I've currently ported hash( 1.08)
and GCC(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I’ll get something
practical within a few months,” he said.

At first glance, he was making astounding progress. H e created a working

system with a compiler i n less than half a year. But he also had the advantage of
give their software away for free. It's much harder to attract and organize an
army io take on Microsoft and dominate the world. That requires a proper
definition o f the word ’free" so that everyone understands the rights and
limitations behind the word. Everyone needs to be on the same page i f the battle
is to be won. Everyone needs to understand what is meant by "free software."

The history o f the free software world is also filled w i t h long, extended
arguments defining the freedom that comes bundled w i t h the source code. Many
wonder i f it is more about giving the user something for nothing, or i f is it about
empowering him. Does this freedom come w i t h any responsibilities? What
should they be? H o w is the freedom enforced? Is freeloading a proper part of the
freedom?

In the early years o f computers, there were n o real arguments. Software was free
because people just shared it w i t h each other. Magazines l i k e Creative
Computing and BYTE published the source code to programs because that was
an easy way to share information.

People would even type i n the data themselves, Computers cost money, and
getting them to run was pan of the challenge. Sharing software was just part of
Computing and B Y T E published die source code to programs because that was
an easy way to share information.

People would even type in the data themselves. Computers cost money, and
getting them to run was part of the challenge. Sharing software was just part of
being neighborly. I f someone needed to borrow your plow, you lent it to them
when you weren't using it

This changed as corporations recognized that they could copyright software and
start charging money for i t Most people loved this arrangement because the
competition brought new packages and tools to market and people were more
than willing to pay for them. How else are the programmers and the manual
writers going to eat?

A few people thought this was a disaster. Richard Stallman watched the world
change from his office i n the artificial intelligence labs of M I T . Stallman is the
ultimate hacker, i f you use the word i n the classical sense. In the beginning, the
word Only described someone who knows how to program well and loves to
poke around i n the insides of computers. It only took on its more malicious tone
later as the media managed to group all of those with the ability to wrangle
computers into the same dangerous camp. Hackers often use the term "cracker"
to refer to these people.

Stallman is a model of the hacker. He is strident, super intelligent, highly logical,

bazaars today are the suburban malls that have one management company
building the site, leasing the stores, and creating a unified experience.
Downtown shopping areas often failed because there was always one shop
owner who could ruin an entire block by putting i n a store that sold pornography.
On the other side, religion has always been something o f a bazaar. Martin Luther
effectively split apart Christianity by introducing competition. Even within
denominations, different parishes fight for the hearts and souls o f people.

The same blurring holds true for the world of open source software. The Linux
kernel, for instance, contains many thousands of lines of source code. Some put
the number at 500,000. A few talented folks like Alan Cox or Linus Torvalds
know a l l of it, but most are only familiar w i t h the corners of it that they need to
know. These folks, who may number i n the thousands, are far outnumbered by
the millions who use the Linux OS daily.

It's interesting to wonder if the ratio of technically anointed to blithe users in the
free source world is comparable to the ratio in Microsoft's dominion. After all,
Microsoft w i l l share its source code with close partners after they sign some
non-disclosure forms.[ A 9 ] While Microsoft is careful about what i t tells its
partners, i t w i l l reveal information onlv when there's something to gain. Other
Il's interesting to wonder i f the ratio of technically anointed to blithe users in the
free source world is comparable to the ratio in Microsoft's dominion. After all,
Microsoft will share its source code with close partners after they sign some
non-disclosure forms. f A 9] While Microsoft is careful about what i t tells its
partners, it w i l l reveal information only when there's something to gain. Other
companies have already jumped right in and started offering source code to all
users who want to look at it.

[9]: At this writing, Microsoft has not released its source code, but the company
is widely known to be examining the option as part of its settlement with the
Department of Justice.

Answering this question is impossible for two different reasons. First, no one
knows what Microsoft reveals to its partners because i t keeps all of this
information secret, by reflex. Contracts are usually negotiated under non-
disclosure, and the company has not been shy about exploiting the power that
comes from the lack of information.

Second, no one really knows wrho reads the Linux source code for the opposite
reason. The GNU/Linux source is widely available and frequently downloaded,
but that doesn't mean it's read or studied. The Red Hat CDs come with one CD
full of pre-compiled binaries and the second full of source code. Who knows
whoever pops the second CDROM in their computer? Everyone is free to do so
in the privacy of their own cubicle, so no records are kept.
Release 2 came i n June 1991, right around the same time that Linus Torvalds
was poking around looking for a high-grade OS to use i n experiments. Jolitz's
386BSD came out about six months later as Torvalds began to dig into creating
the OS he would later call Linux. Soon afterward, Jolitz lost interest i n the
project and let it lie, but others came along, i n fact, two groups called NetBSD
and FreeBSD sprang up to carry the torch.

Although it may seem strange that three groups building a free operating system
could emerge without knowing about each other, it is important to realize that
the Internet was a very different world i n 1991 and 1992. The World Wide Web
was only a gleam i n some people’s eyes. O n l y the best universities had general
access to the web for its students, and most people didn’t understand what an e-
mail address was. Only a few computer-related businesses like I B M and Xerox
put their researchers on the Net. The community was small and insular.

The main conduits for information were die USENET newsgroups, which were
read only by people who could get access through their universities. This
technology was an efficient way of sharing information, although quite flawed.
Here's how i t worked: every so often, each computer would call up its
negotiators and swan the latest articles. Information traveled l i k e gossip, which
The main conduits for information were the USENET newsgroups, which were
iead only by people who could gel access through their universities. This
technology was an efficient way of sharing information, alI hough quite flawed.
Here's howr it worked: every so often, each computer would call up its
negotiators and swap the latest articles, Information traveled like gossip, which
is to say that it traveled quickly but with very uneven distribution, Computers
were always breaking down or being upgraded. No one could count on evety
message getting to every corner of the globe.

The NetBSD and the FreeBSD forks of the BSD kerne) continue to exist
separately today. The folks who work on NetBSD concentrate on making their
code run on all possible machines, and they currently list 21 different platforms
that range from the omnipresent Intel 435 to the gone but not forgotten
Commodore Amiga.

The FreeBSD team, on the other hand, concentrates on making their product
work well on the Intel 386. They added many layers of installation tools to make
it easier for the average Joe to use, and now it’s the most popular version of BSD
code around.

Those two versions used the latest code from Berkeley. Torvalds, on the other
hand, didn't know about the 386BSD, FreeBSD, or NetBSD. If he had found out,
he says, he probably would have just downloaded the versions and joined one of
those teams. Why run off and reinvent the wheel?
would give candy and stuffed animals to their parents on their birthdays and
Christmas. All of these bad choices must be returned or thrown away, ruining the
efficiency o f the economy. The professor concluded by saying, ’So, guys, when
you go out on the date, don't bother with the flowers. Forget about the jewelry.
Just give her cash."

Free source software, of course, doesn’t fit into many of the standard models of
economic theory. Giving the stuff away doesn’t cost much money, and accepting
i t often requires a b i t of work. The o l d rules of gift giving and charity don’t really
apply.

Imagine that some grandmother wrote some complicated software for computing
the patterns for knitting sweaters. Some probably have. I f they give the source
code away, i t ends up i n the vast pool of free source code and other knitters may
find it. I t might not help any grandchildren, at least not for 20 or 30 years, but it
w i l l be moving to the place where it can do tlie most good with as little friction
as possible. The software hacked by the kids, on the other hand, would flow
from child to child without reaching the parents. The software tools for
generating dumb jokes and sorting bubble gum cards would make a generation
o f kids haDDV. and thev would be able to exchange it without their parents or
will be moving to the place where it can do the most good with as little friction
as possible. The software hacked by the kids, on the other hand, would flow
from child to child without reaching the parents. The software tools for
generating dumb jokes and sorting bubble gum cards would make a generation
of kids happy, and they would be able to exchange it without their parents or
grandparents getting i n the way,

The inefficiencies of gift-giving can often affect charities, which have less
freedom to be picky than grandchildren. Charities can't look a gift horse i n the
mouth. I f a company wants to give a women's shelter 1,000 new men's raincoats,
the shelter will probably take them. Refusing them can offend potential
contributors who might give them something of value i n the next quarter.

Free source code has none of these inefficiencies. Websites like Slashdot,
Freshmeat, Linux Weekly News, Linux World, Kernel Traffic, and hundreds of
other Linux or project-specific portals do a great job moving the software to the
people who can use its value. People write the code and then other folks discover
the value in it. Bad or unneeded code isn't foisted on anyone.

free software also avoids being painted as a cynical tax scheme. It is not
uncommon for drug manufacturers to donate some surplus pills to disaster relief
operations. In some cases, the manufacturers clear their shelves of pills that are
about to expire and thus about to be destroyed. They take a liability and turn it
into a tax-deductible asset. This may bo a good idea when the drugs arc needed,
Privacy International.

Translucent Databases, a new book by Peter Wayner, comes with more than t w o
dozen examples i n Java and SQL code. The book comes with a royalty-free
license to use the code for your ow n projects in any way you wish.

• Do you have personal information i n your database?

• Do you keep les on your customers, your employees, o r anyone else?

• Do you need to worry about European laws restricting the information you
keep?

• Do you keep copies of credit card numbers, social security numbers, or

other informa- tion that might be useful to identity thieves or insurance
fraudsters?

• Do you deal with medical records or personal secrets?

Most database administrators spend some of each day worrying about the
■ rt f Xi i - iii ■ u+ ■ z i n I—i Xia i I r rhArh L /x ill. rt J*~ ri. r i ri x I -1 I I Xi 4- I 1 1—i.ri i ■“ ► ■< i 11 rt, f "i bi r i i r i ■“ i rt 4“ Xi ■* * 1 Art s-i
 u duustetsr

• Do you dea] with medical records or personal secrets?

Most database administrators spend some of each day worrying about the
information they keep. Some spend all of their time. Caring for information can
be a dangerous responsibility.

This new book, Translucent Databases, describes a different attitude toward

protecting the information. Most databases provide elaborate control
mechanisms for letting the right people i n to see the right records. These tools
are well designed and thoroughly tested, but they can only provide so much
support. I f someone breaks into the operating system itself, all of the data on the
hard disk is unveiled. I f a clerk, a supervisor, or a system administrator decides
to turn traitor, there's nothing anyone can do.

Translucent databases provide better, deeper protection by scrambling the data

with encryption algorithms. The solutions use the minima] amount of encryption
to ensure that the database is still functional, I n the best applications, the
persona] and sensitive information is protected but the database still delivers the
information.

Order today at http://www.wayner.org/books/td/

ENDNOTES
Under cross-examination, Schmalensee explained that he wasn’t holding up the
Mac, BeOS, or Linux as competitors who were going to take over 50 percent of
the marketplace. H e merely argued that their existence proved that the barriers
produced by the so-called Microsoft monopoly weren't that strong. I f rational
people were investing i n creating companies like BeOS, then Microsoft's power
wasn't absolute.

Afterward, most people quickly made u p their minds. Everyone had heard about
the Macintosh and knew that back then conventional wisdom dictated that i t
would soon fail. B u t most people didn't know anything about BeOS or L i n u x ,
How could a company be a competitor i f no one had heard of it? Apple and
Microsoft had TV commercials. BeOS, at least, had a charismatic chairman.
There was no Linux pitchman, no Linux jingle, and no Linux 30-second spot i n
major media. A t the time, only the best-funded projects i n the Linux community
had enough money to buy spots on late-night community-access cable television.
H o w could someone without money compete w i t h a company that hired the
Rolling Stones to pump excitement into a product launch?

When people heard that Microsoft was offering a free product as a worthy
competitor. thev began to laueh even louder at the company's chutzpah. Wasn't
How could someone without money compete with a company that hired the
Rolling Stones to pump excitement into a product launch?

When people heard that Microsoft was offering a free product as a worthy
competitor, they began to laugh even louder at the company's chutzpah, Wasn’t
money the whole reason the country was having a trial? Weren't computer
programmers in such demand that many companies couldn't hire as many as they
needed, no matter how high the salary? How could Microsoft believe that
anyone would buy the supposition that a bunch of pseudo-communist nerds
living i n their weird techno-utopia where all the software was free would ever
come up with software that could compete with the richest company on earth?
At first glance, it looked as i f Microsoft's case was sinking so low that it had to
resort to laughable strategies. U was as i f General Motors were to tell the world
"We shouldn't have to worry about fixing cars that pollute because a collective of
hippies in Ithaca, New York, is refurbishing old bicycles and giving them away
for free/' I t was as i f Exxon waved away the problems of sinking oil tankers by
explaining that folksingers had written a really neat ballad for teaching birds and
otters to lick themselves dean after an oil spill. I f no one charged money for
Linux, then it was probably because i t wasn't worth buying.

But as everyone began looking a bit deeper, they began to see that Linux was
being taken seriously i n some pans of the world. Many web servers, it turned
out, were already tunning on Linux or another free cousin known as FreeBSD. A
free webserving too] known as Apache had controlled more than 50 percent of
I met at the conferences was happy to speak about their experiences with open
source software. They were all a great source of information, and 1 don’t even
know most of their names.

Some people went beyond the call of duty. John Gilmore, Ethan Rasiel, and
Caroline McKeldin each read drafts when the book was quite unfinished. Their
comments were crucial.

Many friends, acquaintances, and subjects of the book were kind enough to read
versions that were a b i t more polished, but far from complete: L . David Baron,
Jeff Bates, Brian Behlendorf, Alan Cox, Robert Dreyer, Theo de Raadt, Telsa
G wynne, Jordan Hubbard, James Lewis Moss, K i r k McKusick, Sam Ockman,
T i m O’Reilly, Sameer Parekh, Bruce Pei ens, Eric Raymond, and Richard
Stallman.

There are some people who deserve a different kind o f thanks. Daniel Greenberg
and James Levine did a great job shaping the conception o f the book. When 1
began, it was just a few ideas o n paper. My editors, David Conti, Laureen
Rowland, Devi Pillai, and Adrian Zackheim, were largely responsible for this
transition. Kimberly Monroe suffered through my mistakes as she took the book
There are some people who deserve a different kind of thanks. Daniel Greenberg
and James Levine did a great job shaping the conception of (he book. When I
began, it was just a few ideas on paper. My editors, David Conti, Lanreen
Rowland, Devi Pi] lai, and Adrian Zackheim, were largely responsible for this
transition, Kimberly Monroe suffered through my mistakes as she took the book
through its production stages. They took a bunch of rambling comments about a
social phenomenon and helped turn it into a book.

Finally, 1 want to thank everyone i n my family for everything they've given

through all of my life. And. of course, Caroline, who edited large portions with a
slavish devotion to grammar and style.

Visit http://www.wayner.org/books/ffa/ for updates, corrections, and additional

comments,

1, VERSION INFORMATION

Some Rights Reserved:

This is [a complete version of j the free electronic version of the book originally
published by HarperCollins. The book is still protected by copyright and bound
by a license granting you the limited rights to make complete copies for non-
the Free Software Foundation. It's not in the same league as running Microsoft,
but he gets by.

Still, Stallman’s existence is far from certain. H e had to work hard to develop the
funding lines he has. I n order to avoid any conflicts of interest, the Free Software
Foundation doesn't pay Stallman a salary or cover his travel expenses. H e says
that getting paid by corporations to port software helped make ends meet, but i t
didn't help create new software. Stallman works hard to raise new funds for the
FSF, and the money goes right out the door to pay programmers on new projects.
This daily struggle for some form of income is one o f the greatest challenges i n
the free source world today.

Many other free software folks are following Stallman's tack by selling the
services, nor the software. Many o f the members of the Apache Webserver Core,
for instance, make their money by running websites. They get paid because their
customers are able to type in www.website.com and see something pop up. The
customer doesn't care whether it is free software o r something from Microsoft
that is juggling the requests. They just want the graphics and text to keep
moving.
customers are able to type i n www.website.com and see something pop up. The
customer doesn't cane whether it is free software or something from Microsoft
that is juggling the requests. They just want the graphics and text to keep
moving.

Some consultants are following i n the same footsteps. Several now offer
discounts of something like 25 percent i f the customer agrees to release the
source code from the project as free software. I f there's no great proprietary
information i n the project, then customers often take the deal. At first glance, the
consultant looks like he's cutting his rates by 25 percent, but at second glance, he
might be just making things a bit more efficient for all of his customers. H e can
reuse the software his clients release, and no one knows it better than he does. In
time, all of his clients share code and enjoy lower development costs.

The model o f selling services instead of source code works well for many
people, but it is still far from perfect. Software that is sold as part of a shrink-
wrapped license is easy for people to understand and budget. I f you pay the
price, you get the software. Services are often billed by the hour and they're
often very open-ended. Managing these relationships can be just as difficult as
raising some capital to write the software and then marketing i t as shrink-
wrapped code.

17.1 CYGNUS-ONE COMPANY THAT GREW RICH ON FREE SOFTWARE

but they are often superfluous. In many cases, (he drugs just end up i n a landfill.
The relief organizations accept millions of dollars i n drugs to get a few thousand
dollars' worth of ones they really need.

14.1 C H A R I T A B L E OPEN SOURCE ORGANIZATIONS

O f course, there are some open source charities. Richard Stallman's Free
Software Foundation is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charity that raises money and
solicits tax-deductible donations. This money is used to pay for computers,
overhead, and the salaries of young programmers who have great ideas for free
software. The Debian Project also has a charitable arm known as Software i n the
Public Interest that raises money and computer equipment to support die creation
o f more free software.

These organizations are certainly part of the world o f tax deductions, fund-
raisers, and the charity-industrial complex. The Free Software Foundation, for
instance, notes that y o u can arrange for all or part of your gift to the United Way
to go to the Foundation.
These organizations are certainly part of the world of (ax deductions, fund-
raisers, and the charity-industrial complex. The Free Software Foundation, for
instance, notes that you can arrange for all or part of your gift to the United Way
to go to the Foundation

But there are differences, too. Stallman, for instance, is proud of the fact that he
accepts no salary or (ravel reimbursement from the Free Software Foundation.
He works 2 months a year to support himself and then donates the other 10
months a year to raising money to support other programmers io work on
Foundation projects.

Their budgets are pretty manageable as well. Perens notes that Debian's budget
is about $10,000 a year, and this is spent largely on distributing the software.
Servers that support plenty of traffic cost a fair amount of money, but the group
does get donations of hardware and bandwidth. The group also presses a large
number of CD-ROMs with the software.

The groups also make a point of insisting that good code is more valuable than
money. The Free Software Foundation, for instance, lists projects that need work
next to its call for money. Volunteers are needed to write documentation, test
software, organize the office, and also write more code.

Jordan Hubbard, the director of the FreeBSD project, says that money is not
always the best gift. "I’ll take people over six-digit sums of donations almost any
do to stop each other from working on the project. The code i s freely available to
all and shutting off die distribution to your enemy just isn't allowed. You can't
shut out anyone, even someone y o u hate.

Anyone familiar w i t h corporate politics should immediately see the difference.

Keeping rivals in the dark is just standard practice i n a corporation. Information
is a powerful commodity, and folks competing for the same budget w i l l use it to
the best of their ability. Bosses often move to keep their workers locked away
from other groups to keep some control over the f l o w of information.

Retribution is also common i n the corporate world. Many managers quickly

develop enemies i n the ranks, and the groups constantly spend time sabotaging
projects. Requests w i l l be answered quickly or slowly depending o n who makes
them. Work w i l l be done or put o f f depending on which division is asking for i t
to be done. Managers w i l l often complain that their job is keeping their
underlings from killing each other and then turn around and start battling die
other managers at their level.

The people i n the free source world aren t any nicer than the people i n the
corporate cubicle farms, but their powers o f secrecy and retribution are severely
underlings from killing each other and then turn around and start battling the
other managers at their level.

The people in the free source world aren't any nicer than the people i n the
corporate cubicle farms, but their powers of secrecy and retribution are severely
limited. The G N U General Public License requires that anyone who makes
changes to a program and then releases the program must also release the source
code to the world. No shutting o f f your enemies allowed.

This effect could be called a number of different things. I t isn't much different
from the mutual disarmament treaties signed by nations. Athletic teams strive for
this sort of pure focus when they hire referees to make the tough calls and keep
everyone playing by the same rules. The government sometimes tries to enforce
some discipline i n the free market through regulation.

Now, compare this disarmament with a story about the poor folks who stayed
behind at the Hotmail website after Microsoft bought them. It’s really just one of
a million stories about corporate politics. The workers at Hotmail went from
being supreme lords of their Hotmail domain to soldiers in the Microsoft army.
Their decisions needed to further Microsoft's relentless growth in wealth, not the
good of the Hotmail site. This probably didn't really bother the Hotmail people
as much as the fact that the people at Microsoft couldn't decide what they wanted
from Hotmail.
to look over the specs of the project and the final code and then determine
whether money should be paid. Ideally, this person should be someone both
sides respect.

A neutral party with the ability to make respectable decisions is something many
programmers and consultants would welcome* I n many normal situations, the
contractors can only turn to the courts to solve disagreements, and the legal
system is not really schooled i n making these kinds of decisions. The company
w i t h the money is often able to dangle payment i n front o f the programmers and
use this as a lever to extract more work, Many programmers have at least one
horror story to tell about overly ambitious expectations.

Of course, the existence of a wise neutral party who can see deeply into the
problems and provide a fair solution is close to a myth. Judging takes time.
SourceXchange promises that these peer reviewers w i l l be paid, and this money
w i l l probably have to come from die people offering die bounty. They're die only
ones putting money into die system i n the long run. Plus, the system must make
the people offering bounties happy i n the long run or i t w i l l fail.

The CoSource project suggests that the developers must come up with their own
will probably have to come from the people offering the bounty. They’re the only
ones putting money into the system in the long run. Plus, the system must make
the people offering bounties happy i n the long run or ii w i l l fail.

The CoSource project suggests that the developers must come up with their own
authority who w i l l judge the end of the job and present this person with their bid.
The sponsors then decide whether to trust the peer reviewer when they okay the
job. The authorities will he judged like the developers, and summaries of their
reputation w i l l be posted on the site. While it isn't dear how the reviewers w i l l
be paid, i t is not too much to expect that there w i l l be some people out there who
will do it just for the pleasure of having their finger in the stew. They might, for
instance, want to offer the bounty themselves but be unable to put up much
money. Acting as a reviewer would give them the chance to make sure the
software did what they wanted without putting up much cash.

One of the most difficult questions is how to nin the marketplace. A wide-open
solution would let the sponsors pay when the job was done satisfactorily. The
first person to the door with running code that met the specs would be the one to
be paid. Any other team that showed up later would get nothing.

This approach would offer the greatest guarantees of creating well-running code
as quickly as possible. The programmers would have a strong incentive to meet
the specs quickly i n order to win the cash. The downside is that the price would
be driven up because the programmers would be taking on more risk. They
little of the traditional risk of a start-up firm. I t may not be a good idea to
separate the risk-taking from the people doing the work, That i s often the best
way to keep people focused and devoted.

Each of these three systems shows how hard the free software industry is
working at finding a way for people to pay their bills and share information
successfully, Companies like Cygnus or BitKccpcr are real efforts built by
serious people who can't live off the largesse of a university or a steady stream o f
government grants. Their success shows that it is quite possible to make money
and give the source code away for free, but it isn't easy.

Still, there is no way to know how well these companies w i l l survive the brutal
competition that comes from the free flow of the source code. There are no
barriers to entry, so each corporation must be constantly o n its toes. The business
becomes one of service, not manufacturing, and that changes everything. There
are no grand slam home runs in that world. There are no bill ion-doll ar
explosions. Service businesses grow hy careful attention to detail and plenty o f
focused effort.

1. FORK
are no grand slam home runs in that world. There are no billion-dollar
explosions. Service businesses grow by careful attention to detail and plenty of
focused effort.

1. FORK
http: //metalab. u n c. edu/md w/L D P/tlk/tl k- title .him I

Schnndensee, Richord. "Direct Testimony i n the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case o f

1999."

http: // w ww. cou nt v. co m /trials/ m i crosoft/legaidocs/ms_w i t.htmI

Schtdrnan, Andrew. Unauthorized Windows 95. Foster City, CA: IDG Books,
1995.

Seortes, Doc. ‘ it s an Industry/' Linux Journal, May 21, 1999.

http: // w ww. 1inux resources. com/a rt ic I es/conversa t i on s/00 1 . h t m I

Slind-Flor, Victoria. "Linux May Alter IP Legal Landscape: Some Predict More
Contract Work i f Alternative to Windows Catches On." National L a w Journal,
March 12, 1999.

http://wwwJawnewsnetwork.coni/storjes/iiiar/e030899q.htinl

O/il/m/in f? f r/f "Thn I T Mrinifftcm ” 1CPU

\-jUJ I I I (H.L rilJlJY 11 j-fc JIL3LJ ¥ C LkJ IlJUUn.l V - > U L t _ l l C .□ k J L J t I 1 C l L l l J J 9C11. L u n JULIIIlCllj

March 12, 1999.

http: // w ww.l awne wsnetwork.co m/ stories/ mar/ 1e030899q.htm I

Sttdlman, Richard. ’'The G N U Manifesto.” 1994.

http://w w w.gnu .org/gnu/mani festo.htm I

"Why Software Should Not Have Owners." 1994.

hi i p 7/ w w w.gnu .org/ph i It)SOphy/why-free.h[ m 1

Thompson, Ken, and Dennis Ritchie. "The U N I X Time-Sharing System."

Communications of the ACM, 1974.

Thygeson, Gordon. Apple T-Shirts; A Yearbook of History at Apple Computer.

Cupertino, C A : Porno Publishing, 1998

Torvalds. Linus. "Linus Torvalds: Leader of the Revolution." Transcript of Chat

with Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux OS. ABCNews.com.

"Linux’s History." July 31, 1992.

hli p://w ww.l i .oig/] i/ 1inu x histo ry.sht ml

commercial purposes. You’re welcome to read it in electronic form subject to
these conditions:

1) You may not make derivative works. You must reproduce the work i n its
entirety.

2) You may not sell versions.

3) You refer everyone receiving a copy to the website where they may get the
latest corrected version, http://www.wayner.org/books/ffa/

A full license developed by the Creative Commons (www.creativecommons.org)

w i l l be forthcoming. Please write p3@wayner.org i f you have any questions o r
suggestions.

See http://www.wayner.org/books/ffa/ for the FIRST PDF EDITION Page layout

for this and the original paper edition designed by William Ruoto, see N o t
printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Wayner, Peter, 1964 Free for all: how L i n u x and the free software movement
undercut the high-tech titans / Peter Wayner. p. cm. I S B N 0-06-662050-3 1.
o r e Liiip /www.wdyjiei.uig/uuuK iid/ iui uie n w i r u r E u m u n rage layout
for this and the original paper edition designed by William Ruoto, see Not
printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Wayner, Peter, 1964 Free for all: how Linux and the free software movement
undercut the high-tech titans / Peter Wayner. p. cm. ISBN 0-96-662050-3 1.
Linux. 2. Operating systems (Computers) 3. Free computer software. I. Title.
QA76.76.063 W394 2000 005.4'469 dc21 00-023919 00 01 02 03 04 V/RRD 10
987654321

( tfa.png ]

Free For Alt may be purchased at Amazon.com

L BATTLE

The world where cash was king, greed was good, and money was power fell off
its axis and stopped rotating, i f only for a second, in January 1999. Microsoft,
the great software giant and unstoppable engine of cash, was defending itself in a
courtroom in Washington, D C . The Department of Justice claimed that
Microsoft was a monopoly and was using this power to cut off competitors.
Microsoft denied i t all and claimed that the world was hurling threat after
competitive threat its way. They weren't a monopoly, they were just a very
competitive company that managed to withstand the slings and arrows of other
equally ruthless competitors out to steal its market share.
Of course, (he free OSs could also weaken Intel by opening it up to competition.
Windows 3.1, 95, and 98 always ran only on intel platforms. This made it easier
for Intel to dominate the PC world because the OS that was most i n demand
would only run on Intel or Intel compatible chips. Microsoft made some attempt
to break out of this tight partnership by creating versions of Windows N T that
ran on the Alpha chip, but these were never an important part o f the market.

The free OS also puts Intel's lion’s share u p for grabs. Linux runs well on Intel
chips, but it also runs on chips made by IBM, Motorola, Compaq, and many
others. The NetBSD team loves t o brag that its software runs on almost all
platforms available and is dedicated to porting it to as many as possible.
Someone using Linux or NetBSD doesn't care who made the chip inside because
the OS behaves similarly on ail of them.

Free source code also threatens one of the traditional ways computer
manufacturers differentiated their products. The Apple Macintosh lost market
share and potential customers because it was said that there wasn't much
software available for i t . The software written for the PC would run o n the Mac
only using a slow program diat converted it. Now, i f everyone has access to the
source code, they can convert the software to run on their machine. In many
manufacturers differentiated their products. The Apple Macintosh lost market
share and potential customers because i t was said that there wasn't much
software available for it. The software written for the PC would run on the Mac
only using a slow program that converted it. Now, i f everyone has access to the
source code, they can convert the software to run on their machine. I n many
cases, its as simple as just recompiling it, a step that takes less than a minute.
Someone using an Amiga version of NetBSD could take software running on an
Intel chip version and recompile it.

This threat shows that the emergence of the free OSs ensures that hardware
companies will also face increased competitive pressure. Sure, they may be able
to get Microsoft off their back, but Linux may make things a bit worse.

I n the end, the coming of age of free software may be just as b i g a threat to the
old way of life for corporations as it is to the free software community; Sure, the
hackers w i l l lose the easy camaraderie of swapping code with others, but the
corporations w i l l need to learn to live without complete control. Software
companies w i l l be under increasing pressure from free versions, and hardware
companies w i l l be shocked to discover that their product w i l l become more of a
commodity than i t was before. Everyone is going to have to find a way to
compete and pay the rent when much of the intellectual property is free.

These are b i g changes that affect big players. But what will the changes mean to
the programmers who stay up late spinning mountains of code? W i l l they be
But Torvalds's flame war with Tanenbaum occurred in the open i n an Internet
newsgroup. Other folks could read it, think about it, add their two cents' word),
and even take sides. I t was a wide-open debate that uncovered many flaws i n the
original versions of L i n u x and Tanenbaum’s M i n i x . They forced Torvalds to
think deeply about what he wanted to do w i t h Linux and consider its flaws. H e
had to listen to the arguments of a critic and a number of his peers on the Net
and then come up with arguments as to why his Linux kernel didn't suck too
badly.

This open fight had a very different effect from the one going on i n the legal
system. Developers and U N I X hackers avoided the various free versions of B S D
because of the legal cloud. If a judge decided that AT&T and U S L were right,
eveiyone would have to abandon their work on the platform. While the CSRG
worked hard to get free, judges don't always make the choices we want.

The fight between Torvalds and Tanenbaum, however, drew people into the
project. Other programmers like David Miller, Ted T s o , and Peter da Silva
chimed in w i t h their opinions. A t the lime, they were just interested bystanders.
I n time, they became part of the L i n u x brain trust. Soon they were contributing
source code that ran on L i n u x . The argument's excitement forced them to look at
The fight between Torvalds and Tanenbaum, however, drew people into die
project. Other programmers like David Miller, Ted 1 'so, and Peter da Silva
chimed i n with their opinions, At the time, they were just interested bystanders.
In time, they became part of the Linux brain trust. Soon they were contributing
source code that ran on Linux. The arguments excitement forced them to look at
Torvalds's toy OS and try to decide whether his defense made any sense. Today,
David Miller is one of the biggest contributors to the Linux kernel. Many of the
original debaters became major contributors to the foundations of Linux.

This fight drew folks in and kept them involved. It showed that Torvalds was
serious about the project and willing to think about its limitations. More
important, it exposed these limitations and inspired other folks on the Net to step
forward and try to fix them. Everyone could read the arguments and jump in.
Even now, you can dig up the archives of this battle and read in excruciating
detail what people were thinking and doing. The AT&T/USL -versus- Berkeley
fight is still sealed.

To this day, ad of the devotees of the various BSDs grit their teeth when they
hear about Linux. They think that FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD arc better,
and they have good reasons for these beliefs. They know they were our rhe door
first with a complete running system. But Linux is on the cover of the
magazines. A l l of the great technically unwashed are now starting to use "Linux"
as a synonym for free software. I f AT&T never sued, the BSD teams would be
the ones reaping the glory. They would be the ones to whom Microsoft turned
1841. Whoops. Busted,

Telsa wrote i n her diary, which she also posts to the Net under the title ’The
More Accurate Diary. Really.1'

Dragged h i m to cinema to see Zorro. I should have remembered he'd done some
fencing and found something different. H e also claimed he'd spotted a really
obscure error. I checked afterward on IMDB, and was amazed. How did he see
this?

Cox is a b i g hear of a man who wears a long, brown wizard's beard. H e has an
agile, analytic mind that constantly picks apart a system and probes it for
weaknesses. If he's playing a game, he plays until he finds a trick or a loophole
that w i l l give h i m the winning edge. I f he's working around the house, he often
ends up meddling with things until he fixes and improves them. O f course, he
also often breaks them. His w i f e loves to coinplain about the bangs and crashes
that come from his home office, where he often works until 6:30 i n the morning.

To his wife, this crashing, banging, and late-night hacking is the source of the
halfhearted grousing inherent i n every marriage. She obviously loves both his
also often breaks them. His wife loves to complain about the bangs and crashes
that come from his home office, where he often works until 6:30 in the morning.

To his wife, this crashing, banging, and late-night hacking is the source of the
halfhearted grousing inherent i n every marriage. She obviously loves both his
idiosyncrasies and the opportunity to discuss just how strange they can be. I n
January, Telsa was trying to find a way to automate her coffeepot by hooking it
up to her computer.

She wrote in her diary,

Alan is reluctant to get involved with any attempt to make a coffee-maker switch
on via the computer now because he seems to think I w i l l eventually switch it on
with no water i n and start a fire. I’m not the one who welded tinned spaghetti to
the non-stick saucepan. Or set the wok on fire. More than once. Once with
fifteen guests in the house. But there we are.

To the rest of the world, this urge to putter and fiddle with machines is more than
a source of marital comedy. Cox is one of the great threats to the continued
dominance of Microsoft, despite the fact that he found a way to weld spaghetti to
a nonstick pan. He is one of the core developers who help maintain the Linux
kernel. I n other words, he's one of the group of programmers who helps guide
the development of the Linux operating system, the one Richard Schmalensee
feels is such a threat to Microsoft. Cox is one of (he few people whom Linus
Torvalds, the creator of Linux, trusts to make Important decisions about future
decide when and i f it was going to give up control o f the computer to let other
programs run. This low- rem version of juggling was called cooperative
multitasking, but i t failed when some program i n the hotel failed to cooperate.
Most software developers obeyed the rules, but mistakes would stih occur. Bad
programs would lock up the machine. Preemptive multitasking takes this power
away from the individual programs. I t swaps control from program to program
without asking permission. One pig of a program can't slow down the entire
machine. When the new MacOS X kernel starts offering preemptive
multitasking, the users should notice less sluggish behavior and more consistent
performance.

Torvalds plunged in and created a monolithic kernel. This made it easier to

tweak all the strange interactions between the programs. Sure, a microkernel
built around a clean, message-passing architecture was an elegant way to
construct the guts o f an OS, but i t had its problems. There was no easy way to
deal with special exceptions. Let's say you want a web server to run very quickly
on your machine. That means you need to treat messages coming into the
computer from the Internet with exceptional speed. You need to ship them w i t h
the equivalent o f special delivery o r FedEx. You need to create a special
pxTpntinn for thpm T a r k i n p fhp«;p pxrpnfintK n n t n a r l p a n mirrnkprnpl starts tn
deal with special exceptions. Let's say you want a web serve]1 to run very quickly
on your machine. That means you need to treat messages coming into the
computer from the internet with exceptional speed. You need to ship them with
the equivalent of special delivery or FedEx. You need to create a special
exception for them. Tacking these exceptions onto a clean microkernel starts to
make it look bad. The design starts to get cluttered and less elegant. After a few
special exceptions are added, the microkernel can start to get confused.

Torvalds's monolithic kernel did not have the elegance or the simplicity of a
microkernel OS like M i n i x or Mach, but it was easier to hack. New tweaks to
speed up certain features were relatively easy to add. There was no need to come
up with an entirely new architecture for the message-passing system. The
downside was that the guts could grow remarkably byzantine, like the
bureaucracy of a big company.

I n the past, this complexity hurt the success of proprietary operating systems.
The complexity1 produced bugs because no one could understand it. Torvalds's
system, however, came with all the Source code, making it much easier for
application programmers to find out what was causing their glitch. To cany the
corporate bureaucracy metaphor a bit further, the source code acted like the
omniscient secretary who is able to explain everything to a harried executive.
This perfect knowledge reduced rhe cost of complexity,

By the beginning of 1992, Linux was no longer a Finnish student's part-time

have many cooks minding the stew. The technology for speeding up computers
with multiple CPUs lets each computer harness the extra power, so many list
members test it frequently. They want the fastest machines they can get, and
smoothing the flow of data between the CPUs is the best way to let the machines
cooperate.

Other features are not so popular, and they’re tackled by the people who need the
features. Some people want to hook their Linux boxes up to Macintoshes, Doing
that smoothly can require some work i n the kernel. Others may want to add
special code to enable a special device like a high-speed camera or a strange type
of disk drive. These groups often work on their o w n but coordinate their
solutions with the main crowd. Ideally, they'll be able to come up with some
patches that solve their problem without breaking some other part of the system.

It’s a very social and political process that unrolls i n slow motion through e-mail
messages, One person makes a suggestion. Olliers may agree. Someone may
squabble w i t h the idea because it seems inelegant, sloppy, or, worst o f ait,
dangerous. After some lime, a rough consensus evolves. Easy problems can he
solved i n days o r even minutes, but complicated decisions can wait as the debate
rases for vears.
messages. One person makes a suggestion. Others may agree. Someone may
squabble with (lie idea because it seems inelegant, sloppy, or, worst of all,
dangerous. A her some time, a rough consensus evolves. Easy problems can be
solved in days or even minutes, but complicated decisions can wait as the debate
rages for years.

Each day, Cox and his virtual colleagues pore through the lists trying to figure
out how to make Linux better, faster, and more usable. Sometimes they skip out
to watch a movie. Sometimes they go for hikes. But one thing they don’t do is
spend months huddled i n conference rooms trying to come up with legal
arguments. Until recently, the Linux folks didn't have money for lawyers, and
that means they didn't get sidetracked by figuring out how to get big and
powerful people like Richard Schmalensee to tell a court that there's no
monopoly in the computer operating system business.

3.2 SUITS A G A I N S T HACKERS

Schmalensee and Cox couldn't be more different from each other. One is a career
technocrat who moves easily between the government and MIT. The other is
what used to be known as an absentminded professor— the kind who works when
he's really interested in a problem. It just so happens that Cox is pretty intrigued
with building a better operating system than the various editions of Windows
day," he says, and explains that FreeBSD is encouraging companies to donate
some of die spare lime of its employees. He suggests that companies assign a
worker to the FreeBSD project for a month or two i f there is time to spare.

"Employees also give us a window into what that company's needs are. A l l of
those co-opted employees bring back the needs of their jobsite. Those are really
valuable working relationships," he continues.

Hubbard has also found that money is often not the best motivator. Hardware, it
turns out, often works well at extracting work out o f programmers. H e likes to
ship a programmer one o f the newest peripherals l i k e a D V D drive or a joystick
and ask h i m to write a driver for the technology i n exchange. " I t s so much more
cost-effective to buy someone a S500 piece of hardware, which i n turn motivates
h i m to donate thousands of dollars worth of work, something we probably
couldn't pay for anyway," he says.

Money is still important, however, to take care o f all the jobs that can't be
accomplished by piquing someone's curiosity. "The area we need ihe most
contributions for are infrastructure. Secretarial things are no fun to do and you
don't want to make volunteers do it,” he says.
Money is still important., however, to take care of all the jobs that can't be
accomplished by piquing someone's curiosity. "The area we need the most
contributions for are infrastructure, Secretarial things are no fun to do and you
don't want to make volunteers do it," he says.

A l i of these charitable organizations are bound to grow i n the next several years
as the free software movement becomes more sophisticated. I n some cases i t w i l l
be because the hackers who loved playing with computers will discover that the
tax system is just another pile of code filled with bugs looking to be hacked. In
most cases, though, I think it w i l l be because large companies with their
sophisticated tax attorneys w i l l become interested. I would not be surprised i f a
future version of this book includes a very cynical treatment of the tax habits of
some open source organizations. Once an idea reaches a critical mass, it is
impossible to shield it from the forces of minor and major corruption.

14.2 GIFTS AS A CULTURAL IMPERATIVE

Marcel Mauss was an anthropologist who studied the tribes of the northwestern
corner of North America. His hook Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in
Archaic Societies explained how the tribes like the Chinook, the Tl ingel, and the
Kwakiutl would spend the months of the fall giving and going to huge feasts.
Each year, the members i n the tribe would take the bounty of the harvest and
disposal and it hasn't been shy about spreading it around places like MIT,
Harvard, and Stanford. The computer science departments on those campuses
are the recipients o f brand-new buildings compliments o f B i l l Gates. These gifts
are hard to ignore.

Microsoft w i l l probably avoid a direct confrontation with the academic tradition

o f the institutions and choose to cut their prices as low as necessary to dominate
the desktops. Universities w i l l probably be given ' free/1 tax- deductible
donations o f software whenever they stray far from the Microsoft-endorsed
solution, L a b managers and people who make decisions about the computing
infrastructure of the university w i l l probably get neat '’consulting11 contracts from
Microsoft or its buddies. This will probably not mean total domination, but i t
w i l l buy a surprisingly large amount of obedience.

Despite these gifts, free software w i l l continue to grow o n the campuses.

Students often have little cash and Microsoft doesn't get any great tax deduction
by giving gifts t o individual students (that's income). The smartest kids i n the
dorms w i l l continue to run Linux. Many labs do cutting-edge work that requires
customized software. These groups will naturally be attracted to free source code
because it makes their life easier. I t w i l l be difficult for Microsoft to counteract
Students often have little cash and Microsoft doesn't get any great tax deduction
by giving gifts to individual students (that's income). The smartest kids in the
dorms w i l l continue to run Linux. Many labs do cutting-edge work that requires
Customised software. These groups w i l l naturally be attracted to free source code
because i t makes their life easier. I t w i l l be difficult for Microsoft to counteract
the very real attraction of free software.

Of course, Microsoft is not without its own arms, Microsoft still has patent law
on its side, and (his may prove to be a very serious weapon. The law allows the
patent holder the exclusive right to determine who uses an idea or invention over
the course of the patent, which is now 20 years from the first filing date. That
means the patent holder can sue anyone who makes a product that uses the
invention. It also means that the patent holder can sue someone who simply
cobbles up the invention i n his basement and uses the idea without paying
anything to anyone. This means that even someone who distributes the software
for free or uses the software can be liable for damages.

I n the past, many distrusted the idea of software patents because the patent
system wasn't supposed to allow you to lay claim to the laws of nature. This
interpretation fell by the way side as patent lawyers argued successfully that
software combined with a computer was a separate machine and machines wrere
eligible for protection.

Today, it is quite easy to get patent protection for new ideas on how to structure a
23.1 WEALTH A N D POVERTY

George Gilder laid out the gap between wealth and money i n his influential book
Wealth and Poverty. The book emerged i n 1981 just before Ronald Reagan took
office, and i t became one of the philosophical touchstones for the early years o f
the administration. A t the time, Gilder’s words were aimed at a world where
socialist economies had largely failed but capitalists had never declared victory.
The Soviet Union was sliding deeper into poverty. Sweden was heading for
some of the highest interest rates imaginable. Yet the newspapers and colleges of
the United States refused to acknowledge the failure. Gilder wanted to dispel the
notion that capitalism and socialism were locked into some eternal yin/yang
battle. In his mind, efficient markets and decentralized capital allocation were a
smashing success compared to the plodding bureaucracy that was strangling the
Soviet Union,

Although Gilder spoke generally about the nature of wealth, his insights are
particularly good at explaining just why things went so right for the open
software world. ’’Capitalism begins w i t h giving/’ he says, and explains that
Soviet Union.

Although Gilder spoke generally about the nature of wealth, his insights are
particularly good at explaining just why things went so right for the open
software world. "Capitalism begins with giving, 1' he says, and explains that
societies flourish when people are free to put their money where they hope it w i l l
do the best. The investments arc scattered like seeds and only some find a good
place to grow. Those capitalists who are a mixture of smart and lucky gain the
most and then plow their gains back into the society, repeating the process. No
one knows what w i l l succeed, so encouraging the bold risk-takers makes sense.

Gilder's chapter on gift-giving is especially good at explaining the success of the

free software world. Capitalism, he explains, is not about greed. It’s about giving
to people with the implicit knowledge that they'll return the favor severalfold. He
draws heavily on anthropology and the writings of academics like Claude L v i -
Strauss to explain how the best societies create capital through gifts that come
with the implicit debt that people give something back. The competition between
people to give better and better gifts drives society to develop new things that
improve everyone’s life.

Gilder and others have seen the roots of capital formation and wealth creation i n
this gift-giving. "The unending offerings of entrepreneurs, investing capital,
creating products, building businesses, inventing jobs,
The decision to contribute the code stopped Engelschall from doing the work
himself in a way that might have caused more grief for C2NeL "He was actually
planning o n implementing them himself, so we were better off contributing ours
to avoid compatibility issues/' says Parekh. That is to say, Parekh was worried
that Engelschall was going to go off and implement ah the features C2bJet used,
and there was a very real danger that Engelschah would implement them i n a
way that was unusable to Parekh. Then there would be a more serious fork that
would further split the two groups. C2Net wouldn't b e able to borrow code from
the free version o f OpenSSL very easily. So it decided to contribute its own
code. It was easier to give their code and guarantee that OpenSSL fit neatly into
Stronghold. I n essence, C2Net chose t o give a little so it could continue to get all
o f the future improvements.

I t s not much different from the car industry. There's nothing inherently better or
worse about cars that have their steering wheel on the right-hand side. They're
much easier to use in England, But i f some free car engineering development
team emerged i n England, i t might make sense for a U.S. company to donate
work early to ensure that the final product could have the steering wheel on
either side o f the car widiout extensive redesign. If Ford just sat by and hoped to
prph rhp final frpp nrndnrr it michf find rhat thp Rrirkh pnpinppn; hannilv
much easier to use in England. Bui if some free car engineering development
team emerged i n England, it might make sense for a U.S. company to donate
work early to ensure that the final product could have the steering wheel on
either side of the car without extensive redesign. I f Ford just sal by and hoped to
grab lhe final free product, il might find that the British engineers happily
designed for the only roads they knew.

Engelschall is happy about this change. He wrote i n an e-mail message, "They

do the only reasonable approach: They base their server on modjSSL because
they know they cannot survive against the Open Source sol m ion with their old
proprietary code. And by contributing stuff to mod_SSL they implicitly make
their own product better. This way both sides benefit."

Parekh and C2Nei now have a challenge. They musi continue to make lhe
Stronghold package better than the free version to justify the cost people are
paying.

Not all forks end wiih such a happy-faced story of mutual cooperalion. Nor do
all stories in the free software world end with the moneymaking corporation
turning around and giving back their proprietary code to rhe general effort. Bur
the C2Net.; OpenSSL case illustrates how the nature of software development
encourages companies and people to give and cooperate to satisfy their own
selfish needs. Software can do a variety of wonderful things, but the structure
often governs how easy it is for some of us to use. I t makes sense to spend some
more political firebrands of the free software movement like Richard Stallman
by pointing out dial they’re not really i n it to bring about die second coming o f
the Communist Revolution. Few suggest that their work is sort of a gift of their
time that might make the world a better place. Few compare their work to the
folks cleaning up homeless shelters or hospitals. Most don’t disagree when i t is
pointed out to them, but most free software hackers don't roll out die charitable
rhetoric to explain what they're up to.

This may just be a class difference, Baron is a sophomore, as this is written, at

Harvard and Harvard is, by definition, a finishing school for the upper crust.
Even the vast sea of kids from middle-class families and public schools end up
talking and acting as i f they came out o f Choate or Exeter by the end of their
time at Harvard. They pick up the Kennedyesque noblesse oblige that somehow
commands the rich and fortunate to be out helping the poor w i t h very public acts
o f assistance. I t just sort o f seeps into all o f those Harvard kids.

Most of the free software members, on the other hand, are kind o f outcasts. The
hackers come from all parts o f the globe and from all corners of the social
hierarchy, but few o f them are from the beautiful people who glide through life
o n solden rads. The nroarammers usual] v have their heads i n stranee, obtuse
Most of the free software members, on the other hand, are kind of outcasts. The
hackers come from all parts of the globe and from all corners of the social
hierarchy, but few of them are from the beautiful people who glide through life
on golden rails. The programmers usually have their heads in strange, obtuse
mathematical clouds instead of the overstaffed clouds of Olympus. They're
concerned with building neat software and spinning up wonderful abstract
structures that interlock i n endlessly repeating, elegant patterns. I f they were
interested i n power or social pmstige, they wouldn't be spending their nights in
front of a terminal waiting for some code to compile.

But i f the free software movement doesn't use the charitable card very often, i t
doesn't mean that the work is too different from that of the homeless shelters. I n
fact, so little money changes hands that there are not many reasons for people to
take their donations off on their taxes. Donations of time don't count. Maybe a
few companies could write i t off their books, but that's about it.

I n fact, Baron is right that work like his can make a difference for people.
Software is a growing p a n of the cost of a computer today. In low-end PCs, the
Microsoft OS may cost more than the processor or the memory. A free OS with a
free web browser that works correctly can help the thousands of schools,
homeless shelters, hospitals, and recreation centers get on the web at a cheaper
cost.
system, and, in an obscure subdirectory o f the Pascal source, the editor vi. Over
the next year, Joy, acting i n the capacity of the distribution secretary, sent out
about 30 free copies of the system."

Today, Joy tells the story with a bit o f bemused distraction. H e explains that he
just copied over a license from the University of Toronto and'whited
out"" U n i versify ofToronto" and replaced it w i t h ''University of California." He
simply wanted to get the source code out the door. I n the beginning, the Berkeley
Software Distribution included a few utilities, but by 1979 the code became
tightly integrated w i t h AT&T's basic UNIX code, Berkeley gave away the
collection of softw are i n BSD, but only AT&T license holders could use it. Many
universities were attracted to the package, i n part because the Pascal system was
easy for its students to use. The persona] computer world, however, was focusing
o n a simpler language known as Basic. B i l l Gates would make Microsoft Basic
one of his first products.

Joy says that he wrote a letter to AT&T inquiring about the legal status of the
source code from AT&T that was rolled together with the B S D code. After a
year, he says, "They wrote back saying, We take no position' on the matter."
K i r k McKusick. who later ran the B S D project diroush the years of the AT&T
Joy says that he wrote a letter to AT&T inquiring about the legal status of the
source code from AT&T that was rolled together with the BSD code. After a
year, he says, 'They wrote back saying, We take no position' on the matter/'
K i r k McKusick, who later ran the BSD project through the years of the AT&T
lawsuit, explained dryly, "Later they wrote a different letter."

Joy was just one of a large number of people who worked heavily on the BSD
project from 1977 through the early 1980s. The work was low- level and grungy
by today’s standards. The students and professors scrambled just to move UNIX
to the new machines they bought. Often, large parts of the guts of the operating
system needed to be modified or upgraded to deal with a new type of disk drive
or file system. As they did this more and more often, they began to develop more
and more higher-level abstractions to ease the task. One of the earliest examples
was Joy's screen editor known as v i , a simple package that could be used to edit
text files and reprogram the system. The "battle" between Joy's v i and Stallman's
Emacs is another example of the schism between MIT and Berkeley. ‘Illis was
just one of the new tools included in version 2 of BSD, a collection that was
shipped to 75 different people and institutions.

By the end of the 1970s, Bell Labs and Berkeley began to split as AT&T started
to commercialize U N I X and Berkeley stuck to its job of education. Berkeley
professor Bob Fabry was able to interest the Pentagon's Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) into signing tip to support more
folks who want to stay on the cutting edge need to be in the commercial world.
Il's easy io come up with a list of commercial products and tools that haven't
been cloned by an open source dude at the time o f this writing: streaming video,
vector animation, the full Java API, speech recognition, three dimensional C A D
programs, speech synthesis, and so forth. The list goes on and on. The hottest
innovations w i l l always come from well capitalized start-ups driven by the carrot
o f wealth,

Others point out that the free software world has generated more than its share o f
innovation. Most of the Internet was built upon non-proprietary standards
developed by companies w i t h Department o f Defense contracts. Stal Iman's
Emacs continues to be one o f the great programs i n the world. Many of the
projects like Apache are the first place where new ideas are demonstrated.
People who want to mock up a project find it easier to extend free source
software. These ideas are often reborn as commercial products. While free
source users may not have access to the latest commercial innovations, they have
plenty of their own emerging from the open software world. G N O M E isn't just a
Windows clone-- it comes with thousands o f neat extensions and improvements
that can't be found i n Redmond.
source users may not have access to the latest commercial innovations, they have
plenty of their own emerging from the open software world. GNOME isn't just a
Windows clone- -it comes with thousands of neat extensions and improvements
that can't be found i n Redmond.

Stallman himself says the GNU project improved many pieces of software when
they rewrote them. He says, "We built on their work, to the extent that we could
legally do so (since we could not use any of their code), but that is the way
progress is made. Almost every G N U program that replaces a piece of Unix
includes improvements."

Another way to approach the question is to look at people's behavior. Some

argue that companies like Red Hat or organizations like Debian prove that
people need and want some of the commercial world's handholding. They can't
afford to simply download the code and fiddle with it. Most people aren't high
school students doing time for being young. They've got jobs, families, and
hobbies. They pay because paying brings continuity, form, structure, and order
to the free source world, Ultimately, these Red H a l users aren’t Stallman
disciples, they’re commercial sheep who are just as dependent on Red Hat as the
Windows customers arc on Microsoft.

The counter-argument is that this insight overlooks a crucial philosophical

difference. The Red Hat customers may be slaves like the Microsoft customers,
but they still have important freedoms. Sure, many Americans are wage slaves to
holding and filtering for the average user who doesn’t want to spend time poking
around the Net, checking out die different versions o f the software, and ensuring
dial they work well together. Red Hat programmers have spent some time
examining the software on the C D - R O M . They've tested it and occasionally
improved it by adding new code to make it run better.

Red Hat also added a custom installation utility to make life easier for people
who want to add Red Hat to their computer. [ M 2 J They could have made this
package installation toot proprietary. After all, Red Hat programmers wrote the
tool on company time. B u t Young released i t w i t h the GNU General Public
License, recognizing that the political value of giving something back was worth
much more than the price they could charge for the took

[ 12]: Er, I mean to say "add L i n u x " or "add GNU/Linux." "Red Hat" is now one
o f the synonyms for free software.

This is part o f a deliberate political strategy to build goodwill among the

programmers who distribute their software. Many Linux users compare the
different companies putting together free source software CDROMs and test
their commitment to the free software ideals. Debian, for instance, is very
This is part of a deliberate political strategy to build goodwill among the
programmers who distribute their software. Many Linux users compare the
different companies putting together free source software CDROMs and lest
their commitment to the free software ideals, Debian, for instance, is very
popular because it is a largely volunteer project that is careful to only include
certified free source software on their CD-ROMs. Debian, however, isn't run like
a business and it doesn't have the same attitude. This volunteer effort and
enlightened pursuit of the essence of free software make the Debian distribution
popular among the purists.

Distributors like Caldera, on the other hand, include nonfree software with their
disk. You pay £29.95 i o S i 49.95 f o r a C D - R O M and get some nonfree software
like a word processor tossed in as a bonus. This is a great deal i f you're only
going to install the software once, but the copyright on the non free software
prevents you from distributing the C D - R O M to friends, Caldera is hoping that
the extras it throws in w i l l steer people toward its disk and get them to choose
Caldera's version of Linux. Many of the purists, like Richard Stallman, hate this
practice and think it is just a not very subtle way to privatize rhe free software. I f
the average user isn't free to redistribute all the code, then there's something evil
afoot. Of course, Stallman or any of the other software authors can't do anything
about this because they made their software freely distributable.

Young is trying to walk the line between these two approaches. Red Hat is very
pans dragged on. By late spring of 199 1, they had finished all but six files that
were just too much work.

Il would be nice to report that they bravely struggled onward, forgoing all
distractions like movies, coffeehouses, and friends, but that's not true. They
punted and tossed everything out the door and called it "Network Release 2/ rThe
name implied that this new version was just a new revision of their earlier
product, Network Release 1, and this made life easier with the lawyers. They just
grabbed the old, simple license and reused it. It also disguised the fact that this
new pile of code was only about six files short of a full-grown OS.

The good news about open source is that projects often succeed even when they
initially fail. A commercial product couldn't ship without die complete
functionality of the six files. Few would buy it Plus, no one could come along,
get a bug under his bonnet, and patch up the holes. Proprietary source code isn't
available and no one wants to help someone else in business without
compensation.

The new, almost complete UNIX, however, was something different. It was a
university project and so university rules of camaraderie and sharing seemed to
available and no one wants to help someone else in business without
compensation.

The new, almost complete U N I X , however, was something different, Ji was a

university project and so university rules of camaraderie and sharing seemed to
apply. Another programmer, B i l l Jolitz, picked up Network Release 2 and soon
added the code necessary to f i l l the gap. H e became fascinated with getting
U N I X up and running on a 386 processor, a task that was sort of like trying to fit
the latest traction control hardware and anti-lock brakes on a go-cart. At the
time, serious computer scientists worked on serious machines from serious
workstation and minicomputer companies. The PC industry was building toys.
Of course, there was something macho to the entire project. Back then 1
remember joking to a friend that we should try to get U N I X running on the new
air-conditioning system, just to prove it could be done.

Jolilz's project, of course, found many people on the Nel who didn't think it was
just a toy. Once he pul the source code on the Net, a bloom of enthusiasm spread
through the universities and waystations of the world. People wanted to
experiment with a high-grade OS and most could only afford relatively cheap
hardware like the 366. Sure, places like Berkeley could get the government grant
money and the big corporate donations, but 2,000-plus other schools were stuck
wailing. Jolilz's version of 386BSD struck a chord.

While news traveled quickly to some corners, it didn't reach Finland. Network
In many ways, the real opposite to Richard Stallman is not Bill Joy or John
Ousterhout, it's Linus Benedict Torvalds. While Stallman, Joy, and Ousterhout
are products of the U.S. academic system, Torvalds is very much an outsider
who found himself trying to program i n Europe without access to a decent OS.
W h i l e the folks at Berkeley, MIT, and many U.S. universities were able to get
access to UNIX thanks to carefully constructed licenses produced by the OS’s
then-owner, AT&T, students in Finland l i k e Torvalds were frozen out.

" I didn't have many alternatives. I had the commercial alternative [ U N I X ] , which
was way too expensive. It was really out of reach for a normal human being, and
not only out o f reach i n a monetary sense, but because years ago commercial
U N I X vendors weren't interested i n selling to individuals. They were interested
i n selling to large corporations and banks. So for a normal person, there was no
1
choice/ he told VAR Business.

When L i n u x began to take off, Torvalds moved to Silicon Valley and took a job
with the super secret research f i r m Transmeta. A t Comdex i n November 1999,
Torvalds announced that Transmeta was working on a low-power computing
chip w i t h the nickname "Crusoe."
When Linux began to take off „ Torvalds moved to Silicon Valley and took a job
with the superstore! research firm Transmeta. At Comdex i n November 1999,
Torvalds announced that Transmeta was working on a low-power computing
chip with the nickname '’Crusoe.' 1

There are, of course, some conspiracy theories. Transmeta is funded by a number

of b i g investors including Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen. The fact that they
chose to employ Torvalds may be part of a plan, some think, to distract him from
Linux development. After all, version 2 2 of the kernel took longer than many
expected, although it may have been because its goals were too ambitious. When
Microsoft needed a coherent threat to offer up to the Department of Justice,
Transmeta courteously made Torvalds available to the world. Few seriously
believe this theory, but it is constantly whispered as a nervous joke.

12.2 FLAMES

The fights and flamefests of the Internet are legendary, and the open source
world is one of the most contentious corners of the Net. People frequently use
strong words like "brain dead,’1 "loser," "lame," "gross," and "stoooopid" to
describe one another’s ideas. I f words are the only way to communicate, then the
battle for mindshare means that those who wield the best words win.

In fact, most of the best hackers and members of the free source world are also
staff today, most o f whom are primary authors or maintainers of the software w e
support, they cannot displace us from our position as die true GNU' source. The
best they can hope to do is add incremental features that their customers might
pay them to add. But because the software is open source, whatever value they
add comes back to Cygnus** .

Seeing these effects is something that only a truely devoted fan o f free software
can do. Most people rarely get beyond identifying the problems w i t h giving up
the source code to a project. They don’t realize that the GPL affects all users and
also hobbles the potential competitors. I t s like a mutual disarmament or mutual
armament treaty that fixes the rules for a l l comers and disarmament treaties are
often favored by the most powerful.

The money Cygnus makes by selling this support has been quite outstanding.
The company continues to grow every year, and it has been listed as one of the
largest and fastest-growing private software companies. The operation was also a
bootstrap business where the company used the funds from existing contracts to
fund the research and development of new tools. They didn't take funding from
outside venture capital firms until 1995. This let the founders and the workers
keen a large nortion of the company, one o f the dreams of everv Silicon Valiev
largest and fastest-growing private software companies. The operation was also a
bootstrap business where the company used the funds from existing contracts to
fund the research and development of new tools. They didn't take funding from
outside venture capital firms until 1995. This let the founders and (he workers
keep a large portion o f the company, one of the dreams of every Silicon Valley
start-up. I n 1999, Red Hot merged with Cygnus to "create an open source
powerhouse."

The success of Cygnus doesn't mean that others have found ways of duplicating
the model. While Cygnus has found some success and venture capital, Gilmore
says, "The free software business gives many M B A s die willies."Many
programmers have found that free software is just a free gift for others. They
haven't found an easy way to charge for their work.

17.3 SNITCHWARE

Larry McVoy is one programmer who looks al the free source world and cringes.
He's an old hand from the U N I X world who is now trying to build a new system
for storing the source code. To him, giving away source code is a one-way train
to no money. Sure, companies like Cygnus and Red Hat can make money by
adding some extra service, but the competition means that the price of this value
w i l l steadily go to zero. There are no regulatory or large capital costs to restrain
throw a feast for their friends. The folks who attended might have a good time,
but they were then obligated to give a feast of equal or greater value next year.

Many anthropologists of the free software world like to draw parallels between
these feasts, known as potlatches in one tribe, and the free-for-all world of free
source software. The hackers are giving away source code in much the same way
that the tribe members gave away salmon or deer meat.

The comparison does offer some insight into life in the free software community.
Some conventions like LinuxExpo and the hundreds of install-fests are sort of
like parties. One company al a LinuxExpo was serving beer i n its booth to attract
attention. Of course, Netscape celebrated its decision to launch the Mozilla
project with a big party. They then threw another one at the project's first
birthday.

But the giving goes beyond the parties and the conferences. Giving great
software packages creates social standing in much the same way that giving a
lavish feast will establish you as a major member of the tribe. There is a sort of
pecking order, and the coders of great systems like Perl or Linux are near the
top. The folks at the top of the pyramid often have better luck calling on other
But the giving goes beyond the parties and the conferences. Giving great
software packages creates social standing in much the same way that giving a
lavish feast w i l l establish you as a major member of the tribe. There is a sort of
pecking order, and the coders of great systems like Perl or Linux arc near the
top. The folks at the top o f the pyramid often have better luck calling on other
programmers for help, making it possible for them to get their jobs done a little
better. Many managers justify letting their employees contribute to the free
software community because they build up a social network that they can tap to
finish their official jobs.

But there's a difference between tribal potlatch and free software. The potlatch
feasts built very strong individual bonds between people in the same tribe who
knew each other and worked together. The gifts flowed between people who
were part of each other's small community.

The free source world, on the other hand; is a b i g free-for-all i n both senses of
the phrase. The code circulates for everyone to grab, and only those who need it
dig in. There's nn great connection between programmer and user. People grab
software and take it without really knowing to whom they owe any debt. 1 only
know a few of the big names who wrote die code running the Linux box on my
desk, and I know that there are thousands of people who also contributed. I t
would be impossible for me to pay back any of these people because it's hard to
keep them straight.
computer network, an operating system, or a software tool, The only requirement
is that they're new and nonobvious. Microsoft has plenty of these.

I f things go perfectly for Microsoft, the company w i l l be able to pull out one or
two patents from its huge portfolio and use these to sue Red Hat, Walnut Creek,
and a few o f the other major distributors. Ideally, this patent would cover some
crucial part o f the Linux o r B S D operating system. After the first few legal bills
started arriving on the desk of the Red Hat or Walnut Creek CEO, the companies
would have to settle by quitting the business. Eventually, all of the distributors of
Linux would crumble and return to the small camps in the hills to lick their
wounds. At least, that's probably the dream of some of Microsoft's greatest legal
soldiers.

This maneuver is far from a lock for Microsoft because the free software world
has a number o f good defenses. T h e first is that the Linux and B S D world do a
good job of publicizing their advances. A n y patent holder must file die patent
before someone else publishes their ideas. The Linux discussion groups and
source distributions are a pretty good public forum. The ideas and patches often
circulate publicly long before they make their way into a stable version of the
kernel. That means that the patent holders w i l l need to be much farther ahead
good job of publicizing their advances. A n y patent bolder must file the patent
before someone else publishes their ideas. The Linux discussion groups and
source distributions are a pretty good public forum. The ideas and patches often
circulate publicly long before they make their way into a stable version of the
kernel. That means that the patent holders w i l l need to be much farther ahead
than the free software world.

Linux and the free software world are often the cradle of new ideas. University
students use open source software all the time. It's much easier to do way coo]
things i f you’ve got access to the source. Sure, Microsoft has some smart
researchers with great funding, but can they compete with all the students?

Microsoft's ability to dominate the patent world may be hurt by the nature of the
game. Filing the application first or publishing an idea first is all that matters i n
the patent world. Producing a real product is hard work that is helped by the cash
supply of Microsoft. Coming up with ideas and circulating them is much easier
than building real tools that people can use.

rhe second defense is adaptability. The free software distributions can simply
strip out the offending code. The Linux and BSD disks are very modular because
they come from a variety o f different sources. The different layers and tools
come from different authors, so they are not highly integrated. This makes it
possible to remove one pan without ruining the entire system.
When Raymond wrote the essay, he was just trying to suss out the differences
between several of the camps i n the free source world. He noticed that people
running free source projects had different ways of sharing. He wanted to explain
which free source development method worked better than others. It was only
later that the essay began to take on a more serious target when everyone began
to realize that Microsoft was perhaps the biggest cathedral-like development
team around.

Raymond said, "I think that like everyone else i n the culture I wandered back
and forth between the two modes as it seemed appropriate because I didn't have
a dteory or any consciousness."

He saw Richard Stallman and the early years of the GNU projects as an example
of cathedral-style development. These teams would often labor for months if not
years before sharing their tools with the world. Raymond himself said he
behaved the same way with some of the early tools that he wrote and contributed
to the GNU project.
of cathedral-style development. These teams would often labor [or months i f not
years before sharing (heir tools with the world. Raymond himself said he
behaved the same way with some of the early tools that he wrote and contributed
to the G N U project.

Linus Torvalds changed his mind by increasing the speed of sharing, which
Raymond characterized as the rule of ’ release early and often, delegate
everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity. " Torvalds ran Linux as
openly as possible, and this eventually attracted some good contributors, in the
past, the FSF was much more careful about what it embraced and brought into
the G N U project. Torvalds took many things into his distributions and they
mutated as often as daily. Occasionally, new versions came out twice a day.

Of course, Stallman and Raymond have had tussles in the past. Raymond is
careful to praise the man and say he values his friendship, but also tempers it by
saying that Stallman is difficult to work with.

In Raymond’s case, he says that he once wanted to rewrite much of the Lisp code
that was built into G N U Emacs. Stallman’s Emacs allowed any user to hook up
their own software into Emacs by writing it in a special version of Lisp. Some
had written mail readers. Others had added automatic comment-generating code.
A l l of this was written in Lisp.

Raymond says that in 1992, "The Lisp libraries were i n bad shape i n a number of
ways. They were poorly documented. There was a lot of work that had gone on
entry, so he feels that the free software world w i l l eventually push out all but the
independently wealthy and the precollege teens who can l i v e at home. "We need
to find a sustainable method. People need to write code and raise families, pay
mortgages, and a l l o f that stuff/' he says.

McVoy's solution is a strange license that some call "snitchware." He 1s

developing a product known as BitKeeper and he’s giving it away, with several
very different hooks attached. He approached this philosophically. H e says, " I n
order to make money, I need to find something that the free software guys don't
value that the businesspeople do value. Then I take it away from the free
1
software guys. The thing I found is your privacy.'

BitKeeper is an interesting type of product that became essentia] as software

projects grew larger and more unwieldy. In the beginning, programmers wrote a
program that was just one coherent file w i t h a beginning, a middle, some
digressions, and then an end. These were very self-contained and easily managed
by one person.

When more than one programmer started working o n a project together,

however, everyone needed to work on coordinating their work with each other.
digressions, and then an end. These were very self-contained and easily managed
by one person.

When more than one programmer started working on a project together

ho wever, everyone needed to work on coordinating their work with each other.
One person couldn't start tearing apart rhe menus because another might be
trying to hook up the menus to a new file system. I f both started working on the
same part, the changes would be difficult i f not impossible to sort out when both
were done, Once a team of programmers digs out from a major mess like that,
they look for some software like BitKeeper to keep the source code organized.

BitKeeper is sophisticated and well- integrated with the Internet. Teams of

programmers can he spread out throughout the world. A t particular times,
programmers can call each other up and synchronize their projects. Both tightly
controlled, large corporate teams and loose and uncoordinated open source
development teams can use the tool.

The synchronization creates change logs that summarize the differences between
two versions of the project. These change logs are optimized to move the least
amount of information. I f two programmers don't do too touch work, then
synchronizing them doesn’t take too long. The change logs build up a complete
history of the project and make it possible to r o l l back the project to earlier
points if i t turns out that development took the wrong path.
system. People who wanted to create big OSs with many features wrote
monolithic kernels. Their ideological enemies who wanted to break the OS into
hundreds o f small programs running on a small core wrote microkernels. Some
o f the most extreme folks labeled their work a nanokerne] because they thought
it did even less and thus was even more pure than those bloated microkernels.

The word "kernel" is a b i t confusing for most people because they often use it to
mean a fragment of an object o r a small fraction. A n extreme argument may
have a kernel o f truth to it. A disaster movie always gives the characters and the
audience a kernel o f hope to which to cling.

Mathematicians use the word a b i t differently and emphasize the word's ability
to let a small part define a larger concept. Technically, a kernel of a function f is
the set of values, x [ l ], x[2],. .. x [ n ] such that f(x[i])=l, or whatever the identity
element happens to be. The action o f the kernel of a function does a good job of
defining how die function behaves with a l l the odier elements. The algebraists
A
study a kernel of a function because it reveals the overall behavior.[ 5]

[5]: The kernel of f(x)=x[2] is (-1, 1) and it illustrates how the function has two
branches.
defining how the function behaves with ah the other elements. The algebraists
study a kernel of a function because it reveals the overall behavior. [ 5 J

[5]: The kernel of f(x)=x[2] is (- 1> 1) and it illustrates how the function has two
branches.

The OS designers use the word i n the same way. I f they define the kernel
correctly, then the behavior of the rest of the OS will follow. The small part of
the code defines the behavior of the entire computer, I f the kernel does one thing
well, the entire computer w i l l do it w e l l I f it does one thing badly, then
everything will suffer.

Many computer users often notice this effect without realizing why it ated
operations where one company controls all exists. Most Macintosh computers,
for instance, can be sluggish at times because the OS does not do a good job
juggling the workload between processes. The kernel of the OS has not been
completely overhauled since the early days when the machines ran one program
at a rime. This sluggishness w i l l persist for a bit longer until Macintosh releases
a newr version known as MacOS X . This will be based on the Mach kernel, a
version developed at Carnegie-Mellon University and released as open source
software. Sieve Jobs adopted it when he went to NeXT, a company that was
eventually folded back into Apple. This kernel does a much better job of
juggling different tasks because it uses preemptive multitasking instead of
cooperative multitasking. The original version o f the MacOS let each program
comes up with buzzword Gamma, which eclipses them both. When no Gamma
arrives, people start talking about going their separate ways and forking die
source. I f the dust settles, two different versions start appearing on the Net
competing w i t h each other for the hearts and CPUs o f die folks out there.
Sometimes the differences between die versions are great and sometimes they’re
small. But there’s now a fork in the evolution of the source code, and people
have to start making choices.

The free software community has a strange attitude toward forks. On one hand,
forking is the whole reason Stallman wrote the free software manifesto. H e
wanted the right and the ability to mess around w i t h the software on his
computer. H e wanted to be free to change it, modify it, and tear it to shreds if he
felt like doing it one afternoon. N o one should be able to stop h i m from doing
that. He wanted to be totally free.

On tlie oilier hand, forking can hurt the community by duplicating efforts,
splitting alliances, and sowing confusion i n the minds o f users. I f Bob starts
writing and publishing his o w n version of Linux out o f his house, then he's
taking some energy away from the main version. People start wondering i f the
version thev're running is the Missouri Sv nod version of Emacs or the Christian
On the other hand, forking can hurt the community by duplicating efforts,
splitting alliances, and sowing confusion in the minds of users. I f Bob starts
writing and publishing his own version of Linux out of his house, then he's
taking some energy away from the main version. People start wondering i f the
version they're running is the Missouri Synod version of Emacs or the Christian
Baptist version. Where do they send bug fixes? Who's in charge? Distribution
groups like Debian or Red Hat have to spend a few moments trying to decide
whether they want to include one version or the other. I f they include both, they
have to choose one as the default. Sometimes they just throw up their hands and
forget about both. It’s a civil war, and those are always worse than a plain old
war.

Some forks evolve out of personalities that just rub each other the wrong way.
I've heard time and time again, "Oh, we had to kick him out of the group because
he was offending people." Many members of the community consider this kind
of forking bad. They use the same tone of voice to describes fork of the source
code as they use to describe the breakup of two lovers. It is sad, unfortunate,
unpleasant, and something we'll never really understand because we weren't
there. Sometimes people take sides because they have a strong opinion about
who is right. They'll usually go o f f and start contributing to that code fork. I n
other cases, people don't know which to pick and they just close their eyes and
join the one with the cutest logo.

18.1 FORKS A N D T H E THREAT OF DISUNITY

just some of the people who constantly trade ideas and solutions with each other
despite the fact that they work as competitors, A broad, central, unowned pool of
knowledge benefits everyone i n much the same way that it helps the free
software community.

The real question is not " W h o do these pseudo-commie pinkos think they are?"
I t s "What took the software industry so long to figure this out?" H o w did the
programmers who are supposedly a bunch of whip-smart, hard-core libertarians
let a bunch o f lawyers lead them down a path that put them i n a cubicle farm and
prevented them from talking to each other?

Recipes are one of the closest things to software i n the material world, and many
restaurants now share them widely. While chefs once treated them like industrial
secrets, they now frequently give copies to magazines and newspapers as a form
o f publicity. The free advertisement is worth more than the possibility that
someone w i l l start cloning the recipe. The restaurants recognized that they were
selling more than unique food. Ambiance, service, and quality control are often
more in demand than a particular recipe.

When the free software industry succeeds by sharing the source code now, it's
someone will start cloning the recipe. The restaurants recognized that they were
selling more than unique food. Ambiance, service, and quality control are often
more i n demand than a particular recipe.

When the free software industry succeeds by sharing die source code now. i t s
capitalizing on the fact that most people don't want to use the source code to set
up a take-no- prisoners rivalry. Most people just want to get their work done. The
cost of sharing source code is so low that it doesn't take much gain to make it
worth the trouble. One bug fix or tiny feature could pay for it.

21.1 SHAREWARE IS NOT OPEN SOURCE A N D OPEN SOURCE ISN'T

FREE

The software industry has been flirting with how to make money off of the low
cost of distributing its product. The concept of shareware began long before die
ideological free software movement as companies and individual developers
began sharing the software as a cheap form of advertisement. Developers
without the capital to start a major marketing campaign have passed around free
versions of their software. People could try it and i f it met their needs, they could
pay for it. Those who didn't like it were honor-bound to erase their version.

Shareware continues to be popular to this day. A few products have made a large
amount of money with this approach, but most have made very little. Some
When Perens took over at Debian he brought about two major changes. The first
was to create a nonprofit corporation called Software in the Public huerest and
arrange for the IRS to recognize i t as a bona fide charitable organization. People
and companies who donate money and equipment can take them off their taxes.

Perens says that the group's budget is about $10,000 a year. "We pay for
hardware sometimes. Although a lot of our hardware is donated. We fly people
to conferences so they can promote Debian. We have a trade show booth. I n
general we get the trade show space from the show for free or severely
discounted. We also have the conventional PQ boxes, accounting, phone calls.
The project doesn’t have a ton of money, but it doesn't spend a lot, either/'

The Debian group also wrote the first guidelines for acceptable open source
software during Perens's time i n charge. These eventually mutated to become the
definition endorsed by the Open Source Initiative. This isn’t too surprising, since
Perens was one o f die founders of the Open Source Initiative.

Debian's success has inspired many others. Red Hat, for instance, borrowed a
significant amount of work done by Debian when they put together their
distribution, and Debian borrows some of Red Hat s tools, w h e n Red Hat went
Perens was one of the founders of the Open Source Initiative.

Debian's success has inspired many others. Red Hat, for instance, borrowed a
significant amount of work done by Debian when they put together their
distribution, and Debian borrows some of Red Hat's tools. When Red Hat went
public, it arranged for Debian members to get a chance to buy some of the
company's stock reserved for friends and family members. They recognized that
Debian's team of package maintainers helped get (heir job done.

Debian's constitution and strong political structure have also inspired Sun, which
is trying to unite its Java and Jini customers into a community. The company is
framing its efforts to support customers as the creation ol a community that's
protected by a constitution. The old paradigm of customer support is being
replaced by a more active world of customer participation and representation.

Of course, Sun is keeping a close hand on all of these changes. They protect
their source code with a Community Source License that places crucial
restrictions on the ability of these community members to stray. There's no real
freedom to fork. Sun’s notwilling to embrace Debian's lead on that point, in part
because they say they're afraid that Microsoft w i l l use that freedom to scuttle
Java.

1 9.2 APACHE'S CORPORATE CORE

that form the basis of Microsoft's domination of the computer industry.

The battle between Linux and Microsoft is lining up to be the classic fight
between the people like Schmalensee and the people like Cox. On one side are
the armies o f lawyers, lobbyists, salesmen, and expensive executives who are
armed with patents, lawsuits, and legislation. They are skilled at moving the
levers of power until the gears line up just right and billions o f dollars pour into
their pockets. They know how to schmooze, toady, beg, or even threaten until
they wear the mantle of authority and command the piety and devotion of the
world. People buy Microsoft because it’s "the standard?’ N o one decreed this, but
somehow i t has come to be.

On the other side are a bunch of guys who just like playing with computers and
w i l l do anything to take them apart. They're not like the guy in the song by John
Mellencamp who sings " I fight authority and authority always wins.” Some
might have an attitude, but most just want to look at the insides of their
computers and rearrange them to hook up to coffee machines o r networks. They
want to fidget w i t h the guts o f their machines. I f they weld some spaghetti to the
insides, so be it.
might have an attitude, but most just want to look at the insides of their
computers and rearrange them to hook up to coffee machines or networks. They
want to fidget with the guts of their machines. I f they weld some spaghetti to the
insides, so be it.

Normally, these battles between the suits and the geeks don't threaten the
established order. There are university students around the world building solar-
powered cars, but they don’t actually pose a threat to the oil or auto industries.
"21,'' a restaurant in New York, makes a great hamburger, but they're not going
to put McDonald's out of business. The experimentalists and the perfectionists
don't usually knock heads with the corporations who depend upon world
domination for their profits. Except when it comes to software.

Software is different from cars or hamburgers. Once someone writes the source
code, copying the source costs next to nothing. That makes it much easier for
tirikerers like Cox to have a global effect. I f Cox, Stallman, Torvalds, and his
chums just happen to luck upon something that's better than Microsoft, then the
rest of the world can share their invention for next io nothing. That's what makes
Cox, Torvalds, and their buddies a credible threat no matter how often they sleep
late.

It’s easy to get high off of the idea alone. A few guys sleeping late and working
in bedrooms aren't supposed to catch up to a cash engine like Microsoft. They
aren't supposed to create a webserving engine that controls more than half of the
curiosity could be powerful. Some wondered what a guy i n Finland could do
with a 3B6 machine. Olliers wondered i f it was really as usable as die b i g
machines from commercial companies. Others wondered i f it was powerful
enough to solve some problems i n the lab. Still others just wanted to tinker. AH
o f these folks gave i t a try, and some even began to contribute to the project.

Torvalds's burgeoning kernel dovetailed nicely w i t h the tools that the G N U

project created. A l l o f the work by Stallman and his disciples could be easily
ported to work w i t h the operating system core that Torvalds was now calling
Linux, This was the power of freely distributable source code. Anyone could
make a connection, and someone invariably did. Soon, much of the G N U code
began running on Linux. These tools made i t easier to create more new
programs, and the snowball began to roll.

Many people feel that Linus Torvalds's true act o f genius was i n coming up with
a flexible and responsive system for letting his toy OS grow and change. He
released new versions often, and he encouraged everyone to test them w i t h him.
In the past, many open source developers using the G N U GPL had only shipped
new versions at major landmarks i n development, acting a b i t like the
commercial developers. After thev released version LO. they would hole ud i n
a flexible and responsive system for letting his toy OS grow and change. He
released new versions often, and he encouraged everyone to test them with him.
hi i he past, many open source developers using the G N U GPL had only shipped
new versions at major landmarks in development, acting a bit like the
commercial developers. After they released version 1.0, they would hole up in
their basements until they had added enough new features to justify version 2,0.

Torvalds avoided this perfectionism and shared frequently, i f he fixed a bug on

Monday, then he would roll out a new version that afternoon. I t s not strange to
have two or three new versions hit the Internet each week. This was a bit more
work for Torvalds, but i t also made it much easier for others to become involved
They could watch what he was doing and make their own suggestions.

This freedom also attracted others to the party. They knew that Linux would
always be theirs, too. They could write neat features and plug them into the
Linux kernel without worrying that Torvalds would yank the rug out from under
them. The GPL was a contract that lasted long into the future. I t was a promise
that bound them together.

Lhe Linux kernel also succeeded because i t was written from the ground up for
the PC platform. When the Berkeley U N I X hackers were porting BSD to the PC
platform, they weren't able to make i t fit perfectly. They were taking a piece of
software crafted for older computers like the VAX, and shaving off corners and
rewriting sections until i t ran on the PC.
The first step is for someone to test the product and write up a detailed report
about what works and what doesn't.

A t the time of diis writing, no one has stepped up to the plate. There are no
reports about the Diamond player in the WINE database. Maybe the new user
didn't have time. Maybe he wasn't technically sophisticated enough to get WINE
running in the first place. It's still not a simple system to use. i n any case, his
bright idea fell by the wayside.

The mailing lists buzz with idle chatter about neat, way-out ideas that never
come to fruition. Some people see this as a limitation of the free software world.
A corporation, however, is able to dispatch a team of programmers to create
solutions. These companies have money to spend on polishing a product and
making sure it works. Connectix, for instance, makes an emulator that lets Mac
users play games written for the Sony PlayStation. The company employs a
substantial number of people who simply play all the Sony games from
beginning to end until all of the bugs are gone. It's a rough job, but someone has
to do it.

WINE can’t pay anyone, and that means that great ideas sometimes get ignored.
substantial number of people who simply play all the Sony games from
beginning to end until all o f the bugs are gone. It's a rough job, but someone has
to do it.

WINE can't pay anyone, and that means that great ideas sometimes get ignored.
The free software community, however, doesn't necessarily see this as a
limitation. I f the RI Q player were truly important, someone else would come
along and pick up the project. Someone else would do the work and file a bug
report so everyone could use the software. I f there's no one else, then maybe the
RIO software isn't that important to the Linux community. Work gets done when
someone really cares enough to do it.

These mailing lists are the fibers that link the open source community into the
network of minds. Before e-mail, they were just a bunch of rebels haunting the
moors and rattling around their basements inventing monstrous machines. Now
they're smoothly tuned mechanisms coordinated by messages, notes, and
missives. They're not madmen who roar at dinner parties about the bad
technology from Borg- 1ike corporations. They've got friends now. One person
may be a flake, but a group might be on to something.

T (MAGE

Consider this picture: Microsoft is a megalith built by one man with a towering
Perhaps it's better to concentrate on the real political battles that rage inside (he
open source code community. It may be better to see die batde as one of GPL
versus BSD instead of communist versus libertarian. The license debate is tuned
to the Internet world. It sets out the debate in terms the computer user can
understand.

1. CHARITY
like to get the books, but also to support Red Hat. That's also why we picked Red
Hat. They’re the most free of all of the distributions."

Debian, Ockman concedes, is also very free and politically interesting, but says
that his company is too small to support multiple distributions. ' We only do Red
Hat. That was a very strategic decision on our p a r t A l l of the distributions are
pretty much the same, but there arc slight differences i n this and that. We could
have a twelve-person Debian group, but it would just be a nightmare for us to
,f
support all o f these different versions of Linux,

Of course, Penguin Computing could have just bought one Red Hat CD-ROM
and installed their software o n all of the machines going out the door. That
would have let them cut their costs by about $50. The GPL lets anyone install the
software as often as they wish. But this wouldn't be pure savings because
Ockman is also offloading some of his o w n wrork when he bundles a Red Hat
package with his computers. He adds, "Technically the box set I include allows
customers to call Red Hat, but no one ever does, nor do we expect them or want
them to call anyone but us." In essence, his company is adding some extra
support with the Red Hat box.
package with his computers. He adds, "Technically the box set I include allows
customers to call Rod Hat, but no one ever does, nor do we expect them or want
them to cal] anyone bul us." I n essence, his company is adding some extra
support with the Red Hat box.

The support is an important add-on that Young is selling, bul he realized long
ago that much more was on sale. Red Hat was selling an image, the sense of
belonging, and the indeterminant essence of cool. Soda manufacturers realized
that anyone could put sugar and water in a bottle, but only the best could rise
above the humdrum nature of life by employing the best artists i n the land to
give their sugar waler the right hip feeling, So Young invested in image. His T-
shirts and packages have always been some of the most graphically sophisticated
on the market. While some folks would get girlfriends or neighbors to draw the
images that covered their books and CDs, Red H a l used a talented team to
develop their packaging.

Young jokes about this. He said he was at a trade show talking to a small
software company that was trying to give him one of their free promotional T-
shirts. He said, r'Why don't you try giving away the source code and selling the
T-shirts?"

At the LinuxExpo, Red Hat was selling T-shirts, too. One slick number retailing
for $19 just said "The Revolution of Choice" in Red Hat's signature old
typewriter font. Others for sale al the company's site routinely run for $15 or
else who sold a proprietary operating system along with it. He understood that he
needed to compromise, at least for system libraries.

The problem is drawing boundaries around what is one pile o f software owned
by one person and what is another pile owned by someone else. The GPL
guaranteed that GNU software would "infect” other packages and force people
who used his code to join the party and release theirs as well. So he had to come
u p w i t h a definition that spelled out what it meant for people to use his code and
"incorporate” it with others.

This is often easier said than done. The marketplace has developed ways to sell
software as b i g chunks to people, but these are fictions that camouflage software
integration. I n modern practice, programmers don't just create one easily
distinguished chunk of software known as Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop.
They build up a variety o f smaller chunks known as libraries and link these
together. Microsoft Windows, in fact, includes a large collection of libraries for
creaiing the menus, forms, click boxes, and what-not that make the graphical
user interfaces. Programmers don’t need to write their own instructions for
drawing these o n the screen and interacting w i t h them. This saves plenty of time
and nractice for the programmers. and i t is a large part of what Microsoft is
together. Microsoft Windows, in fact, includes a large collection of libraries for
creating the menus, forms, click boxes, and what-not that make the graphical
user interfaces. Programmers don't need to write their own instructions for
drawing these on the screen and interacting with them, This saves plenty of time
and practice for the programmers, and it is a large part of what Microsoft is
selling when It sells someone a box with Windows on it.

Stallman recognized that programmers sometimes wrote libraries that they

wanted others to use, After all, that was the point of GNU: creating tools that
others would be free to use. So Stallman relented and created the Lesser Public
License, which would allow people to create libraries that might be incorporated
into other programs that weren't fully GNU. The library itself still came with
source code, and the user would need to distribute all changes made to the
library, but there was no limitation on the larger package.

This new license was also something of a concession to reality, hi the most
abstract sense, programs are just black boxes that take some input and produce
some output. There's no limit to the hierarchies that can be created by plugging
these boxes together so that the output for one is the input for another.
Eventually, the forest of connections grows so thick that it is difficult to draw a
line and label one collection of boxes "Proprietary Soft’s SUX-2000" and another
collection "GNUSofl's Wombat 114.15." The connections are so numerous in
well-written, effective software that line-drawing is difficult.
There have been a number of different success stories of companies built around
selling free software. One of the better-known examples is Cygnus, a company
that specializes in maintaining and porting the GNU C Compiler, rhe company
originally began by selling support contracts for the free software before
realizing that there was a great demand for compiler development,

The philosophy i n the beginning was simple, John Gilmore, one of the founders,
said, "We make free software affordable." They felt that free software offered
many great tools that people needed and wanted, but realized that the software
did not come with guaranteed support. Cygnus would sell people contracts that
would pay for an engineer who would learn the source code inside and out while
waiting to answer questions. The engineer could also rewrite code and help out.

David Henkel-Wallace, one of the other founders, says, "We started in 1989
technically, 1990 really. Our first offices were in my house on University Avenue
[in Palo Alto], We didn't have a garage, we had a carport. I t was an apartment
complex. We got another apartment and etherneted them together. By the time
we left, we had six apartments.”
David Henkel -Wai lace? one of the other founders? says, "We started in 1989
technically, 1990 really. Our first offices were i n my house on University Avenue
(in Palo Alto]. We didn't have a garage, we had a carport. I t was an apartment
complex. We got another apartment and ethcrneted them together. By the time
we left, we had six apartments.’1

While the Bay Area was very technically sophisticated, the Internet was mainly
used at that time by universities and research labs. Commercial hookups were
rare and only found in special corners like the corporate research playpen, Xerox
PARC. I n order to gel Net service, Cygnus came up with a novel plan to wire the
apartment complex and sell off some of the extra bandwidth to their neighbors.
Henkel Wallace says, "We started our own ISP [Internet Service Provider] as a
cooperative because there weren't those things i n those days. Then people moved
into those apartments because they were on the Internet.”

At the beginning, the company hoped that the free software would allow them to
offer something the major manufacturers didn’t: cross-platform consistency. The
GNU software would perform the same on a DEC Alpha, a Sun SPARC, and
even a Microsoft box. The manufacturers, on the other hand, were locked up in
their proprietary worlds where there was little cross-pollination. Each company
developed its own editors? compilers? and source code tools, and each took
slightly different approaches.

One of the other founders, Michael Tiemann, writes of the time: "When it came
might even do the same thing again if they had the choice. Many, though, are
frustrated by their new position as corporate citizens whose main job is
augmenting Microsoft's bottom line.

One Hotmail founder told the PBS Online columnist Robert Cringely, "All we
got was money. There was no recognition, no fun. Microsoft got more from the
deal than we did. They knew nothing about the internet. MSN was a failure. We
had 10 million users, yet we got no respect at all from Redmond. Bill Gates
specifically said, 'Don't screw-up Hotmail,1 yet that's what they did."

1. FUTURE

David Henkel- Wallace sat quietly in a chair in a Palo Alto coffee shop
explaining what he did when he worked at the free software firm Cygnus. He
brought his new daughter along in a baby carriage and kept her parked
alongside. Cygnus, of course, is one of the bigger successes in the free software
world. He helped make some real money building and sustaining the free
compiler, GCC, that Richard Stallman built and gave away. Cygnus managed to
make the real money even after they gave away all of their work.
brought his new daughter along in a baby carriage and kept her parked
alongside. Cygnus, of course, is one o f the bigger successes in the free software
world. He helped make some real money building and sustaining the free
compiler, GCC, that Richard Stallman built and gave away. Cygnus managed to
make the real money even after they gave away all of their work.

I n the middle of talking about Cygnus and open source, he points to his child and
says, "What I'm really worried about is she'll grow up in a world where software
continues to be as buggy as it is today." Other parents might be worried about the
economy, gangs, guns in schools, Or the amount of sex in films, but Henkel-
Wallace wants to make sure that random software crashes start to disappear.

He's done his part. The open source movement thrives on the GCC compiler, and
Cygnus managed to find a way to make money on the process of keeping the
compiler up to date. The free operating systems like Linux or FreeBSD are great
alternatives for people today. They're small, fast, and very stable, unlike the best
offerings of Microsoft or Apple. I f the open software movement continues to
succeed and grow, his child could grow up into a world where the blue screen of
death that terrorizes Microsoft users is as foreign to them as manual typewriters.

No one knows i f the open software world w i l l continue to grow. Some people are
very positive and point out that all the features that made i t possible for the free
OSs to bloom are not going away. I f anything, the forces of open exchange and
freedom w i l l only accelerate as more people are drawn into the mix. More
for free. Who's responsible for (he bug? Who gets sued?

Reilly takes the scenario even further. Imagine that one clever distribution
company finds a f i x for the bug and puts i t into their distribution. They get no
long-term reward because any o f the other distribution companies can come
along and grab the bug f i x .

H e writes, ’’Consumers concerned about software compatibility would probably

purchase the standard versions. But companies would lose profit as other
consumers would freely download improved versions of the software from the
Internet. Eventually the companies would suffer from widespread confusion over
the wide variety of software versions of each product, including standard
versions pirated by profiteers."

There’s no doubt that Reilly points toward a true breakdown i n the feedback loop
that is supposed to keep free markets honest and efficient. Brand names are
important, and the free source world is a pretty confusing stew of brand names.

But he also overestimates the quality of the software emerging from proprietary
companies that can supposedly be punished by the marketplace. Many users
that is supposed to keep free markets honest and efficient. Brand names are
important, and the free source world is a pretty confusing stew of brand names.

But he also overestimates the quality of the software emerging from proprietary
companies that can supposedly be punished by the marketplace. Many users
complain frequently about bugs that never get fixed in proprietary code, in pan
because the proprietary companies are frantically trying to glom on more
features so they can convince more people to buy another version of the
software. Bugs don't always get fixed In the proprietary model, either.

Richard Stallman understands Reilly’s point, but he suggests that the facts don't
bear him out. If this feedback loop is so important, why do so many people brag
about free software's reliability?

Stallman says, "He has pointed out a theoretical problem, but i f you look at the
empirical facts, we do not have a real problem. So it is only a problem for the
theory, not a problem for the users. Economists may have a challenge explaining
why we D O produce such reliable software, but users have no reason i o worry."

16.2 T H E RETURN OF T H E H A R D W A R E K I N G S

The biggest effect of the free software revolution may be to shift the power
between the hardware and software companies. The biggest corporate
fiddle with photographs, and just do whatever y o u want with a computer
"Where do you want io go today?" the Microsoft ads ask.

Microsoft also recognizes the pure power o f giving away something for free.
When B i l l Gates saw Netscape's browser emerging as a great competitive threat,
he first bought a competing version and then wrote his o w n version o f a web
browser Microsoft gave their versions away for free. This bold move shut down
the revenue stream o f Netscape, which had to cut its price to zero i n order to
compete. Of course, Netscape didn't have revenues from an operating system to
pay the rent, Netscape cried foul and eventually the Department of Justice
brought a lawsuit to decide whether the free software from Microsoft was just a
plot to keep more people paying big bucks for their not-so-fi ee Windows OS.
The fact that Microsoft is now threatened by a group o f people who are giving
away a free OS has plenty o f irony.

The word "free" has a much more complicated and nuanced meaning within the
free software movement. In fact, many people who give away their software
don't even l i k e the word "free" and prefer to use ' open” to describe the process
o f sharing. In the case of free software, it's not just an ad campaign to make
people feel eood about buvine a product. It's also not a slick marketing sleieht o f
The word "free" has a much more complicated and nuanced meaning within the
free software movement. I n fact, many people who give away their software
don't even like the word "free 1’ and prefer to use "open 1" to describe the process
of sharing. I n the case of free software, it's not just an ad campaign to make
people feel good about buying a product. It's also not a slick marketing sleight of
hand to focus people's attention on a free gift while the magician charges full
price for a product. The word "free" is more about a way of life. The folks who
write the code throw around the word in much the same way the Founding
Fathers of the United States used it. To many o f them, the free software
revolution was also conceived in liberty and dedicated to certain principles like
the fact that all men and women have certain inalienable rights to change,
modify, and do whatever they please with their software i n the pursuit of
happiness,

Tossing about the word "free" is easy to do. Defining what it means takes much
longer, The Declaration of Independence was written i n 1776, but the colonial
governments fought and struggled with creating a free government through the
ratification of the current United States Constitution i n 1787, The B i l l of Rights
came soon afterward, and the Supreme Court is still continually struggling with
defining the boundaries of freedom described by the document. Much of the
political history of the United States might be said to be an extended argument
about the meaning of the words "free country. 1'

The free software movement is no different. It's easy for one person to simply
numerical quotient (hat can settle any o f these questions. There will always be
some folks who are happy with their early -edition DOS word processor and don’t
see the need to reinvent the wheel, There are others who are still unhappy
because their desktop machine can't read their mind.

For the devoted disciples o f the open software mantra, the software i n the free
source world is infinitely better, Richard Stallman feels that the G N U code is
better than the Microsoft code just because he has the source code and the
freedom to do what he wants with it. The freedom is more important to h i m than
whatever super-duper feature comes out of the Microsoft teams. After all, he can
add any feature he wants if he has access to the basic source code. Living
without the source code means waiting l i k e a good peon for the nice masters
from the b i g corporation to bless us with a bug f i x .

There's no question that people like Stallman love life w i t h source code. A
deeper question is whether the free source realm offers a wealthier lifestyle for
the average computer user. Most people aren't programmers, and most
programmers aren’t even the hard-core hackers who love to fiddle w i t h the
U N I X kernel I've rarely used the source code to Linux, Emacs, or any of the
neat tools on the Net, and many times I've simolv recompiled the source code
deeper question is whether the free source realm offers a wealthier lifestyle for
the average computer user. Most people aren't programmers, and most
programmers aren't even the hard-core hackers who love to fiddle with the
U N I X kernel, I've rarely used the source code to Linux, Emacs, or any of the
neat tools on the Net. and many times I've simply recompiled the source code
without looking at it. Is this community still a better deal?

There are many ways of looking at the question. The simplest is to compare
features. It's hard to deny that the free software world has made great strides in
producing something that is easy to use and quite adaptable. The most current
distributions at the time I'm writing this come with a variety of packages that
provide all of the functionality of Microsoft Windows and more. The editors are
good, the browser is excellent, and the availability of software is wonderful. The
basic Red Hat or Caldera distribution provides a very rich user interface that is
better in many ways than Windows or the Mac. Some of the slightly specialized
products like video software editors and music programs aren't as rich-looking,
but this is bound to change with time. I t is really a very usable world.

Some grouse that comparing features like this isn't fair to the Mac or Windows
world. The GNOME toolkit, they point out, didn't come out of years of research
and development. The start button and the toolbar look the same because the
GNOME developers were merely copying. The GNU? Linux world didn't create
their own OS, they merely cloned all of the hard commercial research that
produced U N I X . It's always easier to catch up, but pulling ahead is hard. The
A l a n Cox pointed out to me, "The early B S D stuff was by UNIX people for
U N I X people. You needed a calculator and familiarity with B S D UNIX on big
machines (or a lot of reading) to install i t . You also couldn't share a disk between
DOSAVindows and 386BSD or the early branches off i t .

"Nowadays FreeBSD understands DOS partitions and can share a disk, but at the
time B S D was scary to i n s t a l l / he continued.

The B S D also took certain pieces of hardware for granted. Early versions o f
B S D required a 387, a numerical coprocessor that would speed up the execution
o f floating point numbers. Cox remembers that the price (about $100) was just
too much for his budget. At that time, the free software world was a very lean
organization.

Torvalds's operating system plugged a crucial hole i n the world of free source
software and made it possible for someone to run a computer without paying
anyone f o r a license. Richard Stallman had dreamed o f this day, and Torvalds
came up with the last major piece o f the puzzle.

8.2 A DIFFERENT K I N D OF T R I A L
software and made it possible for someone to run a computer without paying
anyone f o r a license, Richard Stallman had dreamed of this day, and Torvalds
came up with the last major piece of the puzzle.

8.2 A DIFFERENT K I N D OF T R I A L

During the early months of Torvalds's work, the B S D group was stuck in a legal
swamp. While rhe B S D team was involved with secret settlement talks and
secret depositions, Linus Torvalds was happily writing code and sharing it with
the world on the Nel. His life wasn't all peaches and cream, but all of his hassles
were open. Professor Andy Tanenbaum, a fairly well -respected and famous
computer scientist, got in a long, extended debate with Torvalds over the
structure of Linux. He looked down at Linux and claimed that Linux would have
been worth two F’s in his class because of its design. This led to a big flame war
that was every b i t as nasty as die fight between Berkeley and AT&T's U S L . In
fact, to the average observer it was even nastier. Torvalds returned Tanenbaum’s
fire with strong words like "fiasco/' "brain-damages/’ and 'suck/ 1 H e brushed
off the bad grades by pointing out that Albert Einstein supposedly got bad grades
i n math and physics. The high priced lawyers working for AT&T and Berkeley
probably used very expensive and polite words to try and hide the shivs they
were trying to stick in each other's back. Torvalds and Tanenbaum pulled out
each other's virtual hair like a squawkfest on the Jerry Springer show.
There are also deep personal differences i n the way Theo de Raadt, the founder
o f OpenBSD, started die project after die NetBSD group kicked him out o f their
core group.

For all of these reasons, it may be hard to argue that the freedoms provided by
the BSD-style license were largely responsible for the splintering. The G N U
software users are just as free to make new versions as long as they kick back the
source code into free circulation. In fact, it may be possible to argue that the
Macintosh versions o f some of the G N U code comprise a splinter group because
it occurred despite the i l l will Stallman felt for the Mac.

107 THE SYNTHESIS O F "OPEN SOURCE”

The tension between the B S D licenses and the G N U has always festered like the
abortion debate. Everyone picked sides and rarely moved from them.

In 1998, a group of people in the free software community tried to unify the two
camps by creating a new term, "open source." To make sure everyone knew they
I ne tension between tne b s u licenses and tne gnu nas always testereo like me
abortion debate- Everyone picked sides and rarely moved from them.

i n 1998, a group of people in the free software community tried to unify the two
camps by creating a new term, "open source." To make sure everyone knew they
were serious, they started an unincorporated organization, registered a
trademark, and set up a website (www.opensource.org). Anyone who wanted to
label their project "open source" would have to answer to them because they
would control the trademark on the name.

Sam Ockman, a Linux enthusiast and die founder of Penguin Computing,

remembers the day of the meeting just before Netscape announced it was freeing
its source code. "Eric Raymond came into town because of the Netscape thing.
Netscape was going to free their software, so we drove down to Transmeta and
had a meeting so we could advise Netscape," he said.

He explained that the group considered a number of different options about the
structure. Some wanted to choose a leader now. Others wanted to emulate an
open source project and let a leader emerge through the display of talent and,
well, leadership. Others wanted elections.

The definition of what was open source grew out of the Debian project, one of
the different groups that banded together to press CDROMs of stable Linux
releases. Groups like these often get into debates about what software to include
on the disks. Some wanted to be very pure and only include GPL'ed software. I n
property rights to some packages fiercely and refuses to distribute the source
with an official open source license. Instead, i t calls their approach die
"community source license" and insists that it's good enough for almost
everyone. Users can read the source code, but they can't run off w i t h i t and start
their o w n distribution.

Many others from Berkeley followed Joy's path to Sun. John Ousterhout left his
position as a professor at Berkeley i n 1994 to move to Sun. Ousterhout was
known for developing a fairly simple but powerful scripting tool known as
TCL/Tk, One part of i t , the Tool Control Language (TCL), was a straightforward
English- 1ike language that made i t pretty easy for people to knit together
different modules of code. The user didn't have to be a great programmer to
r
w ork with the code because the language was designed to be straightforward.
There were no complicated data structures or pointers. Every thing was a string
o f ASCII text.

The second part, the Tool kit (Tk), contained a variety o f visual widgets that
could be used to get input for and output from a program. The simplest ones
were buttons, sliders, o r menus, but many people wrote complicated ones that
served their particular needs.
The second part, the Tool k i t (Tk), contained a variety of visual widgets that
could be used to get input for and output from a program. The simplest ones
were buttons, sliders, or menus, but many people wrote complicated ones that
served their particular needs.

TheTCL/Tk project at Berkeley attracted a great deal of attention from the Net.
Ousterhout, like most academics, freely distributed his code and did a good job
helping others use the software. He and his students rewrote and extended the
code a number of times, and this constant support helped create even more fans.
The software scratched an itch for many academics who were smart enough to
program the machines in their lab. but burdened by more important jobs like
actually doing the research they set out to do. TCL/Tk picked up a wide
following because it was easy for people to learn a small amount quickly.
Languages like C required a semester or more to master. TCL could be picked up
i n an afternoon.

Many see the pragmatism of the BSD-style license as a way for the Berkeley
hackers to ease their trip into corporate software production. The folks would
develop the way-out, unproven ideas using public money before releasing it with
the B S D license. Then companies like Sun would start to resell it.

The supporter of the BSD licenses, of course, don't see corporate development
as a had thing. They just see it as a way for people to pay for the extra bells and
domain until 2019. The industry feels that this gives them the protection to keep
creating new items. Creations like Mickey Mouse and Snow While w i l l continue
to live in the very safe place controlled by Disney and not fall into the evil hands
o f the public domain.

Several Harvard professors, Larry Lessig, Charles Nesson, and Jonathan Zittrain
o f the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, and
Geoffrey Stewart of the Boston law firm Hale and Dorr filed a lawsuit contesting
the act by pointing out that the Constitution provides f o r a "limited11 term.
Artists, authors, and creators were given copyright protection, but i t was only for
a limited amount of time. Afterward, the society could borrow and use the work
freely*

There’s little doubt that the major Hollywood producers recognize the value o f a
we II- stocked collection of public domain literature. Movies based on works by
William Shakespeare, Henry James, and Jane Austen continue to roll out o f the
studios to the welcoming patrons who buy tickets despite knowing how the story
ends. Disney itself built its movie franchise on shared fables like Sleeping
Beauty or Snow White. Very few o f Disney's animated films (The L i o n K i n g
was one of the first ones) were created in-house from a clean niece o f naoer.
William Shakespeare, Henry James, and Jane Austen continue to roll out of the
studios to die welcoming patrons who buy tickets despite knowing how the story
ends. Disney itself built its movie franchise on shared fables like Sleeping
Beauty or Snow White. Very few of Disney's animated films (The [Jon King
was one of the first ones) were created in -house from a clean piece of paper.
Most were market-tested for acceptance by their years in the public domain. Of
course, Disney only pays attention to this fact when they're borrowing an idea to
create their own version, not when they're defending the copyright of their own
creations. They want to take, not give.

The movie industry, like die proprietary software business, seems to forget just
how valuable a shared repository of ideas and solutions can be. In this context,
the free source movement isn't an explosion of creative brilliance or a
renaissance of cooperation, it's just a return to the good old days when Congress
wouldn't slavishly answer the whims of the content industry. I f a theater owner
wanted to pul on a Shakespeare play, the text was in the public domain. I f
someone wanted to rewrite Jane Austen and create the movie Clueless, they
were free to do so, In the good old days, copyright faded after a limited amount
of time and the public got something back for granting a monopoly to the artist.
I n the good old days, the artist got something back, too, when the monopoly of
other artists faded away.

It’s not like this brave newr world of total copyright protection has generated
superior content. The so-called original movies aren't that different. A l l of the
Robert X . Cringely described the situation i n an article in PBS Online, and he
quoted one Hotmail worker as saying, 'They send a new top-level group down
to see us every week, yet it really means nothing. The plan is constantly
changing. Today Hotmail is primarily a way of shoveling new users into the
M S N portal. We had for a short time a feature called Centerpoint for
communicating directly with our users, but that was killed as a possible
competitor with the M S N portal. N o new features could be added because the
Outlook Express team saw us as competition and sabotaged everything."

Cringely explained the corporate friction and gridlock this way:

"What Hotmail learned is that at Microsoft almost anyone can say 'no,' but
hardly anyone can say 'yes. 1 The way it specifically works at Microsoft is that
r
everyone says no' to anyone below them on the organizational structure or on
the same level, and 'yes' to anyone above. Since the vertical lines of authority are
narrow this means people tend to agree only with their bosses and their boss’s
boss and try to kick and gouge everyone else."

The free software world, of course, removes these barriers, I f the Hotmail folks
had joined the Linux team instead o f Microsoft, they would be free to do
narrow this means people tend to agree only with their bosses and their boss's
boss and try to kick and gouge everyone else."

The free software world, of course, removes these barriers. I f the Hotmail folks
had joined the Linux team instead of Microsoft, they would be free to do
whatever they wanted with their website even i f it annoyed Linus Torvalds,
Richard Stallman, and the pope. They wouldn't be rich, but there's always a
price.

Using the word ''love" is a bit dangerous because the word manages to include
the head-over- heels infatuation of teenagers and the affection people fee] f o r a
new car or a restaurant's food. The love that's embodied by the GPL, on the other
hand, isn't anywhere near as much fun and it isn't particularly noteworthy. I t just
encompasses the mutual responsibility and respect that mature folks occasionally
fee] for each other. Lt's St. Paul's version of unconditional, everlasting love, not
the pangs of desire that kept St. Augustine up late in his youth.

Anyone who has spent time i n rhe trenches in a corporate cubicle farm knows
how wasteful the battles between groups and divisions can be. While the
competition can sometimes produce healthy rivalries, i t often just promotes
discord. Any veteran of these wars should see (he immediate value of
disarmament treaties like the GPL. They permit healthy rivalries to continue
while preventing secrecy and selfishness from erupting. The free source
movement may not have money to move mountains, but it does have this love.
Creek partnership also helped the FreeBSD team understand what it needed to
do to make their distribution easier to install and simpler to use. That was Walnut
Creek's business, after all.

18.3 FLAMES, FIGHTS, AND THE BIRTH OF OPENBSD

The forking did not stop with NetBSD. Soon one member o f the NetBSD world,
Theo de Raadt, began to rub some people the wrong way. One member o f the
OpenBSD team told me, "The reason for the split from NetBSD was that Theo
got kicked out. 1 don't understand i t completely. More or less they say he was
treating users on the mailing list badly. He does tend to be short and terse, but
there's nothing wrong with that. H e was one of the founding members of
NetBSD and they asked him to resign.1'

Now, four years after the split began in 1995, de Raadt is still a b i t hurt by their
decision. He says about his decision to fork B S D again, ' I had no choice. 1 really
like what I do. 1 really like working with a community. At the time i t all
happened, I was the second most active developer i n their source tree. They took
Now, four years after the split began in 1995, de Raadt is still a bit hurt by their
decision. He says about his decision to fork BSD again, "I had no choice, I really
like what i do. I really like working with a community, At the time it all
happened, 1 was the second most active developer i n their source tree. They took
the second most active developer and kicked him off."

Well, they didn't kick him out completely, but they did take away his ability to
"commit" changes to the source tree and make them permanent. After the split,
de Raadt had to e-mail his contributions to a member of the team so they could
check them in. This didn't sit well with de Raadt, who saw i t as both a demotion
and a real impediment to doing work.

The root of the split is easy to see. De Raadt is energetic. He thinks and speaks
quickly about everything. Me has a clear view about most free software and isn’t
afraid to share it. While some BSD members are charitable and conciliatory to
Richard Stallman, de Raadt doesn't bother to hide his contempt for the
organization. " The Free Software Foundation is one of the most misnamed
organizations," he says, explaining that only BSD-style licensees have the true
freedom to do whatever they want with the software. The G N U General Public
License is a pair of handcuffs to him.

De Raadt lives in Calgary and dresses up his personal web page with a picture o f
himself on lop of a mountain wearing a bandanna. I f you want to send him a
pizza for any reason, he's posted the phone number of his favorite local shop
powerful.

On the other hand, the free software community has no central reservoir of
money or strength. Each small group could be crippled, one by one, by a nasty
lawsuit Groups like Open BSD are always looking for donations, rhe f ree
Software Foundation has some great depth and affection, but its budget is a tiny
fraction of Sun's or Microsoft's. Legal bills arc real, and lawyers have a way of
making them blossom. There may be hundreds of different targets for Microsoft,
but many o f them won't take much firepower to knock out.

The free software community is not without some deep pockets itself. Many of
the traditional hardware companies l i k e I B M , Compaq, Gateway, Sun, Hewlett-
Packard, and Apple can make money by selling either hardware or software.
They've been hurt i n recent years by Microsoft’s relentless domination of the
desktop. Microsoft negotiated hard contracts with each o f the companies that
controlled what the user saw. The PC manufacturers received little ability to
customize their product. Microsoft turned them into commodity manufacturers
and stripped away their control. Each of these companies should see great
potential i n moving to a free OS and adopting it. There is no extra cost, no
strange meetings, no veiled threats, no arm-twisting.
controlled what the user saw. The PC manufacturers received little ability to
customize their product. Microsoft turned them into commodity manufacturers
and stripped away their control Each of these companies should see great
potential in moving to a free OS and adopting it. There is no extra cost, no
strange meetings, no veiled threats, no arm-twisting.

Suddenly, brands like Hewlett-Packard or IBM can mean something when

they’re slapped on a PC. Any goofball i n a garage can put a circuit board i n a box
and slap on Microsoft Windows. A b i g company like HP or I B M could do extra
work to make sure the Linux distribution on the box worked well with the
components and provided a glitch- free existence for the user.

The hardware companies w i l l be powerful allies for the free software realm
because the companies w i l l be the ones who benefit economically the most from
the free software licenses. When al] of the software is free, no one controls it and
this strips away many of Microsoft's traditional ways of applying leverage.
Microsoft., for instance, knocked the legs out from underneath Netscape by
giving aiway Internet Explorer for free. N o w the free software world is using the
same strategy against Microsoft. It's hard for them to undercut free for most
users.

The university system is a less stable ally. While the notion of free exchange of
information is still floating around many of the nation's campuses, the places are
frighteningly corporate and profit-minded. Microsoft has plenty of cash at its
much i n the business of selling CD-ROMs. The company has a payroll with
more than a handful of programmers who are drawing nonvolunteer salaries to
keep the distributions fresh and the code clean. But he's avoided the temptation
o f adding not-so-free code to his disks. This gives h i m more credibility with die
programmers who create the software and give it away. I n theory, Young doesn't
need to ingratiate himself to the various authors of G PL-protected software
packages. They’ve already given the code away. Their power is gone. In practice,
he gains plenty of political goodwill by playing the game by their rules.

Several companies are already making PCs w i t h Linux software installed at the
factory. While they could simply download the software from the Net
themselves and create their o w n package, several have chosen to bundle Red
Hat's version w i t h their machines. Sam Ockman, the president of Penguin
Computing, runs one of those companies.

Ockman is a recent Stanford graduate in his early twenties and a strong devotee
o f the Linux and GPL world. H e says he started his company to prove that Linux
could deliver solid, dependable servers that could compete with the best that Sun
and Microsoft have to offer.
Ockman is a recent Stanford graduate in his early twenties and a strong devotee
of the Linux and GPL world. He says he started his company to prove that Linux
could deliver solid, dependable servers that could compete with the best that Sun
and Microsoft have to offer,

Ockman has mixed feelings about life at Stanford. While he fondly remembers
the ” golf course-like campus," he says the classes were too easy. He graduated
with two majors despite spending plenty o f time playing around with the Linux
kernel. He says (hat (he computer science department's hobbled curriculum
drove him to Linux. "Their whole CS community is using a stupid compiler for
C on the Macintosh," he says,"Why don’t they start you off on Linux? By the
time you get to (course! 248, you could hack on the Linux kernel or your own
replacement kernel. It's just a tragedy that you're sitting there writing virtual
kernels on a Sun system that you're noi allowed to reboot."

I n essence, the computer science department was keeping their kids penned up in
the shallow end of the pool instead of taking them out into the ocean, Ockman
found the ocean on his own time and started writing GPL -protected code and
contributing to the political cmcigencc of free software.

When Ockman had to choose a version o f Linux for his Penguin computers, he
chose Red Hat. Bob Young's company made the sale because it was playing by
the rules of the game and giving software back with a GPL. Ockman says, "We
actually buy the box sot for every single one. Partially because the customers
marketplace was small, fragmented, and tribal. B u t by 1998, Red Hat had
attracted major funding from companies like Intel, and i t plowed more and more
money into making the package as presentable and easy to use as possible. This
investment paid o f f because more users turned instinctively to Red Hat, whose
C D - R O M sales then exploded.

Most of this development Jived in its o w n Shangri-La, Red Hat, for instance,
charged money for its disks, but released alt o f its software under the GPL.
Others could copy their disks for free, and many did. Red Hat may be a
company, but the management realized that they depended o n thousands i f not
millions of unpaid volunteers to create their product.

Slowly but surely, more and more people became aware o f Linux, the G N U
project, and its cousins like FreeBSD. No one was making much money off the
stuff, but the word o f mouth was spreading very quickly. The disks were priced
reasonably, and people were curious. The GPL encouraged people to share.
People began borrowing disks from their friends. Some companies even
manufactured cheap rip-off copies o f the CD-ROMs, an act that the GPL
encouraged.
reasonably, and people were curious. The GPL encouraged people to share.
People began borrowing disks from their friends. Some companies even
manufactured cheap rip-off copies of the CD-ROMs, an act that the GPL
encouraged.

At the top of the pyramid was Linus Torvalds. Many Linux developers treated
him like the king of all he surveyed, hut he was like the monarchs who were
denuded by a popular constitutional democracy. He had always focused on
building a fast, stable kernel, and that was what he continued to do. The rest of
the excitement, the packaging, the features, and the toys, were the dominion of
the volunteers and contributors.

Torvalds never said much about the world outside his kernel, and i t developed
without him.

Tbrvalds moved to Silicon Valley and took a job with the very secret company
Transmeta i n order to help design the next generation of computer chips. H e
worked Out a Special deal with the company that allowed him to work on Linux
in his spare time. He felt that working for one of the companies like Red Hat
would give that one version of Linux a special imprimatur, and he wanted to
avoid that. Plus, 'Transmeta was doing cod things.

I n January 1999, the world caught up with the pioneers. Schmalensee mentioned
Linux on the witness stand during the trial and served official notice to the world
These fine distinctions didn't satisfy many programmers who weren’t so taken
with Stallman’s doctrinaire version of freedom. They wanted to create free
software and have the freedom to make some money off of it. This tradition
dates back many years before Stallman and is a firm pan o f academic life. Many
professors and students developed software and published a free version before
starting up a company that would commercialize the work. They used their
professor s salary or student stipend to support the work, and the free software
they contributed to the world was meant as an exchange. In many cases, the U.S.
government paid for the creation of the software through a grant, and the free
release was a gift to the taxpayers who ultimately funded i t . In other cases,
corporations paid for parts o f the research and the free release was seen as a way
to give something back to the sponsoring corporation without turning the
university into a home for the corporation's lowpaid slave programmers w h o
were students i n name only.

In many cases, the free distribution was an honest gift made by researchers who
wanted to give their work the greatest possible distribution. They would be
repaid in fame and academic prestige, which can be more lucrative than
everything but a good start-up's IPO. Sharing knowledge and creating more o f i t
wpt; what imivpruitip*; wpkp a l l ahnnf Stallman fannpd intn rhat traditinn
I n many cases, the free distribution was an honest gift made by researebel's who
wanted to give their work the greatest possible distribution. They would be
repaid i n fame and academic prestige, which can be more lucrative than
everything but a good start-up’s IPO. Sharing knowledge and creating more of it
was what universities were all about. Stallman tapped into that tradition.

But many others were fairly cynical. They would work long enough to generate
a version that worked well enough to convince people of its value. Then, when
the funding showed up, they would release this buggy version into the "public
domain," move across the street into their own new start-up, and resume
development. The public domain version satisfied the university’s rules and
placated any granting agencies, but it was often close to unusable. The bugs
were too numerous and too hidden i n the cruft to make it worth someone's lime.
Of course, the original authors knew where the problems hirked, and they would
fix them before releasing the commercial version.

The leader of this academic branch of the free software world became the
Computer Systems Research Group at the University of California at Berkeley.
The published Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) versions of U N I X started
emerging from Berkeley i n the late 1970s. Their work emerged with a free
license that gave every one the right to do what they wanted with the software,
including start up a company, add some neat features, and start reselling the
whole package. The only catch was that the user must keep the copyright
message intact and give the university some credit in the manual and in
Jordan Hubbard, someone who would come along later to create a fork o f
386BSD, said of Jolitz's decision to create a 386-based fork of BSD, ' Bill’s real
contribution was working w i t h the 386 port. H e was kind o f an outsider. N o one
else saw the 386 as interesting. Berkeley had a myopic attitude toward PCs.
They were just toys. N o one would support Intel. That was the climate at the
time. N o one really took PCs seriously. Bill’s contribution was to realize that PCs
were going places/’

From the beginning, Hubbard and several others saw the genius i n creating a 386
version of B S D that ran on the cheapest hardware available. They started adding
features and gluing in bug fixes, wrhich they distributed as a file that modified
the main 386B5D distribution from Jolitz. This was practical at the beginning
when the changes were few, but it continued out of respect for the original
creator, even after the patches grew complicated.

Finally, a tussle flared up in 1993. Jordan Hubbard, one of the forkers, writes in
his history o f the project,

386BSD was Bill Jolitz’s operating system, which had been up to that point
suffering rather severely from almost a year’s worth o f neglect. As the patchkit
Finally, a tussle flared up i n 1993. Jordan Hubbard, one of the forkers, writes i n
his history of the project,

386BSD was B i l l Jolitz's operating system, which had been up to that point
suffering rather severely from almost a year's worth of neglect. As the patchkit
swelled ever more uncomfortably with each passing day, we were in unanimous
agreement that something had to he done and decided to try and assist B i l l by
providing this interim "cleanup" snapshot. Those plans came to a rude halt when
B i l l Jolitz suddenly decided to withdraw his sanction from the project and
without any clear indication of what would be done instead.

The FreeBSD team pressed on despite the denial. They decided to fork. Today,
386BSD is largely part of the history of computing while FreeBSD is a living,
current OS, at least at the time this book was written. The FreeBSD team has
done a good job distributing bug-free versions, and they’ve been paid off i n
loyalty, disciples, and money and computers from Walnut Creek, Forking can
often be good for society because it prevents one person or clique from
thwarting another group. The free software world is filled with many of the same
stories of politics that float across the watercoolers of corporations, but the
stories don't have to end the same way. I f one boss or group tries to shut down a
free software project, it really can't. The source code is freely available, and
people are free to carry on. The FreeBSD project is one example.

Of course, good software can have anti-forking effects. Linus Torvalds said in
code contributed to a semi -commercial project. Yes, most of the work was
officially done by Netscape employees, but how do you measure work? Many
programmers think a good bug report is more valuable than a thousand lines of
code. Sure, some folks like Baron spend most of their lime testing the source
code and looking for incompatibilities, but that's still very valuable. H e might
not have added new code himself, but his insight may be worth much more to
the folks who eventually rely on the product to be bug-free.

It’s also important to measure the scope of the project. Mozilla set out to rewrite
most of the Netscape code. In the early days, Netscape grew by leaps and bounds
as the company struggled to add more and more features to keep ahead of
Microsoft. The company often didn r t have the time to rebuild and reengineer the
product, and many of the new features were not added in the best possible way.
The M o z i l l a team stalled off by trying to rebuild the code and put it on a stable
foundation for the future. This hard-core, structural work often isn’t as dramatic.
Casual observers just note that the M o z i l l a browser doesn't have as many
features as plain old Netscape. They don’t realize that it's completely redesigned
inside.

Jeff Bates, an editor at Slashdot, savs that Mozilla mav have suffered because
Casual observers jusi note that the Mozilla browser doesn't have as many
features as plain old Netscape. They don't realize that it s completely redesigned
inside.

Jeff Bates, an editor at Slashdot, says that Mozilla may have suffered because
Netscape was so successful. The Netscape browser was already available for free
for Linux. "There wasn't a big itch to scratch," he says. "We already had
Netscape, which was fine for most people. This project interested a smaller
group than i f we'd not had Netscape-hence why it didn't get as much attention/'

The experiences at other companies like Apple and Sun have been more muled.
These two companies also released the source code to their major products, but
they did not frame the releases as b i g barn-raising projects where all of the users
would rise up and do the development work for the company. Some people
portrayed the Mozilla project as a bit of a failure because Netscape employees
continued to do the bulk of code writing. Apple and Sun have done a better job
emphasizing the value of having the source available while avoiding the
impossible dream of getting the folks who buy the computers to write the 05,
too.

Not all interactions between open source projects and corporations involve
corporations releasing their source code under a new open source license. Much
more code flows from the open source community into corporations. Free things
are just as templing to companies as to people.
In June 1991, soon after Torvalds I A 31 started his little science project, the
Computer Systems Research Group at Berkeley released what they thought was
their completely unencumbered version o f B S D U N I X known as Network
Release 2. Several projects emerged to port this to the 386, and the project
evolved to become the FreeBSD and NetBSD versions of today. Torvalds has
often said that he might never have started Linux i f he had known that he could
just download a more complete OS from Berkeley,

[3]: Everyone i n the community, including many who don't know him, refers to
h i m by his first name. The rules o f style prevent me from using that i n something
as proper as a book.

But Torvalds didn't know about B S D at the time, and he's lucky he didn't.
Berkeley was soon snowed under by the lawsuit with AT&T claiming that the
university was somehow shipping AT&T's intellectual property. Development of
the B S D system came to a screeching halt as programmers realized that AT&T
could shut them down at any time i f Berkeley was found guilty o f giving away
source code that AT&T owned.

I f he couldn't afford to buy a U N I X machine, he would write his own version.

the B S D system came to a screeching halt as programmers realized that AT&T
could shut them down at any time i f Berkeley was found guilty of giving away
source code that AT&T owned.

I f he couldn't afford to buy a U N I X machine, he would write his own version.

He would make it POSIX-compatible, a standard for U N I X designers, so others
would be able to use it. Minix was another UNI X Iike OS that a professor,
Andrew Tanenbaum, wrote for students to experiment with the guts of an OS.
Torvalds initially considered using M i n i x as a platform, Tanenbaum included the
source code to his project, but he charged for the package. I t was like a textbook
for students around the world.

Torvalds looked at the price of Minix ($150) and thought i t was too much,
Richard Stallman's G N U General Public License had taken root in Torvalds's
brain, and he saw the limitations i n charging for software. GNU had also
produced a wide variety of tools and utility programs that he could use on his
machine, M i n i x was controlled by Tanenbaum, albeit with a much looser hand
than many of the other companies at the time.

People could add their own features to M i n i x and some did. They did get a copy
of the source code for $150. But few changes made their way back into Minix.
Tanenbaum wanted to keep i t simple and grew f rostrated with the many people
who, as he wrote back then, "want to turn M i n i x into BSD U N I X . "
code, and it's even free.

"They're running Network Flight Recorder," de Raach says. "Il's a super sniffing
package and an intrusion detection system. They can tell you i f bad traffic
happens on your private little network that the firewall should have stopped,
They have OpenBSD running NFR on every network. They run an IPS EC vpn
back to a main network information center where they look and do traffic
analysis."

That is, the departments watch for bad hackers by placing OpenBSD boxes at
judicious points to scan the traffic and look for incriminating information. These
boxes, of course, must remain secure. I f they're compromised, they're worthless.
Turning to something like OpenBSD, which has at least been audited, makes
sense.

"They catch a lot of system administrators making mistakes. It's very much a
proactive result. They can see that a sys admin has misconfigured a firewall," he
says.

Normally, this would just be a simple happy story about the government getting
"They catch a lot of system administrators making mistakes, It's very much a
proactive result. They can see that a sys admin has miscon figured a firewall/' he
says.

Normally, this would just be a simple happy story about the government getting
a great value from an open source operating system. They paid nothing for it and
got the results of a widespread, open review looking for security holes.

De Raadt lives in Canada, not the United States, and he develops OpenBSD
there because the laws on the export of encryption software are much more
lenient. F o r a time, Canada did not try to control any mass market software.
Recently, i t added the requirement that shrinkwrapped software receive a license,
but the country seems willing to grant licenses quite liberally. Software that falls
into the public domain is not restricted at all. While OpenBSD is not i n the
public domain, it does fit that definition as set out by the rules. The software is
distributed with no restrictions or charge. By the end of 1999, senior officials
realized that the stop crypt policy was generating too many ironic moments.

This is just another example of how free source software throws the traditional-
instincts regulatory system for a loop. Companies sell products, and products are
regulated. Public domain information, on the other hand, is speech and speech is
protected, at least by the U S. Constitution. Relying on Canada for network
security of the Internet was too much.

I n January 2000, the U.S. government capitulated. After relentless pressure from
rival political organization. No one has the political clout.

18 5 A F O R K , A SPLIT, A N D A REUNION

Now, after all of the nasty stories of backstabbing and bickering, it is important
to realize that there are actually some happy stories of forks that merge back
together. One o f the best stories comes from the halls of an Internet security
company, C2Net, that dealt with a fork i n a very peaceful way,

C2Net is a Berkeley-based company run by some hard-core advocates of online

privacy and anonymity. The company began by offering a remailing service that
allowed people to send anonymous e-mails to one another. Their site would strip
off the return address and pass it along to the recipient w i t h no trace o f who sent
it. They aimed to f u l f i l l the need of people like whistleblowers, leakers, and
other people i n positions of weakness who wanted to use anonymity to avoid
reprisals.

The company soon took on a bigger goal when i t decided to modify the popular
it. i ney aimed to m i n iI me need o t people like wmstieDiowers, leakers, and
other people in positions of weakness who wanted to use anonymity to avoid
reprisals.

The company soon took on a bigger goal when i t decided to modify the popular
Apache web server by adding strong encryption to make it possible for people to
process credit cards over the web. The technology known as SSL for "secure
sockets layer,” automatically arranged for all of the traffic between a remote web
serve]' and the user to be scrambled so that no one could eavesdrop. SSL is a
very popular technology on the web today because many companies use it to
scramble credit card numbers to defeat eavesdroppers.

C2Net drew a fair deal of attention when one of its founders, Sameer Parekh,
appeared on the cover of Forbes magazine with a headline teasing that he wanted
to 'overthrow the government." I n reality, C2Net wanted to move development
operations overseas, where there were no regulations on the creation of
cryptographically secure software. C2Net went where the talent was available
and priced right.

I n this case, C2Net chose a free version o f SSL written by Eric Young known as
SSLeay. Young s work is another of the open source success stories. He wrote
the original version as a hobby and released it with a BSD- 1ike license. Everyone
liked his code, downloaded it, experimented with it, and used it to explore the
boundaries of the protocol. Young was just swapping code with the Net and
having a good time.
one interview, "Actually, 1 have never even checked 386BSD out; when I started
on Linux it wasn't available (although Bill Jolitz's series on i t in Dr. Dobbs
Journal had started and were interesting), and when 386BSD finally came out,
Linux was already i n a state where it was so usable that I never really thought
about switching. I f 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux
would probably never have happened." So i f 386BSD had been easier to find on
the Net and better supported, Linux might never have begun.

Once someone starts forking BSD, one fork is rarely enough. Another group
known as NetBSD also grew fed up w i t h the progress of 386BSD i n 1993. This
group, however, wanted to build a platform that ran well on many different
machines, not just the intel 386. The FreeBSD folks concentrated on doing a
good job on Intel boxes, while the NetBSD wanted to create a version that ran on
many different machines. Their slogan became " O f course it runs NetBSD."

NetBSD runs on practically every machine y o u can imagine, including older,

less up-to-date machines like the Amiga and the Atari. I t has also been embraced
by companies like NeXT, which bundled parts of i t into the version of the OS for
the Macintosh known as Rhapsody. O f course, the most common chips like the
Intel line and die Aloha are also well supported.
NetBSD runs on practically every machine you can imagine, including older,
less up-to-date machines like die Amiga and the Atari. I t has also been embraced
by companies like NeXT, which bundled parts of i t into the version of the OS for
the Macintosh known as Rhapsody, Of course, the most common chips like the
Intel line and the Alpha are also well supported.

The NetBSD community emerged at the same time as the FreeBSD world. They
didn’t realize that each team was working on the same project at the same time.
But once they started releasing their own versions, they stayed apart.

“The NetBSD group has always been the purest. They saw it as an OS research
vehicle. That was what CSRG was doing. Their only mandate was to do
interesting research," said Hubbard, “It's a very different set of goals than we
concentrated on for the 386, The important thing for us was to polish it up. We
put all of our efforts into polishing, not polling. This was part of our bringing
BSD to the masses kind o f thing. We're going for numbers. We re going for mass
penetration.”

This orientation meant that NetBSD never really achieved the same market
domination as FreeBSD. The group only recently began shipping versions of
NetBSD on CD-ROM, FreeBSD, on the other hand, has always excelled at
attracting new and curious users thanks to their relationship with Walnut Creek.
Many experimenters and open-minded users picked up one of the disks, and a
few became excited enough to actually make some contributions. The Walnut
To make matters worse, Hudson and Young left C2Net to work for RSA Data
Security. Parekh lost two important members of his team, and he faced intense
competition. Luckily, his devotion to open source came to the rescue. Hudson
and Young couldn't take back any of the work they did on SSLeay. I t was open
source and available to everyone.

Parekh, Engclschal I, several C2Net employees, and several others sat down (via
e-mail) and created a new project they called OpenSSL. This group would carry
the torch of SSLeay and keep it up-to-date. Young and Hudson stopped
contributing and devoted their time to creating a commercial version for RSA
Data Security.

Parekh says o f the time, "Even though it was a serious setback for C2Net to have
RSA pirate our people, it was good for the public. Development really
accelerated when wre started OpenSSL. M o r e people became involved and
control became less centralized. It became more like the Apache group, it's a lot
bigger than it was before and it’s much easier for anyone to contribute.'1

Parekh also worked on mending fences with Engelschall. C2Net began to adopt
some of the mod_SSL code and blend it into their latest version of Stronghold.
control became less centralized. It became more like the Apache group. It's a lot
bigger than it was before and it's much easier for anyone to contribute.”

Parekh also worked on mending fences with Engelschall. C2Net began to adopt
some of the mod.SSL. code and blend it into their latest version of Stronghold.
To make this blending easier, C2Net began sending some of their formerly
proprietary code back to Engelschall so he could mix it with mod.SSL by
releasing it as open source, i n essence, C2Net was averting a disastrous
competition by making nice and sharing with this competitor, it is a surprising
move that might not happen i n regular business.

Parekh’s decision seems open and beneficent, but it has a certain amount of self-
interest behind it. He explains, "We just decided to contribute all of the features
we had into mod_SSL so we could start using mod_SSI. internally, because it
makes our maintenance of that easier. We don't have to maintain our own
proprietary version of mod_5SL. Granted, we've made the public version better,
but those features weren't significant."

This mixing wasn’t particularly complicated-most of it focused on the structure

of the pans of the source code that handle the interface. Programmers call these
the 'hooks” or the "API." I f Stronghold and mod_SSI. use the same hook
structure, then connecting them is a piece of cake. I f Engelschall had changed
the hook structure of mod_SSL, then the C2Net would have had to do more
work.
more. They sucked me in, When I ordered my first Red Hat disk from them, I
bought an extra T-shirt to go with the mix.

The technology folks at Red Hat may be working with some cuttingedge
software that makes the software easy to install, but the marketing group was
stealing its plays from Nike, Pepsi, and Disney. They weren’t selling running
shoes, sugar water, or a ride on a roller coaster -they were selling an experience.
Red Hat wasn't repackaging some hacker s science project from the Net, it was
offering folks a ticket to a revolution. I f the old 1960s radicals had realized this,
they might have been able to fund their movement without borrowing money
from their square parents. Selling enough groovy, tie- died T-shirts would have
been enough. [M3]

[ 13]: Apple is an old hand at the T-shirt game, and internal projects create T-
shins to celebrate milestones in development. These images were collected i n a
book, which may be as good a technical history of Apple as might exist. Many
projects, including ones that failed, are part of the record.

Many of the other groups are part of the game. The OpenBSD project sold out of
their very fashionable T-shirts with wireframe versions of its little daemon logo
book, which may be as good a technical history of Apple as might exist. Many
projects, including ones that failed, are part of the record.

Many of the other groups arc part of the game. The OpenBSD project sold out of
their very fashionable T-shirts with wireframe versions of its little daemon logo
soon after the beginning of the LinuxExpo. They continue to sell more T-shirts
from their website. Users can also buy CD-ROMs from OpenBSD.

Several attendees wear yellow copyleft shirts that hold an upsidedown copyright
logo ( c_Copyleft.png 1 arranged so the open side points to the left.

The most expensive T-shirt ar the show came with a logo that imitated one of the
early marketing images of the first Star Wars movie. The shirt showed Torvalds
and Stallman instead of Han Solo and Luke Sky walker under a banner headline
of "OS Wars." The shirt cost only $100, but "came with free admission to the
upcoming Linux convention in Atlanta."

The corporate suits, of course, have adjusted as best they can. The I B M folks at
the show wore identical khaki outfits with nicely cut and relatively expensive
polo shirts with I B M logos. A regular suit would probably slick out less than the
crisp, clean attempt to split the difference between casual cool and button-down
business droid.

Of course, the T-shirts weren't just about pretty packaging and slick images. The
shirts also conveyed some information about someone's political affiliations i n
be the same GPL.

[7]: Lawyers just watch their clients go to jail.

L SOURCE

Computer programmers love Star Wars. So it should be no surprise that

practically every single member of the free source community has, at one time or
another, rolled out the phrase, "Use the Source, Luke." It does a perfect job of
capturing the mythical faith that the free source world places in the ability to
access the source code to a program. As everyone points out, in the original
version of Star Wars, the rebel troops used the plans, the Source, to the Death
Star carried in R2D2 to look for weaknesses.

The free source realm has been pushing the parallels for some time now; When
AT&T unveiled their round logo with an offset dimple, most free source people
began to snicker, rhe company that began the free software revolution by
pushing its intellectual property rights and annoying Richard Stallman had
chosen a logo that looked just like the Death Star, Everyone said, "Imperialist
The tree source realm has been pushing the parallels tor some time now. When
AT&T unveiled their round logo with an offset dimple, most free source people
began to snicker. The company that began the free software revolution by
pushing its intellectual property rights and annoying Richard Stallman had
chosen a logo that looked just like the Death Star. Everyone said, "Imperialist
minds think alike." Some even wondered and hoped that George Lucas would
sue AT&T for some sort of look-and’feel, trademark infringement. Those who
use the legal intimidation light saber should die by the legal intimidation light
saber.

Of course, the free source folks knew that only their loose coalition of rebels
spread out around the galaxy would be a strong match for the Empire, The
Source was information, and information was power. The Source was also about
freedom, one of the best and most consistent reservoirs o f revolutionary
inspiration around. The rebels might not have teams of lawyers in imperial star
cruisers, but they hoped to use the Source to knit together a strong, effective, and
more powerful resistance.

The myth of open access i o free source code is a powerful one that has made true
believers out of many i n the community. The source code is a list of instructions
for rhe computer written out i n a programming lan guage that is understandable
by humans. Once the compilers converted the source code into the string of bits
known as the binary or object code, only computers (and some very talented
humans) could understand the instructions. I've known several people who could
Both NetBSD and FreeBSD work on security, too. They also watch the change
logs of OpenBSD and note when security holes are fixed. They also discover
their o w n holes, and OpenBSD may use them as an inspiration to plug their o w n
code. The discoveries and plugs go both ways as the groups compete to make a
perfect OS.

K i r k McKusick says, "The NetBSD and the OpenBSD have extremely strong
personalities. Each one is absolutely terrified the other w i l l gain an inch,"

While die three forks of B S D may cooperate more than they compete, the L i n u x
world still likes to look at the BSD world w i t h a b i t of contempt. A l l o f the forks
look somewhat messy, even i f having the freedom to fork is what Stallman and
G N U are ostensibly fighting to achieve. The Linux enthusiasts seem to think,
"We've got our ducks i n a single row. What's your problem? 1' It’s sort of l i k e the
Army mentality. I f it's green, uniform, and the same everywhere, then i t must be
good.

The B S D lacks the monomaniacal cohesion of Linux, and this seems to hurt their
image. The B S D community has always felt that Linux is stealing the limelight
that should be shared at least equally between the groups. L i n u x i s really built
good.

The B S D lacks the monomania cal cohesion of Linux, and this seems to hurt their
image. The BSD community has always fell that Linux is stealing the limelight
that should be shared at least equally between the groups, Linux is really built
around a cull of Linus Torvalds, and that makes great press. It's very easy for the
press to take photos of one man and put him on the cover o I a magazine. It’s
simple, dean, neat, and perfectly amenable to a 30-second sound bite.
Explaining (hat (here's FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and who knows what
smaller versions wailing in the wings just isn't as manageable.

Eric Raymond, a true disciple of Linus Torvalds and Linux, sees it in technical
terms. The BSD community is proud of the fact that each distribution is built out
of one b i g source tree. They get all the source code for all the parts of the kernel,
the utilities, the editors, and whatnot together i n one place. Then they push the
compile button and let people work. This is a crisp, effective, well-managed
approach to the project.

Lhe Linux groups, however, are not that coordinated at all. Torvalds only really
worries about the kernel, which is his baby. Someone else worries about GCC
Everyone comes up with their own source trees for the parts. The distribution
companies like Red Hat worry about gluing the mess together. It's not unusual to
find version 2.0 of the kernel i n one distribution while another is sporting
version 2.2.
and, yes, book writers, must be on someone’s list J A 1 51

115]: The author recommends that you read this on the Stairmaster or a
stationary bike, but only after checking with a registered doctor and consulting
with a licensed exercise specialist who is thoroughly familiar with your medical
history. These medical specialists will be able to tune your workout to provide
the optimal fitness benefits so you can live long enough to get Alzheimer's
disease.

Tree source folks are just as free to share ideas. Many of the rival Linux and
BSD distributions often borrow code from each other. While they compete for
the hearts and minds of buyers, they’re forced by the free source rules to share
the code. I f someone writes one device driver for one platform, it is quickly
modified for another.

The proprietary software world moves slowly in comparison. They keep their
ideas secret and people spend thousands of lawyer years on projects just keeping
the various licenses straight. Code is shared, hut only after lawyers vet the
contracts,
The proprietary software world moves slowly in comparison, They keep their
ideas secret and people spend thousands of lawyer years on projects just keeping
the various licenses straight. Code is shared, but only after lawyers vet the
contracts.

The legal industry is also a good example of how the free sharing of ideas,
techniques, and strategies does not hurt the income of the practitioners, i n fact,
lawyers have managed to carve themselves a very nice slice of the nation's
income. Most are not as rich as the lucky few who beat the tobacco companies,
but they do all right.

21.4 COPYRIGHT, TOOL OF DICTATORS

it would be unfair i o the software industry to portray the rest of society as much
more sharing and giving. Most of the other industries are frantically using the
legal system and any other means necessary to stay ahead of their competitors.
It's just part of doing business.

One of the best examples is content production, which is led by mega-companies

like Disney, In recent years, Hollywood has worked hard to gel copyright laws
changed so that the copyright lasts 95 years instead of 75 years. In 1998,
Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998
(CTEA) that kept works published after 1923 from passing into the public
people mean more bug fixes, which means better software.

Others are not so certain, and this group includes many of the people who are
deeply caught up in the world of open source. Henkel-Wallace, for instance, isn't
so sure that the source code makes much difference when 99 percent of the
people don't program. Sure, Cygnus had great success sharing source code with
the programmers who used GCC, but all of those guys knew how to read the
code. What difference will the source code make to the average user who just
wants to read his e-mail? Someone who can't read the source code isn't going to
contribute much back to the project and certainly isn't going to put much value in
getting it. A proprietary company like Microsoft may be able to maintain a broad
base of loyalty just by offering better hand-holding for the folks who can't
program.

Free software stands at an interesting crossroads as this book is being written. It

won over a few hackers in garages i n the early 1990s. By the mid-1990s,
webmasters embraced it as a perfectly good option. Now everyone wonders
whether it will conquer the desktop in the next century.

I t s always tempting for an author to take the classic T V news gambit and end
won over a few hackers in garages in the early 1990s, By the mid-1990s,
webmasters embraced i t as a perfectly good option. Now everyone wonders
whether i t will conquer the desktop in the next century.

It's always tempting for an author to take the classic TV news gambit and end
the story with the earnest punt phrase, "Whether this w i l l happen remains to be
seen, "That may be the most fair way to approach reporting the news, but it's not
as much fun. I'm going to boldly predict that open source software w i l l w i n the
long-term war against proprietary companies, but it will be a bloody war and it
w i l l be more costly than people expect. Over the next several years, lawyers will
spend hours arguing cases; people will spend lime i n jail; and fortunes w i l l be
lost to the struggle.

While i t seems difficult to believe, some people have already spent time in jail
fortheir part i n the free software revolution. Kevin Mitnick was arrested in 1995
amid accusations that he stole millions i f not billions of dollars' worth of source
code. There was no trial, nor even a bail hearing. Finally, after almost five years
in prison, Mitnick pled guilty to some charges and received a sentence that was
only a few months longer than the lime he served while wailing for a trial.
Mitnick was accused of Stealing millions of dollars from companies by breaking
into computers and stealing copies of their source code.

I n the statement he made following his release, he said, . my crimes were

simple crimes of trespass. I've acknowledged since my arrest i n February 1995
machines to run DNS. Windows 2000 just won't work as well with an old L i n u x
or UNIX box running DNS.

This is a typical strategy for Microsoft and one that is difficult, but not
impossible, for open source projects to thwart. I f the cost o f these new servers is
great enough, some group of managers is going to create its o w n open source
d o n e o f the modified DNS server. This has happened time and time again, but
not always w i t h great success. Linux boxes come w i t h Samba, a program that
lets Linux machines act as file servers. It works well and is widely used. Another
project, WINE, started w i t h the grand design of cloning all of the much more
complicated Windows API used by programmers. I t is a wonderful project, but it
is far from finished. The size and complexity make a big difference.

Despite these tactics, Microsoft (and other proprietary companies) w i l l probably

lose their quest to dominate the standards on the Internet. They can only devote a
few programmers to each monopolistic grab. The free software world has many
programmers willing to undertake projects. The numbers are now great enough
that the doners should be able to handle anything Microsoft sends its way.

The real battles will be political and legal, while the computer world seems to
few programmers to each monopolistic grab. The free software world has many
programmers willing to undertake projects. The numbers arc now great enough
that the doners should be able to handle anything Microsoft sends iis way.

The real battles will be political and legal. While the computer world seems to
move at a high speed with lots of constant turnover, there's plenty of inertia built
into the marketplace. Many people were rather surprised to find that there was
plenty of COBOL, FORTRAN, and other old software happily running along
without any idea of how to store a date with more than two digits. While Y2K
incidents fell far short of the media's hype, the number of systems that required
reprogramming was still much larger than conventional wisdom predicted. IBM
continues to sell mainframes to customers who started buying mainframes in the
1960s. Once people choose one brand or product or computer architecture, they
often stay with i t forever.

This is bad news for the people who expect the free OSs to take over the desktop
i n the next 5 or 10 years. Corporate managers who keep the machines on
people's desktops hate change. Change means reeducation. Change means
installing new software throughout the plant. Change means teaching folks a
new set of commands for running their word processors. Change means work.
People who manage the computer networks in offices get graded on the number
of glitches that stop workflow. Why abandon Microsoft now?

I f Microsoft has such an emotional stranglehold on the desktop and the computer
screen savers, window managers, layout engines, and games for your computer.
So y o u start hanging around with some friends who want similar tilings and die
next thing you know, you've got a group. A group needs leadership, so the alpha
dog emerges. Pretty soon, it all begins to look l i k e a corporate development
team. Well, kind o f .

Many neophytes i n the free software world are often surprised to discover that
most of the best free source code out there comes from teams that look
surprisingly like corporate development groups. While the licenses and the
rhetoric promise the freedom to go your o w n way, groups coalesce for many of
the same reasons that wagon trains and convoys emerge. There’s power i n
numbers. Sometimes these groups even get so serious that they incorporate. The
Apache group recently formed the Apache Foundation, which has the job of
guiding and supporting the development of the Apache web server. It's all very
official looking. For all we know, they’re putting cubicles in the foundation
offices right now.

This instinct to work together is just as powerful a force i n the free software
world as the instinct to grab as much freedom as possible and use i t every day. I f
anything, it’s just an essential feature of human life. The founders of the United
offices right now.

This instinct to work together is just as powerful a force in the free software
world as the instinct to grab as much freedom as possible and use it ever}- day. I f
anything, it’s just an essential feature of human life. The founders o f the United
States of America created an entire constitution without mentioning political
parties, but once they pushed the start button, the parties appeared out of
nowhere.

These parlies also emerged in the world of free source software, when projects
grew larger titan one person could safely handle, they usually evolved into
development teams. The path for each group is somewhat different, and each one
develops Its own particular style. The strength of this organization is often the
most important determinant of the strength of the software because i f the people
can work together well, then die problems i n the software will be well fixed.

The most prevalent form of government i n these communities is the benign

dictatorship. Richard Stallman wrote some of the most important code i n the
G N U pantheon, and he continues to write new code and help maintain the old
software. The world of the Linux kerne] is dominated by Linus Torvalds. The
original founders always seem to hold a strong sway over the group. Most of the
code in the Linux kernel is written by others and checked out by a tight circle of
friends, but Torvalds sill] has the final word on many changes.
The same holds for most of the other programmers. Some contribute source code
because it helps them with their day job. Some stay up all night writing code
because they're obsessed. Some consider it an act o f charity, a kind of noblesse
oblige. Some want to fix bugs that bother them. Some want fame, glory, and the
respect of all other computer programmers. There are thousands o f reasons why
new open source software gets written, and very few o f them have anything to
do w i t h Microsoft,

In fact, it's a bad idea to see the free software revolution as having much to do
with Microsoft. Even i f L i n u x , FreeBSD, and other free software packages win,
Microsoft w i l l probably continue to f l y along quite happily i n much the same
way that I B M continues to thrive even after losing the belt of the Heavyweight
Computing Champion of the World to Microsoft. Anyone who spends his or her
time focused on the image of a ragtag band of ruffians and orphans battling the
Microsoft leviathan is bound to miss the real story.

The fight is really just a by-product o f the coming o f age of the information
business. The computer trade is rapidly maturing and turning into a service
industry. I n the past, the manufacture o f computers and software took place on
assembly linesand i n cubicle farms. People bought shrink-wrapped items from
The fight is really just a by-product of the coming of age of the information
business, The computer trade is rapidly maturing and turning into a service
industry. In the past, the manufacture of computers and software took place on
assembly lines and i n cubicle farms. People bought shrink-wrapped items from
racks. These were items that were manufactured. Now both computers and
software are turning into dirtcheap commodities whose only source of profit is
customization and handhold! ng. The real money now is in service.

Along the way, the free software visionaries stumbled onto a curious fact. They
could give away software, and people would give back improvements to it,
Software cost practically nothing to duplicate, so i t wasn't that hard to just give it
away after i t was written. At first, this was sort of a pseudo-communist thing to
do, but today it seems like a brilliant business decision. I f the software is turning
into a commodity with a price falling toward zero, why not go ail the way and
gain whatever you can by freely sharing the code? The profits could come by
selling services like programming and education. The revolution isn't about
defeating Microsoft; it’s just a change in the whole way the world buys and uses
computers.

The revolution is also the latest episode in the battle between the programmers
and the suits. I n a sense, it's a battle for the hearts and minds of the people who
are smart enough to create software for the world. The programmers want to
write challenging tools that impress their friends. The suits want to rein i n
before the Berlin Wall fell. Stallman reexamined the word "free11 and all of its
different meanings. H e carefully considered all of die different connotations,
examined the alternatives, and decided that "free" was still the best word. H e
began to try to explain the shades o f meaning he was after. H i s revolution was
about ’free speech/' not "free beer." This wasn't going to be a revolution in the
sense that frequent flyer miles revolutionized air travel nor i n die way that
aluminum cans revolutionized beer drinking. No, this wras going to be a
revolution as Rousseau, Locke, and Paine used the word.

H e later codified this into four main principles:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).[ A 6]

[6]: H e numbered them starting at zero because that was what computer
scientists did. Someone figured out that it was simpler to start numbering
databases at zero because y o u didn't have t o subtract 1 as often.

The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1),
databases at zero because you didn't have to subtract 1 as often.

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

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits (freeborn 3).

10.1 FREE BEER

While Stallman pushed people away from the notion o f "free beer," there's little
question that this element turned out to ho a very important part of tho strategy
and a foundation of its success. Stallman insisted that anyone could do what they
wanted with the software, so he insisted tliat die source code must be freely
distributed. That is, no one could pul any restrictions on how you used the
software. While this didn't make it free beer, it did mean that you could turn
around and give a copy to your friends or your clients. It was pretty close.

fhe 'Tree beer” nature of Stallman's software also attracted users, i f some
programmers wanted (0 check out a new tool, they could download it and try it
out without paying for it. They didn't need to ask their boss for a budget, and
way anyways."

Still, Stallman insisted it was a good idea. Debian resisted and said it took up too
much space and raised duplication costs. Eventually, the debate ended as the
Debian group went their own way. Although Stallman paid Murdock and wrote
much of the GNU code on the disk, the GPL prevented him from doing much.
The project continued. The source code lived on. And the Debian disks kept
shipping. Stallman was no longer titular leader of Debian.

The rift between the group has largely healed. Perens now praises Stallman and
says that the two of them are still very close philosophically on the most
important issues in the free software world. Stallman, for his part, uses Debian
on his machines because he feels the closest kinship with it.

Perens says, ’’Richard's actually grown up a lot in the last few years, He’s learned
a lot more about what to do to a volunteer because obviously we re free to walk
away at any time."

Stallman himself remembers the argument rather eloquently. "The fact is, i
wanted to influence them, but I did not want to force them. Forcing them would
a lot more about what to do to a volunteer because obviously we're free to walk
away at any time."

Stallman himself remembers the argument rather eloquently."The fact is, I

wanted to influence them, but 1 did not want to force them. Forcing them would
go against my moral beliefs. I believe that people are entitled i o freedom in these
matters, which means that 1 cannot tell them what to do hn he told me, " I wrote
the GPL to give everyone freedom from domination by authors of software, and
that includes me on both sides,”

There's much debate over the best way to be a benign dictator, Eric Raymond
and many others feel that Torvalds's greatest claim to success was creating a
good development model. Ton ralds released new versions of his kernel often and
he tried to share the news about the development as openly as possible, Most of
this news travels through a mailing list that is open to all and archived on a
website. The mailing list is sort of like a perpetual congress where people debate
the technical issues behind the latest changes to the kernel. It's often much better
than the real United States Congress because the debate floor is open to all and
there are no glaring special interests who try to steer the debate in their direction.
After some period of debate, eventually Torvalds makes a decision and this
becomes final. Usually he doesn't need to do anything, The answer is pretty
obvious to everyone who's followed the discussion.

This army is a diverse bunch. A t a recent Linux conference, Jeff Bates, one of
The G N U project grew by accepting contributions from many folks across the
country. Some were fairly sophisticated, eye-catching programs like G N U
Chess, a program that was quite competitive and as good as all but the best
packages. Most were simple tools for handling many of the day-to-day chores
for running a computer system. System administrators, students, and
programmers from around the country would often take on small jobs because
they felt compelled to fix something. When they were done, a few would kick
the source code over to the GNU project,

Stallman's biggest programming project for GNU during the 1980s was writing
the G N U C compiler (GCC). This program was an important tool that converted
the C source code written by humans into the machine code understood by
computers. The G C C package was an important cornerstone for the G N U project
i n several ways. First, it was one of the best compilers around. Second, it could
easily move from machine to machine. Stallman personally ported it to several
different b i g platforms Like Intel's x86 line o f processors. Third, the package was
free, which i n the case of G N U software meant that anyone was free to use and
modify the software.

The GCC provided an important harmonizing effect to the GNU project.

different b i g platforms like Inters x86 line of processors. Third, the package was
free, which in the case of G N U software meant that anyone was free to use and
modify the software.

The GCC provided an important harmonizing effect to the GNU project.

Someone could write his program on a machine built by Digital compile it with
GCC, and be fairly certain that it would run on all other machines with GCC,
That allowed the G N U software to migrate freely throughout the world, from
machine to machine, from Sun to Apo]Io to DEC to intel.

The GCCs license also attracted many developers and curious engineers.
Anyone could use the source code for their projects, and many did. Over time,
the compiler moved from machine to machine as users converted it. Sometimes
a chip company engineer would rework the compiler to make it work on a new
chip. Sometimes a user would do it for a project. Sometimes a student would do
it when insomnia struck. Somehow, it moved from machine to machine, and it
carried all of the odier G N U software with it.

The next great leap forward came in the early 1990s as people began to realize
that a completely free operating system was a serious possibility, Stallman had
always dreamed of replacing UNIX with something that was just as good and
accompanied by the source code, but it was a large task. I t was the reason he
started the G N U project. Slowly but surely, the G N U project was assembling the
parts to make it work. There were hundreds of small utilities and bigger tools
curtail PGP, the patent held by RSA wasn't filed abroad due to different
regulations. Foreigners could use the software without care, and many did. This
was the sort of nightmare that worried the parts of the U.S. intelligence-
gathering branch that relied upon wholesale eavesdropping.

Eventually, the criminal investigation amounted to nothing. N o indictments were

announced. N o trials began. Soon after the investigation ended, Zimmerman
helped form a company to create commercial versions of PGR While the free
versions continue to be available today and are i n widespread use among
individuals, companies often turn to PGP for commercial products that come
with a license from PKP. When the RSA patent expires in September 2000, the
people will be free to use PGP again .[*1 6]

[ 16]: The GNU project has already wrorked around many of these impediments.
Their Privacy Guard package (GNU PG) is released under the GNU license.

Zimmerman's experiences show how free source code turned into a real thorn in
the side of (he U.S. government. Businesses can be bought or at least leaned on.
Merchandise needs to flow through stores and stores have to obey the law. Red
tape can ruin everything. But free software that floats like dandelion seeds can't
Zimmerman's experiences show how free source code turned into a real thorn in
the side of the U.S. government. Businesses can be bought or at least leaned on.
Merchandise needs to flow through stores and stores have to obey the law. Red
tape can ruin everything. But free software that floats like dandelion seeds can't
be controlled. People can give it to each other and i t flows like speech. Suddenly
it's not a product that's being regulated, but the free exchange of ideas between
people, ideas that just happen to be crystallized as a computer program.

Of course, a bureaucracy has never met something it couldn't regulate, or al least

something it couldn't try to regulate. Zimmerman's experience may have proved
to some that governments are just speed bumps on the infobahn of the future, but
others saw i t as a challenge. Until the end of 1999, the U.S. government has tried
to tighten up the restrictions on open source versions of encryption technology
floating around the world. The problem was that many countries around the
globe explicitly exempt open source software from the restrictions, and the
United States has lobbied to tighten these loopholes.

The best place to begin this story may be in the trenches where system
administrators for the U.S. government try to keep out hackers. Theo de Raadt,
the leader of the OpenBSD team, likes to brag that the U.S. government uses
Open BSD on its secure internal network. The system designers probably made
that choice because OpenBSD has been thoroughly audited for security holes
and hugs by both the OpenBSD team and the world at large. They want the best
This love also has a more traditional effect on the hackers who create the free
source code. They do i t because they love what they're doing. Many of the
people i n the free source movement are motivated by writing great software, and
they judge their success by the recognition they get from equally talented peers.
A "nice job'1 from the right person-like Richard Stallman, A l a n Cox, or Linus
Torvalds-can be worth more than $100,000 for some folks. It's a strange way to
keep score, but for most o f the programmers i n the free source world it's more of
a challenge than money. Any schmoe i n Silicon Valley can make a couple o f
million dollars, but only a few select folks can rewrite the network interface code
o f the L i n u x kernel to improve the throughput o f the Apache server by 20
percent.

Keeping score by counting the number of people who dig your work is a strange
system, but one that offers the same incentives as business. A good store doesn't
insult people who could bo repeat customers. A good free software project
doesn’t insult people who have a choice of which package to use. A good
businessman makes it easy for people to get to the store, park, and make a
purchase. A good free software project makes it simple for people to download
the code, compile it, modify i t , understand it, and use it.
doesn’t insult people who have a choice of which package to use. A good
businessman makes it easy for people to get to rhe store, park, and make a
purchase. A good free software project makes it simple for people to download
the code, compile it, modify it, understand it, and use it.

There's even some research to support the notion that rewards can diminish the
creativity of people. Stallman likes to circulate a 1997 article from the Boston
Globe that describes a number of different scientific experiments that show how
people who get paid are less creative than those who produce things from their
love of the an. rhe studies evaluated the success of poets, artists, and teachers
who did their job for the fun of it and compared it with those who were rewarded
fortheir efforts. In many cases, these were short-bounded exercises that could be
evaluated fairly easily.

One scientist, Theresa Amabile, told the Globe that her work "definitely refutes
the notion that creativity can be operantly conditioned.1' That is, you can't turn it
on by just pouring some money on it. Many free software folks point out that
this is why the free source movement is just as likely to succeed as a massively
funded corporate juggernaut.

Many people don't need scientists to tell them that you can't throw money at
many problems and expect them to go away. This is a hard lesson that managers
and businesses learn quickly. But this doesn't mean that the lack of money means
that the free source movement w i l l beat the thousands of shackled programmers
Release 2 license they got from Berkeley. They bought all but six of the files
from Berkeley, and Berkeley claimed that all of the source code was theirs to
sell. BSD1 wrote (he missing six files themselves and they were quite sure that
they got no help from AT&T or U S L . Therefore, BSD1 didn't steal anything. I f
AT&T thought i t was stolen, they should take it u p with Berkeley. The judge
bought ESDI's argument and narrowed the case to focus on the six files.

This was a crucial moment i n the development of the free software movement
and its various kernels. AT&T found itself cornered. Backing down meant giving
up its claim to U N I X and the wonderful stream of license fees that kept pouring
in. Pressing ahead meant suing the University of California, its old friend,
partner, and author of lots of U N I X code. Eventually, the forces of greed and
omnipotent corporate power won out and AT&T's USL filed a lawsuit naming
both BSD1 and the University o f California.

Taking sides in this case was pretty easy for most folks in die academic and free
software world. The CSRG at Berkeley did research. They published things.
University research was supposed to be open and freely distributed. AT&T was
trying to steal the work o f hundreds i f not thousands of students, researchers,
Drofessors. and others. That wasn’t fair.
Taking sides in this case was pretty easy for most folks i n the academic and free
software world. The CSRG at Berkeley did research. They published things.
University research was supposed to be open and freely distributed. AT&T was
trying to steal the work of hundreds i f not thousands of students, researchers,
professors, and others. That wasn't fair.

I n reality, AT&T did pay something for what they got. They sent their employees
to Berkeley to get master's degrees, they shared the original Versions 5, 6, and 7
and 32/V source code, and they even sent some hardware to the computer
science department. The original creators of U N I X lived and worked at Bell
Labs drawing AT&T paychecks. Berkeley students got summer jobs at AT&T.
There wasn't an official quid- pro-quo. It wasn't very well spelled out, but AT&T
was paying something.

Some folks on AT&T’s side might even want to paint the CSRG at Berkeley as
filled with academic freeloaders who worked hard to weasel money out of the
big corporations without considering the implications. The folks at Berkeley
should have known that AT&T was going to want something for its
contributions. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

There's something to this argument because running a high-rent research project

at a top-notch school requires a fair amount of guile and marketing
sophistication. By the 1990s, the top universities had become very good at
making vague, unofficial promises with their pleas for corporate gifts. This sort
competitors. Maybe Microsoft was right.

3.1 SLEEPING IN

While Microsoft focused its eyes and ears upon Washington, one of its biggest
competitors was sleeping late. When Richard Schmaiensee was prepping to take
the stand i n Washington, D C . , to defend Microsoft's outrageous fortune against
the slings and arrows of a government inquisition, Alan Cox was still sleeping
in. H e didn't get up until 2:00 P M . at his home i n Swansea on the south coast of
Wales. This isn't too odd for him. H i s wife, Telsa, grouses frequently that it's
impossible to get him moving each morning without a dose o f Jolt Cola, the kind
that's overloaded with caffeine.

The night before, Cox and his wife went to see The Mask of Zorro, the latest
movie that describes how Don Diego de la Vega assumed the secret identity o f
Zorro to free the Mexican people from the tyranny of D o n Rafael Montero. In
this version, Don Diego, played by Anthony Hopkins, chooses an orphan,
Alejandro Murrieta, played by Antonio Banderas, and teaches him to be the next
 i ne mgnt nerore, cox and nis wire went to see 1ne Mask of zorro, tne latest
movie that describes how Don Diego de la Vega assumed the secret identity o f
Zorro to free the Mexican people from the tyranny of Don Rafael Montero, I n
this version, Don Diego, played by Anthony Hopkins, chooses an orphan,
Alejandro Murrieta, played by Antonio Banderas, and teaches him to be the next
Zorro so the fight can continue. Its theme resonates with writers of open source
software: a small band of talented, passionate warriors warding off the evil
oppressor.

Cox keeps an open diary and posts the entries on the web. "It's a nice looking
film, with some great stunts and character play,1’ he wrote, but

You could, however, have fitted the plot, including all the twists, on the back of a
matchbox. That made i t feel a bit ponderous so it only got a 6 out of 10 even
though I’m feeling extremely smug because I spotted one of the errors in the film
while watching it not by consulting imdb later.

By the imdb, he meant the Internet Movie Database, wrhich is one of the most
complete listings of film credits, summaries, and glitches available on the Net.
Users on the Internet write i n with their own reviews and plot synopses, which
the database dutifully catalogs and makes available to everyone. It's a reference
book with thousands of authors.

I n this case, the big glitch in the film is the fact that one of the train gauges uses
the metric system. Mexico convened to this system in 1860, but the film is set in
back to these students and the taxpayers who had paid for their work. While it is
impossible to go back and audit the motives of everyone who used die code,
there have been many who've used BS Dstyle code for their personal gain.

Bill Joy, for instance, went to work at Sun Microsystems in 1982 and brought
with him all the knowledge he had gained in developing BSD. Sun was always a
very BSD-centered shop, and many of the people who bought Sun workstations
ran BSD. At that time, AT&T still controlled much of the kernel and many of the
small extra programs that made U N I X a usable system.

But there are counter arguments as well. Joy certainly contributed a lot to the
different versions of BSD. I f anyone deserves to go off and get rich at a company
like Sun, it's he.

Also, the BSD source code was freely available to all comers, and all companies
started with the same advantages. The software business is often considered to
be one of the most free marketplaces around because of the low barriers to entry.
This means that companies should only be able to charge for the value they add
to the BSD code. Sure, all of the Internet was influenced by the TCP/IP code, but
now Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Be, and everyone else compete on the quality of
started with the same advantages. The software business is often considered to
be one of the most free marketplaces around because of the low barriers to entry.
This means that companies shoo id only be able to chai'ge for the value they add
to the BSD code. Sure, all o f the internet was influenced by the TCP/IP code, but
now Microsoft, Apple, IBM. Be, and everyone else compete on the quality of
their interface.

10.6 THE PRICE OF TOTAL FREEDOM

The debate between BSD-sly le freedom and GNU-style freedom is one of the
greatest i n the free programming world and is bound to continue for a long time
as programmers join sides and experiment.

John Gilmore is one programmer who has worked with software developed
under both types of licenses. He was employee number five at Sun
Microsystems, a cofounder of the software development tool company Cygnus
Solutions, and one of the board members of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
His early work at Sun gave him the wealth to pursue many independent projects,
and he has spent the last 10 years devoting himself to making it easy for people
around the world to use encryption software. He feels that privacy is a
fundamental right arid an important crim? deterrent, and he has funded a number
of different projects to advance this right.
While the Linux and G N U worlds are dominated by their one great Sun K i n g ,
many other open source projects have adopted a more modern government
structure that is more like Debian. The groups are still fairly ad hoc and
unofficial, but they are more democratic. There's less idolatry and less
dependence on one person.

The Debian group is a good example of a very loose-knit structure w i t h less

reliance on the centra] leader. I n the beginning, Ian Murdock started the
distribution and did much of the coordination. In time, the mailing list grew and
attracted other developers like Bruce Perens. As Murdock grew busier, he started
handing off work to others. Eventually, he handed off central control to Perens,
who slowly delegated more of the control until there was no key maintainer left.
I f someone dies in a bus crash, the group w i l l live on.

Now a large group of people act as maintainers for the different packages.
Anyone who wants to work on the project can take responsibility for a particular
package. This might be a small tool l i k e a game or a bigger tool like the C
compiler. In most cases, the maintainer isn't the author of the software or even a
hard-core programmer. The maintainer’s job is to make sure that the particular
Dackase continues to work w i t h all the rest. In many cases, this is a pretty easy
Anyone who wants to work on the project can take responsibility for a particular
package. Ulis might be a small tool like a game or a bigger tool like the C
compiler. I n most cases, the maintainer isn't the author of the software or even a
hard-core programmer, The maintainer's job is to make sore that the particular
package continues to work with al! the rest. I n many cases, this is a pretty easy
job. Most changes i n the system don't affect simple programs. But in some oases
it's a real challenge and the maintainer must act as a liaison between Debian and
the original programmer. Sometimes the maintainers fix the bugs themselves.
Sometimes they just report them. But in either case, the maintainer most make
sure that the code works.

Every once and a bit, Debian takes the latest stable kernel from Torvalds's team
and mixes it together with ail of the other packages. The maintainers check out
their packages and when everything works well, Debian presses another CD-
ROM and places the pile of code on the net. This is a stable ’'freeze1' that the
Debian group does to make sure they've got a stable platform that people can
always turn to.

"Making a whole OS with just a crew of volunteers and no money is a pretty big
achievement, You can never discount that. It's easy for Red Hat to do it. They're
all getting paid. The fact is that Debian makes a good system and still continues
to do so. I don't think that there 1ve been that many unpaid, collaborative projects
that complex before,1' says Perens.
solved with a two-position light switch, This problem can be seen throughout the
industry. One computer tutor told me, " I a m so tired o f telling people to shut
dow n their computers by pushing the ’Start' button." Microsoft Windows places
a l l o f the features on a menu tree that grows out o f one button labeled "Start."
This may have been a great way to capture the potential to do new things that
they felt they were selling, but i t continues to be confusing to al] new users o f
the machines. Why should they push start to stop it?

The quest for this Source-level control can take many strange turns. By the
middle o f the 1980s, programmers at Apple realized that they had gone a bit too
far when they simplified the Mac's interface. The visual language of pointing
and clicking at icons may have been great for new users, but it was beginning to
thwart sophisticated users who wanted to automate what they did. Many
graphics designers would find themselves repeatedly doing the same steps to
image files, and it was boring. They wondered, why couldn't the computer just
repeat all their instructions and save them all that pointing and clicking?

In a sense, the sophisticated M a c users were looking for the Source. They
wanted to be able to write and modify simple programs that controlled their
software. The problem was that die graphical display o n the M a c wasn't reallv
repeal all (heir instructions and save them all that pointing and clicking?

hi a sense, the sophisticated Mac users were looking for the Source. They
wanted to be able to write and modify simple programs that controlled their
software. The problem was that the graphical display on the Mac wasn't really
suited to the task. How do you describe moving the mouse and clicking on a
button? How do you come up with a language that means "cut out this sample
and paste it over here"? The actions were so visual that there weren't any words
or language to describe them.

This problem confounded Apple for the next 10 years, and the company is
slowly finishing its solution, known as AppleScript, The task has not been
simple, but it has been rewarding for many who use their Macintoshes as
important chains in data production lines. Apple included instructions for
moving icons to locations, uploading files, changing the color of icons, and
starting up programs with others.

The nicest extension was a trick that made the AppleScript "recordable/1 That is,
you could turn on a recorder before stepping through the different jobs, rhe Mac
would keep track of your actions and generate a program that would allow you
to repeat what you were doing. Still, the results wrere far from simple to
understand or use. Here's a simple snippet of AppleScript code that w i l l select all
files i n one directory with the word "Speckle" i n their title and open (hem up
with another application:
he worked at Bell Labs and fell in love with the OS.

A i the meeting, Torvalds helped Hall and his boss set up a PC with Linux. This
was the first time that Hall actually saw Linux run, and he was pleasantly
surprised. He said, "By that time I had been using U N I X for probably about
fifteen years. I had used System V, 1 had used Berkeley, and all sorts of stuff, and
this really felt like UNIX, You know. „ I mean, it's kind of like playing the piano.
You can play the piano, even i f it’s a crappy piano. But when it’s a really good
piano, your fingers just fly over the keys. That's the way this felt, i t felt good,
and I was really impressed.''

This experience turned Hall into a true convert and he went back to Digital
convinced that rhe Linux project was more than just some kids playing with a
toy OS. These so-called amateurs with no centralized system or corporate
backing had produced a very, very impressive system that was almost as good as
the big commercial systems. Hall was an instant devotee. Many involved in the
project recall their day of conversion with the same strength. A bolt of lightning
peeled the haze away from their eyes, and they saw.

Hall set out trying to get Torvalds to rewrite Linux so it would work well on the
the big commercial systems. Hall was an instant devotee. Many involved in the
project recall then day of conversion with the same strength. A holt of lightning
peeled the haze away from their eyes, and they saw.

H a l l set out trying to get Torvalds to rewrite Linux so it would work well on the
Alpha. This was not a simple task, but it was one that helped the operating
system grow a bit more. The original version included some software that
assumed the computer was designed like the Intel 386. This was fine when
Linux only ran on Intel machines, but removing these assumptions made it
possible for the software to run well on all types of machines.

Hall went sailing with Torvalds to talk about the guts of the Linux OS. Hall told
me, "1 took him out on the Mississippi River, went up and down the Mississippi
i n the river boat, drinking Hurricanes, and 1 said to him, 'Linus, did you ever
think about porting Linux to a 64-bit processor, like the Alpha?’ He said, 'Well, 1
thought about doing that, but the Helsinki office has been having problems
getting me a system, so I guess I'll have to do the PowerPC instead.'

"1 knew that was the wrong answer, so I came back to Digital (at the time), and
got a friend of mine, named B i l l Jackson, to send out a system to Linus, and he
received i t about a couple weeks after that. Then I found some people inside
Digital who were also thinking about porting Linux to an Alpha. 1 got the two
groups together, and after that, we started on the Alpha Linux project.1’
United States use their perception of the "economy" as a measure of how well
the government is doing. B u t many of their attempts to use numbers to measure
wealth and prosperity are doomed to failure. One year, the economists seem to
be frantically battling deflation, then they turn around and rattle on and o n about
inflation. They gave up trying to measure the money supply to follow inflation
and seem, at times, to be flying the economy by the seat o f their pants. O f
course, they're not really in charge. One minute you can1t have growth without
inflation. The next minute you can. It's all a b i t l i k e ancient days of tribal l i v i n g
when the high priest was responsible fordreaming up reasons why the volcano
d i d or did not erupt, Some days the money supply smiles upon us, and on other
days, she is very, very angry.

Wealth i n the free software world is an even slippier concept. There’s not even
any currency to use to keep score. Let’s say we wanted to know or at least
guesstimate whether the free source world was wealthy. That's not too hard.
Most of the guys hacking the code just want to drink caffeinated beverages, play
cool games, and write more code. The endless stream of faster and faster
computer boxes makes this as close to a perfect world as there could be. To
make matters better, new T-shirts with clever slogans keep appearing. It’s a nerd
ntnnh Tt\ Rhaneri-I.a for fnlk«; who die romnntprq
Most of the guys hacking the code just want to drink caffeinated beverages, play
cool games, and write more code. The endless stream of faster and faster
computer boxes makes this as close to a perfect world as there could be. To
make matters belter, new T-shirts with clever slogans keep appearing. It's a nerd
utopia. It's Shangri-La for folks who dig computers.

Of course, deciding whether or not someone is wealthy is not really an

interesting question of economics. It's more about self-esteem and happiness.
Someone who has simple needs can feel pretty wealthy i n a shack. Spoiled kids
w i l l never he happy no matter how big their palace. There are plenty of content
people i n the free software world, but there are also a few who won't be happy
until they have source code to a huge, wonderful, bug-free OS with the most
features on the planet. They want total world domination.

A more intriguing question is whether the free source world is wealthier than the
proprietary source world. This starts to get tricky because it puts Apples up
against oranges and tries to make complicated comparisons. B i l l Gates is
incredibly wealthy i n many senses of the word. He’s got billions of dollars, a
huge house, dozens of cars, servants, toys, and who knows what else. Even his
employees have their own private jets. A l l of the trappings ot wealth are there.
Linus Torvalds, on the other hand, says he's pretty happy with about $100,000 a
year, although several IPOs will probably leave him well off. Microsoft has
thousands of programmers who are paid well to write millions of lines of code a
year. Most open source programmers aren't paid much to create what they do. I f
money were a good measure, then the proprietary source world would win
hands-down.

But money is the answer only i f you want piles o f paper with pictures o f famous
Americans on them. Several countries i n Latin America generate huge piles of
money from drugs, oil, and other natural resources, but the countries remain
quite poor, The leaders who end up with most of the money might like the huge
disparity, but it has very distinct limitations. When it comes time for college or
medical care, the very rich start flying up to the United States. Johns Hopkins, a
hospital i n Baltimore near where I live, provides wonderful medical service to
the poor who live i n the surrounding neighborhood. It also has a special w i n g
with plush suites for rich people who fly i n for medical treatment, Many are
potentates and high government officials from poor countries around the world.

People i n the United States can enjoy the synergies of living near other well-
educated, creative, empowered, and engaged citizens. People in poor societies
can't assume that someone else w i l l design great roads, build airlines, create cool
coffee shops, invent new drugs, or do anything except get by o n the few scraps
that slip through the cracks to the great unwashed poor. The ultrarich i n Latin
America mav think they’re eettine a great deal b v erabbine all the Die. until thev
educated, creative, empowered, and engaged citizens. People in poor societies
can't assume that someone else will design great roads, build airlines, create cool
coffee shops, invent new drugs, or do anything except get by on the few scraps
that slip through the cracks to the great unwashed poor. The ultra rich in Latin
America may think they're getting a great deal by grabbing all the pie, until they
get sick, Then they turn around and fly to hospitals like Johns Hopkins, a place
where the poor of Baltimore also enjoy quite similar treatment. Wealth is
something very different from cash.

Most folks i n the free source world may not have big bank accounts. Those are
just numbers in a computer anyway, and everyone who can program knows how
easy it is to fill a computer with numbers. But the free source world has good
software and the source code that goes along with it. How many times a day
must B i l l Gales look at the blue screen of death that splashes across a Windows
computer monitor when the Windows software crashes? How many times does
Torvalds watch Linux crash? Who's better off? Who's wealthier?

The question might be asked, "Is your software better than it was four years
ago?" That is, docs your software do a better job of fetching the mail, moving
the data, processing th? words, or spreading the sheets? Is it more intuitive, more
powerful, more stable, more featurerich, more interesting, more expressive, or
just better?

The answers to these questions can’t be measured like money. There's no

that Microsoft was worried about the growth of Linux, The system had been on
the company's radar screen for some time, i n October 1998, an internal memo
from Microsoft describing the threat made its way to the press. Some thought i t
was just Microsoft's way of currying favor during the antitrust investigation.
Others thought it was a serious treatment of a topic that was difficult for the
company to understand.

The media followed Schmalensee's lead. Everyone wanted to know about Linux,
G N U , open source software, and the magical effects o f widespread,
unconditional sharing. The questions came i n tidal waves, and Torvalds tried to
answer them again and again. Was he sorry he gave i t all away? No, I f he
charged anything, no one would have bought his toy and no one would have
contributed anything. Was he a communist? No, he was rather apolitical. Don't
programmers have to eat? Yes, but they will make their money selling a service
instead of getting rich o f f bad proprietary code. Was Linux going to overtake
Microsoft? Yes, i f he had his way. World Domination Soon became the motto.

But there were also difficult questions. H o w would the Linux world resist the
embrace of big companies l i k e I B M , Apple, Hewlett-Packard, and maybe even
Microsoft? These were massive companies with paid programmers and
Microsoft? Yes, i f he had his way. World Domination Soon became the motto.

But there were also difficult questions, How would the Linux world resist the
embrace of big companies like I B M , Apple, Hewlett-Packard, and maybe even
Microsoft? These were massive companies with paid programmers and
schedules to meet. A l l the open source software was just as free to them as
anyone else. Would these companies use their strength to monopolize Linux?

Some were worried that the money would tear apart the open source community.
I t s easy to get everyone to donate their time to a project when no one is getting
paid. Money changes the equation. Would a gulf develop between die rich
companies like Red Hat and the poor programmers who just gave away their
hai'd work?

Many wanted to know when Linux would become easier to use for
non programmers. Programmers built the OS to be easy to take apart and put
back together again. That's a great feature i f you like hacking the inside of a
kernel, but that doesn't excite the average computer user. How was the open
source community going to get the programmers to donate their time to fix the
mundane, everyday glitches that confused and infuriated the non programmers?
Was the Linux community going to be able to produce something that a
nonprogrammer could even understand?

Others wondered i f the Linux world could ever agree enough to create a
elevated the focus on security and cryptography to the highest level. I n the
corporate world, it's l i k e taking tlie leader of the development team responsible
for security and promoting h i m from senior manager to senior executive vice
president o f a separate division. The autonomy also gave the OpenBSD team the
ability to make bold technical decisions for their o w n reasons. I f they saw a
potential security problem that might hurt usability or portability, the OpenBSD
team could make the change without worrying chat other team members would
complain. OpenBSD was about security. I f you wanted to work on portability, go
to NetBSD. I f you cared about ease-of-use on Intel boxes, go to FreeBSD.
Creating a separate OpenBSD world made it possible to give security a strong
focus.

18.4 TEMPORARY FORKS

It's a mistake to see these forks as absolute splits that never intermingle again.
W h i l e NetBSD and OpenBSD continue to glower at each other across the
internet ether, the groups share code frequently because the licenses prevent one
group from freezing out another.
It's a mistake to see these forks as absolute splits that never intermingle again.
While NetBSD and Open B S D continue to glower at each other across the
Internet ether the groups share code frequently because the licenses prevent one
group from freezing out another.

Jason Wright, one of the OpenRSD developers, says, "We do watch each other’s
source trees. One of the things I do for fun is take drivers out of FreeBSD and
port them to OpenBSD. Then we have support for a new piece of hardware/'

He says he often looks for drivers written by BUI Paul, because "I’ve gotten used
to his style. So I know what to change when I receive his code. I can do it in
about five to six hours. That is, at least a rough port to test if it works."

Still, the work is not always simple. He says some device drivers are much
harder to handle because both groups have taken different approaches to the
problem. "SCSI drivers are harder," he says. "There's been some divergence in
the layering for SCSI. They're using something called C A M . We’ve got an older
implementation that we’ve stuck to." That is, the FreeBSD has reworked the
structure of the way that the SCSI information is shipped to the pails of the
system asking for information. The OpenBSD hasn't adopted their changes,
perhaps because of security reasons or perhaps because of inertia or perhaps
because no one has gotten around to thinking about it. The intermingling isn't
perfect.
(403/531-3131). Unfortunately, he reports that they don't take foreign credit card
numbers anymore.

He even manages to come up with strong opinions about simple things that he
ostensibly loves. Mountain biking is a big obsession, but, he says, "1 like mud
and despise ’wooded back-alleys1 (what most people call Jogging roads)." That’s
not the best way to make friends with less extreme folks who enjoy a Sunday
ride down logging roads.

I f you like cats, don't read what he had to say about his pets: "1 own cats. Their
names are Galileo and Ke pier- they 're still kittens. Kep]er-the little bitch-can
apparently teleport through walls. Galileo is a rather cool monster. When they
become full-grown cats I will make stew & soup out of them. (Kepler is only
good for soup)."

Throwaway comments like this have strange effects on the Net, where text is the
only way people can communicate. There are no facial gestures or tonal dues to
teh people someone is joking around, and some people don't have well-
developed scanners for irony or sarcasm. Some love the sniping and baiting,
while others just get annoyed. They can't let snide comments slide off their back.
Throwaway comments like this have strange effects on the Net, where text is the
only way people can communicate. There are no facial gestures or tonal clues to
tell people someone is joking around, and some people don't have well-
developed scanners for irony or sarcasm. Some love the sniping and baiting,
while others just get annoyed. They can't let snide comments slide off their back.
Eventually, the good gentlefolk who feel that personal kindness and politeness
should still count for something i n this world ger annoyed anti start trying to do
something.

It's easy to see how this affected the NetBSD folks, who conduct their business
i n a much more proper way. Charles Han num, for instance, refused to talk to me
about the schism unless I promised that he would be able to review1 the parts of
the book that mentioned NetBSD. He also suggested that forks weren't
particularly interesting and shouldn't be part of the book, Others begged off the
questions with more polite letters saying that the split happened a long time ago
and wasn't worth talking about anymore. Some pointed out that most of the
members of the current NetBSD team weren’t even around when the split
happened.

While their silence may be quite prudent and a better way to spend a life, it
certainly didn't help me get both sides of the story. I pointed out that they
wouldn't accept code into the NetBSD tree i f the author demanded the right to
review the final distribution. I said they could issue a statement or conduct the
interview by e-mail. One argued that there was no great problem i f a few
i n general I think that to try1 to o w n knowledge, to try to control whether people
are allowed to use it, or to try to stop otlier people from sharing it, is sabotage. Il
is an activity that benefits the person that does i t at the cost o f impoverishing ah
o f society. One person gains one dollar by destroying two dollars' worth of
wealth.

N o one knows what l i f e online w i l l look like i n 5 or 10 years. It w i l l certainly

include web pages and e-mail, but no one knows who w i l l pay how much. The
cost structures and the willingness to pay haven't been sorted out. Some
companies are giving away some products so they can make money with others.
Many are frantically giving away everything i n the hope of attracting enough
eyeballs to eventually make some money.

The proprietary model rewards risk- takers and gives the smallest, fastest
programmers a pile of capital they can use to play the game again. It rewards the
ones who satisfy our needs and gives them cash they can use to build newer and
bigger models. The distribution of power is pretty meritocratic, although it can
break down when monopolies are involved.

But the open source solution certainly provides good software to everyone who
ones who satisfy our needs and gives them cash they can use to build newer and
bigger models. The distribution of power is pretty meritocratic, although it can
break down when monopolies are involved.

But die open source solution certainly provides good software to everyone who
wants to bother to tiy to use it. The free price goes a long way to spreading its
bounty to a wide variety of people. No one is excluded and no one is locked out
of contributing to (he commonweal because they don't have (lie right pedigree,
education, racial heritage, or hair color. Openness is a powerful tool

Richard Stallman told me, "Why do you keep talking about 'capital'? None of
this has anything to do with capital. Linus didn't need capital to develop a kernel,
he just wrote it. We used money to hire hackers to work on the kernel, but
describing that as capital is misleading.

"The reason why free software is such a good idea is that developing software
does not really need a lot of money. I f we cannot 'raise capital' the way the
proprietary software companies do, that is not really a problem.

"We do develop a lot of free software. I f a theory says we can’t, you have to look
for the flaws i n the theory. "

One of the best ways to illustrate this conundrum is to look at the experiences of
the workers at Hotmail after they were acquired by Microsoft. Sure, many of
them were overjoyed to receive so much for their share in an organization. Many
they didn't need to figure out a way to deal with an invoice. Just one click and
the software was there. Commercial software companies continue to imitate this
feature by distributing trial versions that come with either a few crippled features
or a time lock that shuts them down after a few days.

Of course, the "free beer" nature of the GNU project soon led to money
problems, The G N U project took up his time and generated no real revenues at
first. Stallman had always lived frugally. He says that he never made more than
$20,000 a year at MIT, and still managed to save on that salary. But he was
finding i t harder and harder to get his assigned jobs done at MIT and write the
cool G N U code. While Stallman always supported a programmer's right to make
money for writing code, the GNU project wasn't generating any money.

Most folks saw this conflict coming from the beginning. Sure, Stallman would
be able to rant and rave about corporate software development for a bit, but
eventually he and his disciples would need to eat.

When the MIT support ended, Stallman soon stumbled upon a surprising fact: he
could charge for the software he was giving away and make some money. People
loved his software, but it was often hard to keep track of it. Getting the package
eventually he and his disciples would need to eat.

When the MIT support ended, Stallman soon stumbled upon a surprising fact: he
could charge for the software he was giving away and make some money. People
loved his software, but it was often hard to keep track of it, Getting the package
delivered on computer tape or a CD-ROM gave people a hard copy that they
could store for future reference or backup. Online manuals were also nice, hut
the printed book is still a very popular and easy-to-use way of storing
information. Stallman's Free Software Foundation began selling printed manuals,
tapes, and then CD-ROMs filled with software to make money. Surprisingly,
people started paying money for these versions despite the fact that they could
download the same versions for free.

Some folks enjoyed pointing out the hypocrisy in Stallman's move. Stallman had
run his mouth for so long that many programming ''sellouts" who worked for
corporations savored the irony. A t last that weenie had gotten the picture. He was
forced to make money to support himself, and he was selling out, too. These
cynics didn't get what Stallman was trying to do.

Most of us would have given up at this time. The free software thing seemed like
a good idea, but now that the money was running out i t was time to get a real
job. I n writing this book and interviewing some of the famous and not-so-
famous free software developers, 1 found that some were involved i n for-profit,
not-so-free software development now. Stallman, though, wasn't going to give
abstraction available to a programmer. A high-level language might let a
11
programmer say, Add variable revenues to variable losses to computer profits.”
A high-level language would be able to figure out just where to find the
information about the profits and the losses. A low-level programming language
would require the software author to point directly to a location i n the memory
where the data could be found.

KDE The K desktop environment is another toolkit that offers much of the same
functionality as Windows. I t is controversial because it originally used some
proprietary software and some users needed a license. See also GNOME, a
similar package that is distributed under the G N U GPL. (www.kde.org)

kernel The core of an OS responsible for juggling the different tasks and
balancing ah o f the demands. Imagine a short-order cook w h o scrambles eggs,
toasts bread, chops food, and somehowr manages to get an order out i n a few
minutes, A kernel in an OS juggles the requests to send information to a printer,
display a picture o n the screen, get data from a website, and a thousand other
tasks.

Linux The name given to the core of the operating system started by Linus
minutes, A kernel in an OS juggles the requests to send information to a printer,
display a picture on the screen, get data from a website, and a thousand other
tasks.

Linux The name given to the core of the operating system started by Linus
Torvalds in 1991. The word is now generally used to refer to an entir e bundle of
free software packages that work together. Red Hat Linux, for instance, is a large
bundle of software including packages written by many other unrelated projects,

MoziVto Public License A cousin of the Netscape Public License that was created
to protect the public contributions to the source tree of the Mozilla project.
Netscape cannot relicense the modifications to code protected by the MPL, but
they can do it io the NPL. See also Netscape Public License.

jVerBSD One of the original free distributions of BSD. The team focuses on
making sure that the software works well on a wide variety of hardware
platforms, including relatively rare ones like the Amiga, (www.netbsd.org)

Netscape Public License A license created by Netscape when the company

decided to release their browser as open source. The license is similar to the
BSD License, but it provides special features to Netscape. They're allowed to
take snapshots of the open source code and turn them back into a private,
proprietary project again. Bruce Ferens. one of the unpaid consultants who
helped Netscape draft the license, says that the provision was included because
i n the drive and pressing a button. Many of the programs didn't work with
certain video cards. Some modems didn’t talk to Linux. Not all of the printers
communicated correctly. Yet most o f the software worked together on many
standard machines. I t often took a bit o f tweaking, but most people could get the
OS up and running on their computers.

This was a major advance for the Linux OS because most people could quickly
install a new version without spending too much time downloading the new code
or debugging it. Even programmers who understood exactly what was happening
felt that installing a new version was a long, often painful slog through technical
details. These CDROMs not only helped programmers, they also encouraged
casual users to experiment w i t h the system.

The C D - R O M marketplace also created a new kind o f volunteer for the project.
Someone had to download the latest code from the author. Someone had to
watch die kernel mailing list to see when Torvalds, Cox, and die rest had minted
a new version that was stable enough to release. Someone needed to check all
the other packages like G N U Emacs or GNU CC to make sure they stdl worked
correctly. This didn’t require the obsessive programming talent that created the
kernel, but it did take some dedication and devotion.
watch the kerne] mailing list to see when Torvalds, Cox, and die rest had minted
a new version that was stable enough to release. Someone needed to check ah
the other packages like G N U Emacs or G N U CC to make sure they still worked
correctly. This didn't require the obsessive programming talent that created the
kernel, but it did take some dedication and devotion,

Today, there are many different kinds of volunteers putting together these
packages. The Debian group, for instance, is one of the best known and most
devoted to true open source principles. I t was started by Ian Murdock, who
named it after himself and his girlfriend, Debra. The Debian group, which now
includes hundreds of official members, checks to make sure that the software is
both technically sound and politically correct. That is, they check the licenses to
make sure that die software can be freely distributed by ail users. Their
guidelines later morphed into the official definition of open source software.

Other CD-ROM groups became more commercial. Debian sold its disks to pay
for Internet connection fees and other expenses, but they were largely a garage
operation. So were groups with names like Slackware, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD.
Other groups like Red Hat actually set out to create a burgeoning business, and
to a large extent, they succeeded. They took the money and used i t to pay
programmers who wrote more software to make Linux easier to use.

I n the beginning, there wasn't much difference between the commercially

minded groups like Rod Hat and the more idealistic collectives like Debian. The
that he's so gracious when he reminds the adoring press that most of the work
was done by thousands of oilier nameless folks.

Most of the teen movies don’t bother trying to figure out what happens after that
last fateful summer It's just better to end the movie with a dramatic race or stage
show that crysta Ilizes all the unity and passion that built up among this group
during their formative years. They sing, they dance, they win the big game, they
go to the prom, and then cameras love to freeze the moment at the end of the
film. The free software movement, on the other hand, is just too important and
powerful to stop this book on a climactic note. It would be fun to just pause the
book at the moment in time when Linus Torvalds and Bob Young wrere ah over
the magazines. Their big show was a success, but the real question is what will
happen when some folks go to school, some folks get married, and some folks
are left behind.

To some extent, die influx of money and corporations is old news. Very old
news. Richard Stallman faced the same problem in the 19B0s when he realized
that he needed io find a way to live without a university paycheck. He came up
with the clever notion that the software and the source must always be free, but
that anvone could charge whatever the market would bear for the conies. The
To some extent, the influx of money and corporations is old news. Very old
news. Richard Stallman faced the same problem i n the 1980s when he realized
that he needed to find a way to live without a university pay check. He came up
with the clever notion that the software and the source must always be free, but
that anyone could charge whatever the market would bear for the copies. The
Free Software Foundation itself continues to fund much of its development by
creating and selling both CD-ROMs and printed manuals.

This decision to welcome money into the fold didn't wreck free software. I f
anything., it made it possible for companies like Red Hat to emerge and sell
easier-to- use versions o f the free software. The companies competed to put out
the best distributions and didn't use copyright and other intellectual property
laws to constrain each other. This helped attract more good programmers to the
realm because most folks would rather spend their time writing code than
juggling drivers on their machine. Good distributions like Red Hat, Stack ware,
Debian, FreeBSD, and SuSE made it possible for everyone to get their machines
up and running faster.

There's no reason why the latest push into the mainstream is going to beany
different. Sure, Red Hat is charging more and creating better packages, but most
of the distribution is still governed by the GPL. Whenever people complain that
Red Hat costs too much, Bob Young just points people to the companies that rip
off his CDs and charge only $2 or S3 per copy. The GPL keeps many people
from straying too far from the ideal.
hundred dollars for a few minutes 1 work isn't too shabby.

I t is entirely possible that another person out there is having the same problem
getting their word processor to verstehen their needs. They might chip i n $50 to
the pool. I f the problem is truly grande, then the pot could grow quite large.

This solution is blessed w i t h the wide-open, free-market sensibility that many

people i n the open software community like. The bounties are posted i n the open
and anyone is free to try to claim the bounties by going to work. Ideally, the
most knowledgeable w i l l be die first to complete the job and nab the payoff.

Several developers are trying to create a firm infrastructure for the plan. Brian
Behlendorf, one of the founding members of the Apache web server
development team, i s working with Tim O'Reilly's company to build a website
known as SourceXchange. Another group known as CoSource is led by Bernie
Thompson and his wife, Laurie. Both w i l l work to create more software that is
released w i t h free source.

Of course, these projects are more than websites. They're really a process, and
how the process w i l l work is still unclear right now. While it is easy to circulate
Thompson and Ins wife, Laurie. Both will work to create more software (hat is
released with free source.

Of course, these projects are more than websites. They're really a process, and
how the process w i l l work is still unclear right now. While it is easy to circulate
a notice that some guy w i l l pay some money for some software, it is another
thing to actually make it work. Writing software is a frustrating process and there
are many chances for disagreement. The biggest question on every developer's
mind is " H ow can I be sure 1'11be paid?1’ and the biggest question on eveiy sugar
daddy's mind is "How can I be sure that the software works?"

These questions are part of any software development experience. There is often
a large gap between the expectations of the person commissioning the software
and the person writing the code. I n this shadow are confusion, betrayal, and
turmoil.

The normal solution is to break die project up into milestones and require
payment after each milestone passes.I f the coder is doing something
unsatisfactory, the message is transmitted when payment doesn’t arrive. Both
SourceXchange and CoSource plan on carrying over the same structure to the
world of bounty-hunting programmers. Each project might be broken into a
number of different steps and a price for each step might be posted in advance.

Both systems try to alleviate the danger of nonpayment by requiring that

someone step in and referee the end of the project. A peer reviewer must be able
The two of them are, of course, benign dictators, and the two o f them don't really
have any other choice. Both have a seemingly absolute amount of power, but this
power is based on a mixture of persona] affection and technical respect. There
are no legal bounds that keep a l l o f the developers i n line. There are no rules
about intellectual property or non-disclosure. Anyone can grab all of die Linux
kernel or G N U source code, run off, and start making whatever changes they
want, They could rename it F U , Bobux, Fredux, or Meganux and no one could
stop them. The old threats of lawyers, guns, and money aren't anywhere to be
seen,

19.1 DEBIAN'S CORE T E A M

The Debian group has a wonderful pedigree and many praise it as the purest
version of Linux around, but it began as a bunch of outlaws who cried mutiny
and tossed Richard Stallman overboard Well, it wasn't really so dramatic. I n
fact, "mutiny" isn't really the right word when everyone is free to use the source
code however they want.
version of Linux around, but it began as a bunch of outlaws who cried mutiny
and tossed Richard Stallman overboard. Well, it wasn't really so dramatic. I n
fact, "mutiny" isn't really the right word when everyone is free to use the source
code however they want.

Bruce Perens remembers the split occurred less than a year after the project
began and says, "Debian had already started, The FSF had been funding Ian
Murdock for a few months. Richard at that time wanted us to make all of the
executables unstripped,"

When programmers compile software and convert it from human-readable

source code into machine-readable binary code, they often leave in some human
readable information to help debug the program. Another way to say this is that
the programmers don't strip the debugging tags out of the code. These tags are
just the names of the variables used in the software, and a programmer can use
them to analyze what each variable held when the software started going
berserk.

Perens continued, "His idea was i f there was a problem, someone can send a
stacktrace back without having to recompile a program and then making it break
again. The problem with this was distributing executables unstripped makes
them four times as large. I t was a lot of extra expense and trouble. And our
software didn't dump core anyway. That was really the bottom line. That sort of
bug did not come up so often that it was necessary for us to distribute things that
soul selected her own society and shut the door on the rest of the world, the free
software world frequently splits and resplits into smaller groups. While there is
some cross-pollination, many are happy to l i v e in their own corners. OpenBSD,
FreeBSD, and NetBSD are more separate countries than partners i n crime. They
evolve o n their own, occasionally stealing ideas and source code to bridge the

Many writers have described some of their problems with making hay o f the
Silicon Valley world. Screenwriters and television producers often start up
projects to tap into the r i c h texture of nerdlands only to discover that there's
nothing that compelling to f i l m . It's just miles and miles of steel-frame buildings
holding acres and acres of cubicles. Sure, there are some Ping-Pong tables and
pinball machines, but the work is a l l i n the mind. Eyes want physical action, and
all of the excitement i n a free source world is i n the ideas.

B u t people are people. While there's no easy way to use the old standbys of race
o r clothes to discriminate, the technical world still develops ways to classify its
members and place them i n camps. The free software world has its o w n ways to
distinguish between these camps.
But people are people. While there's no easy way to use the old standbys of race
or clothes to discriminate, the technical world still develops ways to classify its
members and place them in camps, rhe free software world has its own ways to
distinguish between these camps.

The biggest distinction may be between folks who favor the GPL and those who
use the BSD-style license to protect their software. This is probably the biggest
decision a free software creator must make because it controls whether others
w i l l be able to build commercial versions of the software without contributing
the new code back to the project.

People who embrace the GPL are more likely to embrace Richard Stallman, or at
least less likely to curse him i n public. They tend to be iconoclastic and
individualistic. GPL projects tend to be more cultish and driven by a weird
mixture of personality and ain't-it-cool hysteria.

The people on the side of BSD-style license, on the other hand, seem pragmatic,
organized, and focused. There are three major free versions of B S D UNIX alone,
and they're notable because they each have centrally administered collections of
files, t he GPL -protected Linux can be purchased from at least six major groups
that bundle it together, and each of them includes packages and pieces of
software they find all over the Net.

The BSD-license folks are also less cultish. The big poster boys, Torvalds and
industry takes forever to change, will free software ever grow beyond the 10
million or so desktops owned by programmers and their friends?

Ils strongest lever w i l l be price. Freedom is great, but corporations respond

better to a cost that is close to, i f not exactly, zero. B i g companies like Microsoft
are enormous cash engines. They need a huge influx of cash to pay the workers,
and they can't let their stock price slip. Microsoft's revenues increased w i t h a
precision that is rare i n corporate America. Some stock analysts joke that the
stock price suggests that Microsoft's revenues w i l l grow faster than 10 percent
forever. Tn the past, the company accomplished this by absorbing mure and more
of the market while finding a way to charge more and more for the software they
supply. Businesses that lived quite well w i t h Windows 95 are now running
Windows NT, Businesses that ran N T are now using special service packs that
handle network management and data functions. The budget for computers just
keeps going up, despite the fact (hat hardware costs go down.

Something has to give. It's hard to know how much o f a lever the price w i l l be. I f
the revenue at Microsoft stops growing, then the company's stock price could
take a sharp dive. The company manages continually to produce greater and
sreater revenues each Quarter w i t h smooth precision. The expectation o f the
Something has to give, h’s hard to know how much of a lever the price w i l l be. I f
(he revenue at Microsoft stops growing, (hen (he company's stock price could
take a sharp dive. The company manages continually to produce greater and
greater revenues each quarter with smooth precision. The expectation of the
growth is built into the price. Any hiccup could bring the price tumbling down.

rhe biggest question is how much people are willing to pay to continue io use
Microsoft products. Retooling an office is an expensive proposition. The cost of
buying new computers and software is often smaller than the cost of reeducation.
While the free software world is much cheaper, shifting is not an easy
proposition. Only time w i l l tell howr much people are willing to pay for their
reluctance to change.

The first cracks are already obvious. Microsoft lost the server market to Apache
and Linux on the basis of price and performance. Web server managers are
educated computer users who can make their own decisions without having to
worry about the need to train others. Hidden computers like this are easy targets,
and the free software world w i l l gobble many of them up. More users mean
more bug fixes and propagations of better code.

The second crack in Microsoft's armor w i l l be appliance computers. Most people

want to browse the web and exchange some e-mail. The basic distribution from
Red Hat or FreeBSD is good enough. Many people are experimenting with
Parekh fell comfortable w i t h this relationship. Although Stronghold was paying
the salaries of Young and Hudson, they were also spending some of their spare
time keeping their SSLeay toolkit u p to date.

Still, the notion of a free version of SSL was a tempting project for someone to
undertake. Many people wanted i t . Secure digital commerce demanded i t . There
were plenty of economic incentives pushing for it to happen, Eventually, a
German named Ralf S. Engelschall stepped up and wrote a new version he called
mod_SSL. Engelschall is a well-regarded contributor to the Apache effort, and
he has written or contributed to a number of different modules that could be
added to Apache. H e calls one the "all-dancing-all-singing mod_i ewrite module"
for handling URLs easily*

Suddenly, Engel schall’s new version meant that there were dueling forks. One
version came out of Australia, where the creators worked for a company selling
a proprietary version of die code, C2Net distributed die Australian version and
concentrated on making their product easy to install. The other came out o f
Europe, distributed for free by someone committed to an open source license.
The interface may have been a h i t rougher, but it didn't cost any money and it
came with the source code. The potential for battle between SSLeav and
a proprietary version of the code. C2Net distributed the Australian version and
concentrated on making their product easy to install. The other came out of
Europe, distributed for free by someone committed to an open source license.
The interface may have been a bit rougher, but it didn’t cost any money and it
came with the source code. The potential for battle between SSLeay and
mod_SSL could have been great.

rhe two sides reviewed their options, Parekh must have felt a bit frustrated and
at a disadvantage. He had a company that was making a good product with
repeal buyers. Then an open source solution came along. C2Net's Stronghold
cost money and didn't come with source code, while EngelschaH's mod.SSL cost
nothing and came with code. Those were major negatives that he could combat
only by increasing service. When Engel schaII was asked whether his free version
was pushing C2.Net, he sent back the e-mail with the typed message, “(grin]."

I n essence, CZNet faced the same situation as many major companies like
Microsoft and Apple do today. The customers now had a viable open source
solution to their problems. No one had to pay C2Net for the software. The users
in the United States needed a patent license, but that would expire in late 2000.
Luckily, Parekh is a true devotee to the open source world, even though he has
been running a proprietary source company for the last several years. He looked
at the problem and decided that the only way to stay alive was to join forces and
mend the fork.
McVoy’s snitchware solution is to post the change logs of the people who don't
buy a professional license. These logs include detailed information on how two
programs are synchronized, and he figures that this information should be
valuable enough for a commercial company to keep secret. They might say,
"Moved auction control structure to Bob's version from Caroline's version.
Moved new PostScript graphics engine to Caroline's version from Bob's."

McVoy says, " I f you're Sun o r Boeing, you don't want the Internet to be posting
a message like ' I just added the bomb bay? But for the free software guys, not
only is that acceptable, but it’s desirable. I f you're doing open source, what do
you have to hide?"

BitKeeper is free for anyone to use, revise, and extend as long as they don't mess
with the part that tattles. If you don't care about the world reading your change
logs, then it's not much different from the traditional open source license. The
user has the same rights to extend, revise, and modify BitKeeper as they do
G N U Emacs, with one small exception: you can't disable the snitch feature.

McVoy thinks this is an understandable trade-off. ‘'From the business guys you
can extract money. You can hope that they’ll pay you. This is an important point
user has the same rights to extend, revise, and modify BitKeeper as they do
G N U Emacs, with one small exception: you can't disable the snitch feature.

McVoy thinks this is an understandable trade-off. 11From the business guys you
can extract money. You can hope that they'll pay you. This is an important point
[ learned consulting at Schwab and Morgan Stanley. They insist that they pay for
the software they get. They don't want to pay nothing. I used to think that they
were idiots. Now 1 think they're very smart," he says.

The matter is simple economics, he explains. "They believe that i f enough

money is going to their supplier, it won't be a total disaster. I call this an
insurance model of software.’1

Companies that pay for the privacy with BitKeeper w i l l also be funding further
development. The work won't be done in someone's spare time between exams
and the homecoming game. I t won’t be done between keeping the network
running and helping the new secretary learn Microsoft Word. It will be
developed by folks who ger paid to do the work.

"There's enough money going back to the corporation so it can be supported, ”

McVoy says. "This is the crux of the problem with the open source model. It's
possible to abuse the proprietary model, too. They get you in there, they lock
you in, and then they rape you. This business of hoping that it will be okay is
unacceptable. You need to have a lock. The M I S directors insist you have a
OS. The developers are a l l gone. A l l of them went to Palm, and (hey probably
couldn't just put it back together again if they wanted to/ 1

O f course, corporations try to fight (his rot by getting their programmers to do a

good job at the beginning and write plenty of documentation, i n practice, this
slips a bit because it is not rewarded by the culture of secrecy. I know one
programmer who worked for a project at MIT. The boss thought he was being
clever by requiring comments on each procedure and actually enforcing it w i t h
an automated text-scanning robot that would look over the source code and
count the comments. My friend turned around and hooked up one version o f the
popular artificial intelligence chatterbots like Eliza and funneled the responses
into the comment field. Then everyone was happy. The chatterbot filled the
comment field, the automated comment police found something vaguely
intelligent, and the programmer got to spend his free time doing other things.
The boss never discovered the problem.

Programmers are the same the world over, and joining the free source world
doesn’t make them better people or destroy their impudence. B u t it does penalize
them i f others come along and try to use their code. I f it's inscrutable, sloppy, or
hard to understand, then others w i l l either ignore i t or pummel them w i t h
Programmers arc the same the world over, and joining the free source world
doesn't make them better people or destroy their impudence. But it does penalize
them i f others come along and try to use their code. I f it's inscrutable, sloppy, or
hard to understand, then others w i l l either ignore i t or pummel them with
questions. That is a strong incentive to do it right.

11.4 OPEN SOURCE A N D L I G H T B U L B S

The limitations to the power of open source might be summarized in the answer
to the question How many open source developers does it take to change a
lightbulb?" The answer is; 17, Seventeen to argue about the license; 17 to argue
about the brain-deadedness of the lightbulb architecture; 17 to argue about a new
model that encompasses all models of illumination and makes i t simple to
replace candles, campfires, pilot lights, and skylights with the same casy-to-
extend mechanism; 17 to speculate about the secretive industrial conspiracy that
ensures that lightbulbs will burn out frequently; 1 to finally change the bulb; and
16 who decide that this solution is good enough for the time being.

The open source development model is a great way for very creative people to
produce fascinating software that breaks paradigms and establishes new
standards for excellence. I t may not be the best way, however, to finish boring
hobby. Several influential programmers became interested in the code. It was
free and relatively usable. It ran much of the GNU code, and that made it a neat,
inexpensive way to experiment with some excellent tools. More and more people
downloaded the system, and a significant fraction started reporting bugs and
suggestions to Torvalds. He rolled them back in and the project snowballed.

8.1 A HOBBY BEGETS A PROJECT THAT BEGETS A MOVEMENT

On the face of it, Torvalds's decision to create an OS wasn't extraordinary.

Millions of college-age students decide that they can do anything if they just put
in a bit more elbow grease. The college theater departments, newspapers, and
humor magazines all started with this impulse, and the notion isn't limited to
college students. Millions of adults run Little League teams, build model
railroads, lobby the local government to create parks, and take on thousands of
projects big and small in their spare time.

Eveiy great idea has a leader who can produce a system to sustain it. Every
small-town lot had kids playing baseball, but a few guys organized a Little
railroads, lobby the local government io create parks, and take on thousands of
projects big and small in their spare time.

Every great idea has a leader who can produce a system to sustain it. Every
small town lot had kids playing baseball, but a few guys organised a Little
League program that standardized the rules and the competition. Every small
town had people campaigning for parks, but one small group created the Sierra
Club, which fights for parks throughout the world.

This talent for organizing the work of others is a rare commodity, and Torvalds
had a knack for it, H e was gracious about sharing his system with the world and
he never lorded i t over anyone. His messages were filled with jokes and self-
deprecating humor, most of wrhich were carefully marked with smiley faces (:-))
to make sure that the message was clear. I f he wrote something pointed, he
would apologize for being a ''hothead." He was always gracious in giving credit
to others and noted that much of Linux was just a clone of U N I X . A l l of this
made h i m easy to read and thus influential.

His greatest trick, (hough, was his decision (o avoid the mantle of power. He
wrote in 1992, "Here’s my standing on 'keeping control,' in 2 words (three?): I
won't. The only control I've effectively been keeping on Linux is that I know it
better than anybody else."

He pointed out that his control was only an illusion that was caused by the fact
that he did a good job maintaining the system, "I've made my changes available
SoftSoft could split the development costs of $21 million between all of the 1.5
million units dial are shipped. Instead of deducting the market value of the
software, it would only deduct the costs allocated to it. Still, that means they gel
a $14 million deduction, which is still far from shabby.

More conservative companies may come up with smaller deductions based upon
the cost of duplicating the additional copies and the cost of supporting the
schools and charities. Strict accounting measures would be the most honest, but
it's hard to know what companies do and what they should do.

Free software, of course, avoids all that paperwork and accounting. The software
costs nothing, so giving it away generates no deduction. There's no need for
complicated cost accounting or great press releases. It just sits on the web server
and people download it.

Of course, it's possible to start counting up downloads and doing some

multiplication to come up with outrageous numbers. Windows N T can sell for
between $200 and $1,000. There are about 3.7 million web servers running
Apache, according to the latest N etcraft poll. If 1 percent qualify as charitable
sites, then 37,000 are served by Apache. Of course, not all sites sit on separate
Of course, it’s possible to start counting up downloads and doing some
multiplication to come up with outrageous numbers. Windows NT can sell for
between $200 and $1,000. There are about 3.7 m i Hion web servers running
Apache, according to the latest Netcraft poll. I f 1 percent qualify as charitable
sites, then 37,000 are served by Apache, Of course, not all sites sit on separate
machines. To correct for this, assume that each server hosts 10 machines and
there are only 3,700 machines using Apache. That's still about $3.7 million in
donations,

But numbers like this can't really capture the depth of the gift. Linus Torvalds
always likes to say that he started writing Linux because he couldn't afford a
decent OS for his machine so he could do some experiments. Who knows how
many kids, grown-ups, and even retired people are hacking Linux now and doing
some sophisticated computer science experiments because they can? How do we
count this beneficence?

Free software essentially removes the red tape and the institutional character of
charity. There are no boards. There is no counting of gifts. There'S no fawning or
flattering. There are no new J. Henry P. Plutocrat Wings for the Franklin P.
Moneysucker Museum o f Philanthropy, It’s just a pure gift with no overhead.

There is also a smooth efficiency to the world of free software charity. My

economics professor used to joke that gifts were just very inefficient. Grandmas
always bought unhip sweaters for their grandkids. Left on I heir own, children
Valloppillil, Vinod. "Open Source Software: A (New?) Development
Methodology," Microsoft, Redmond, WA, August 1998,

Hfayner, Peter " I f SB266 Wants Plaintext, Give Them Plaintext. „ Risks
Digest, May 23, 1991.

http://catless.ncl.acmk/Risks/ll.71. html#subj2

"Should Hackers Spend Years i n Prison?" Salon, June 9, 1999.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/06/09/hacker_penalties/jndex.html

"Netscape to Release New Browser Engine to Developers." New York Times,

December 7, 1999.

"Glory Among the Geeks." Salon, January 1999.

http: // w w w. sal on .com/2 1 st/ feature/ 1999/0 1/28 feature, htm!

Whitenger, Dave. "Words of a Maddog." Linux Today, April 19, 1999.

 kjit/jy n i i llji j iiit; viccri.i. uuluii jcmmciijr lj.jj,

hup : //w ww.salon.com/2 1 st/feature/1999/0 l/28featu re.htm]

Whitener, Dove, "Words of a Muddog," Linux Today, April 19, 1999,

http: //I i nuxtoday .com/stories/5 118. html

"Web and Fi/e Server Comparison; Altcroso/t Windows NT Server 4.0 and Wed
Hat Linux 5,2 Upgraded to the Linux 2.22 Kerne/." Mindcraft, April 13, 1999.

hi i p 7/ w w w.mi ndcraft.com/w h i tepaper$/nts4rhl inux.html

Wr/iiams, Sam. "Linus Has Left the Building." Upside., May 5, 1999.

http: //www.ups ide.com/Open_Seaso n/

Wi/iiams, Rr/ey "Linux Kernel Vertsion History."

hit p 7/ps.cus.umist .ac.uk/ *rhw/kerne 1.vers ion s.h tml

Zawinski, Jamie. "Resignation and Postmortem,1’

hup 7/ w w w.j wz.org/gru ntl e/nomo .html

1. OTHER WORKS BY PETER WAYNER

people, including many of the major companies, distribute their o w n crippled
version of their product so people can try it. Crucial functions like the ability to
print or save a document tn the disk are usually left out as a strong
encouragement to buy the real version.

Of course, free source products aren't the same thing as shareware because most
shareware products don't come w i t h the source code. Programmers don't have
the ability or the right to modify them to do what they want. This has always
been one of the biggest selling points to the high-end marketplace that knows
how to program.

In fact, free source software is not dirt cheap either. Anyone who's been around
the open software community for a time realizes that you end up having to pay
something for the lunch. Keeping some costs hidden from the consumer isn't
new, and it still hasn't gone away i n the free software world. The costs may not
be much and they may be a much better deal than the proprietary marketplace,
but the software stilt costs something.

The simplest cost is time. Free software is often not as polished as many
commercial products. I f you want to use many of the tools, you must study
be much and they may be a much better deal than the proprietaiy marketplace,
but the software still costs something.

The simplest cost is time. Free software is often not as polished as many
commercial products, i f you want to use many of the tools, you must study
manuals and learn to think like a programmer. Some manuals are quite nice, but
many are cursory. This may change as the free software movement aims to
dominate the desktop, bin the manuals and help aren't as polished as the
solutions coming out of Microsoft. O f course, one free software devotee told me
by way of apo logy , "Have you actually tried using Microsoft's manuals or help?
They suck, too."

Even when i t is polished, free source software requires time to use. The more
options that are available, the more time i t takes to configure the software. Free
source gives tons of options.

Tiie lack of polish isn't usually a problem for programmers, and it’s often not an
extra cost either. Programmers often need to learn a system before they find a
way to revise and extend it to do what their boss wants it to do. Learning the guts
of a free software package isn’t much of an extra cost because they would be just
trying to learn the guts of a Microsoft product instead. Plus, the source code
makes the process easier.

Still, most users including the best programmers end up paying a company like
borrowing from the G N U project. Stallman’s GNU project group had already
written a compiler (GCC) and a nice text user interface (bash). Torvalds just
grabbed these because he could. He was standing on the shoulders o f the giants
who had come before him.

The core of an OS is often called the "kernel/' which is one of the strange words
floating around the world of computers. When people are being proper, they note
that Linus Torvalds was creating the Linux kernel i n 1991 . Most of the other
software, like the desktop, the utilities, the editors, the web browsers, the games,
the compilers, and practically everything else, was written by other folks. I f you
measure this i n disk space, more than 95 percent of the code i n an average
distribution lies outside the kernel. I f you measure it by user interaction, most
people using Linux or BSD don’t even know that there's a kernel i n there. The
buttons they click, the websites they visit, and the printing they do are a l l
controlled by other programs that do the work.

Of course, measuring the importance of the kerne] this way is stupid. The kernel
is sort o f the combination o f the mail room, boiler room, kitchen, and laundry
room for a computer. It's responsible for keeping the data flowing between the
hard drives, the memory, the printers, the video screen, and any other part that
Of course, measuring the importance of the kernel this way is stupid. The kernel
is son of the combination of the mail room, boiler mom, kitchen, and laundry
room for a computer, It's responsible for keeping the data flowing between the
hard drives, the memory, the printers, the video screen, and any other part that
happens to be attached to the computer,

i n many respects, a well- written kernel is like a fine hotel. The guests check in,
they’re given a room, and then they can order whatever they need from room
service and a smoothly oiled concierge staff Is this new job going to take an
extra 10 megabytes of disk space? No problem, sir. Right away, sin Well be
right up with it. Ideally, the software won’t even know that other software is
running In a separate room. I f that other program is a loud rock-and-roll M P 3
playing tool, the other software won't realize that when it crashes and burns up
its own room. The hotel just cruises right along, taking care of business.

I n 1991, Torvalds had a short list of features he wanted to add to the kernel. The
Internet was still a small network linking universities and some advanced labs,
and so networking was a small concern. He was only aiming at the 386, so he
could rely on some of the special features that weren’t available on other chips.
High-end graphics hardware cards were still pretty expensive, so he concentrated
on a text-only interface. He would later fix all of these problems with the help of
the people on the Linux kernel mailing list, but for now he Could avoid them,
eccentric individuals together with everyone else i n the audience. The gag
played well because all the individualists were also deeply committed to living a
life filled with irony.

The free source world is sort of a Club M e d for these kinds of individualists.
Richard Stallman managed to organize a group of highly employable people and
get them to donate their $50+-pcr-hour time to a movement by promising
complete freedom. Everyone who showed u p valued freedom much more than
the money they could be making working for b i g companies. It's not a b i t
surprising that all of the free thinkers are also coming up w i t h the same answers
to life. Great minds think alike, right?

This large collection of dedicated individualists is predisposed to moments o f

easy irony. Black is by far their favorite color. L o n g hair and beards are
common. T-shirts and shorts are the rule when it gets warm, and T-shirts and
jeans dominate when the weather turns cold. No one wears suits or anything so
traditional. That would he silly because they're not as comfortable as T-shirts and
jeans. Fitting i n with the free thinkers isn’t hard.

The group is not particularly republican or democrat, but libertarian politics are
jeans dominate when the weather turns cold. No one wears suits or anything so
traditional. That would he silly because they're not as comfortable as T-shirts and
jeans. Fitting i n with the free thinkers isn’t hard.

The group is not particularly republican or democrat, but libertarian politics are
easily understood and widely supported. Gun control is usually considered to be
wrong, i f only because the federal government w i l l move on to controlling
something else when they're finished with guns. [ A 10 | Taxes are bad, and some
i n the group like to dream of when they'll be driven away by the free-flowing,
frictionless economy of the Internet. Folks like to say things like ’'Governments
1
are just speed bumps on the information superhighway/

[10]: I n fact, the federal government already considers encryption software to be

a munition and often tries to regulate it as such.

The first amendment is very popular and many are sure that practically
everything they do with a computer is a form of speech or expression. The
government shouldn't have the right to control a website's content because they'll
surely come to abuse that power in the future. Some even rage against private
plans to rate websites for their content because they're certain that these tools
w i l l eventually be controlled by those in power. To the most extreme, merely
creating a list of sites with information unsuitable for kids is setting up the
infrastructure for the future Nazis to start burning websites.
comes with numbers originally developed by the Gartner Group. A 25-person
office would cost $21,453 to outfit with Microsoft products and $5,54470 to
outfit with Linux. This estimate is a bit conservative. Most of the Linux cost is
debatable because it includes almost $3,000 for 10 service calls to a Linux
consultant and about $2,500 for Applixware, an office suite that does much of
the same Job as Microsoft Office. A truly cheap and technically hip office could
make do w i t h the editor built into Netscape and one o f the free spreadsheets
available for Linux. It's not hard to imagine someone doing the same job for
about $3, which is the cost o f a cheap knockoff of Red Hat's latest distribution.

Of course, it's important to realize that free software still costs money to support.
But so does Microsoft's. The proprietary software companies also charge to
answer questions and provide reliable information. It's not dear that Linux
support is any more expensive to offer.

Also, many offices large and small keep computer technicians on hand. There’s
no reason to believe that Linux technicians w i l l be any more or less expensive
than Microsoft technicians. Both answer questions. Both keep the systems
t unning. A t least the Linux tech can look at the source code.
Also, many offices large and small keep computer technicians on hand. There’s
no reason to believe that Linux technicians w i l l be any more or less expensive
than Microsoft technicians, Both answer questions. Both keep the systems
running. At least the L i n u x tech can look at the source code.

The average home user and small business user will be the last to go.

These users w i l l be the most loyal to Microsoft because they w i l l find i t harder
than anyone else to move. They can't afford to hire their own Linux gurus to
redo the office, and they don't have the time to teach themselves.

These are the main weaknesses for Microsoft, and the company is already taking
them seriously. 1 think many underestimate how bloody the battle is about to
become. If free source software is able to stop and even reverse revenue growth
for Microsoft, there are going to be some very rich people with deep pockets
who feel threatened. Microsoft is probably going to turn to the same legal system
that gave it such grief and find some wedge to drive into the Linux community.
Their biggest weapon w i l l be patents and copyright to stop the doners.

Any legal battle w i l l be an interesting fight. On the one hand, the free software
community is diverse and spread out among many different entities. There’s no
central office and no one source that could be brought down. This means
Microsoft would fight a war on many fronts, and this is something that's
emotionally and intellectually taxing for anyone, no matter how rich or
power play won't work.

Can they duplicate the code o f a rival and give it away i n much the same way
that Microsoft created Internet Explorerand "integrated" i t into their browser?
You bet they can. They’re going to take the best ideas they can get. i f they're
open source, they'll get sucked into the Red Hat o r b i t I f they're not, then they'll
get someone to d o n e therm

Can they force people to pay a "Red Hat tax" just to upgrade to the latest
software? Not likely. Red Hat is going to be a service company, and they're
going to compete on having the best service for their customers. Their real
competitor w i l l be companies that sell support contracts like LinuxCare. Sendee
industries are hard work. Every customer needs perfect care or they'll go
somewhere else next time. Red Hat’s honeymoon w i t h the IPO cash w i l l only
last so long. Eventually, they're going to have to earn the money to get a return
on the investment. They're going to be answering a l o t of phone calls and e-
mails.

L NEW
on the investment. They 're going to be answering a lot of phone calls and e-
mails.

L NEW

Most of this book frames the entire free source movement as something new and
novel. The notion of giving away free source code is something that seems
strange and counterintuitive. But despite ail of the gloss and excitement about
serious folks doing serious work and then just giving it away like great
philanthropists, it's pretty easy to argue that this has all been done before. The
software world is just rediscovering secrets that the rest of the world learned
long ago.

Giving things away isn't a radical idea. People have been generous since, well,
the snake gave Eve that apple. Businesses love to give things away i n the hope
of snagging customers. Paper towel manufacturers give away towel hardware
that only accepts paper i n a proprietary size. Food companies give coolers and
freezers to stores i f the stores agree not to stock rival brands in them.

In fact, most industries do more than just give away free gifts to lure customers.
Most share ideas, strategies, and plans between competitors because cooperation
lets them all blossom. Stereo companies make components that interoperate
because they adhere to the same standard. Lawyers, engineers, and doctors are
The trial quickly turned into everyone's worst nightmare as the lawyers, the
economists, and die programmers filled the courtroom with a tliick mixture of
technobabble and legal speak. On the stands, the computer nerds spewed out
three-letter acronyms (TLAs) as they talked about creating operating systems.
Afterward, the legal nerds started slicing them up into one- letter acronyms and
testing to see just which of the three letters was really the one that committed the
crime. Then the economists came forward and offered their theories on just when
a monopoly is a monopoly. Were three letters working i n collusion enough?
What about two? Everyone i n the courtroom began to dread spending the day
cooped up i n a small room as Microsoft tried to deny what was obvious to
practically everyone.

In the fall and early winter of 1998 and 1999, the Department of Justice had
presented its witnesses, who explained how Microsoft had slanted contracts,
tweaked software, and twisted arms to ensure that it and it alone got the lion’s
share of the computer business. Many watching the trial soon developed the
opinion that Microsoft had adopted a mixture of tactics from the schoolyard
bully, the local mob boss, and the mother from hell. The Department o f Justice
trotted out a number of witnesses who produced ample evidence that suggested
rhp rnmnnrpr riKtnmpn; nf thp w n d d w i l l hnv M i r m rifr nrndnrrt; nnlp<;<;
share of the computer business. Many watching the trial soon developed the
opinion that Microsoft had adopted a mixture of tactics from the schoolyard
bully, the local mob boss, and the mother from hell. The Department of Justice
trotted out a number of witnesses who produced ample evidence that suggested
the computer customers of the world w i l l buy Microsoft products unless
Microsoft decides otherwise. Competitors must be punished.

By January, the journalists covering the trial were quietly complaining about this
endless waste o f time. The Department o f Justice's case was so compelling that
they saw the whole trial as just a delay in what would eventually come to be a
ruling that would somehow split or shackle Microsoft.

But Microsoft wasn't going to be bullied or pushed into splitting up. The trial
allowed them to present their side of the story, and they had one ready. Sure,
everyone seemed to use Microsoft products, but that was because they were
great, ft wasn't because there weren't any competitors, but because the
competitors just weren't good enough.

I n the middle of January, Richard Schmalensee, the dean of rhe Sloan School of
Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, took rhe stand to
defend Microsoft. Schmalensee had worked for the Federal Trade Commission
and the Department of Justice as an economist who examined the marketplace
and the effects of anti-competitive behavior. He studied how monopolies behave,
and to him Microsoft had no monopoly power. Now, he was being paid
"When people complain about how much we’re charging for free software, 1 tell
them to just go to CheapBytes.com," he said at lite Expo. This is just one of die
companies that regularly duplicates the CDs o f Red Hat and resells them. Red
Hat often gets some heat from people saying that the company is merely
profiting o f f the hard work of others who've shared their software w i t h the GPL.
What gives them the right to charge so much for other people’s software? But
Young points out that people can get the software for S3. There must be a
rational reason why they're buying Red Hat

Of course, the two packages aren’t exactly equal. Both the original and the
knockoff C D - R O M may have exactly the same contents, but the extras are
different. The Red Hat package comes with "support," a rather amorphous
concept i n the software business. In theory, Red Hat has a team of people sitting
around their offices diligently waiting to answer the questions o f customers wrho
can't get Red Hat software to do the right thing.

In practice, the questions are often so hard or nebulous that even the support
team can't answer them. When I first tried to get Red Hat to run on an old PC,
the support team could only tell me that they never promised that their package
would run on mv funky, slightly obscure Cyrix MediaGX chin That wasn't
I n practice, the questions are often so hard or nebulous that even [he support
team can't answer them. When I first tried to gel Red Hat to run on an old PC,
the support team could only tell me that they never promised that their package
would run on my funky, slightly obscure Cyrix MediaGX chip. That wasn't
much help. Others probably have had better luck because they were using a more
standard computer. Of course, I had no trouble installing Red Hat on my latest
machine, and 1 didn't even need to contact tech support.

The Red Hat packages also come with a book that tries to answer some of the
questions in advance. This manual describes the basic installation procedure, but
it doesn't go into any detail about the software included i n the distribution. I f you
want to know how to run the database package, you need to dig into the online
support provided by the database's developers.

Many people enjoy buying these extra packages like the manual and the support,
even i f they never use them. Red Hat has blossomed by providing some hand'
holding. Sure, some programmers could download the software from the Internet
on their own, but most people don't want to spend the time needed to develop the
expertise.

When I say "Red Hat software/' I really mean free source software that Red Hat
picked up from the Net and knit into a coherent set of packages that should be, in
theory, pretty bug free, tested, and ready for use. Red Hat is selling some hand-
title: Free For All - how Linux and the Free software Movement
Undercut the High Tech Titans creator: Peter Wayner type:
Book r i g h t s : Copyright Peter Wayner, 2000. Free For All i s
Licensed under a Creative Commons License. This
License permits non-commercial use of t h i s work, so
long as a t t r i b u t i o n is given. For more information
about the license, v i s i t
http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc/l.0/ date: 20O2-12-22
date. created: 2002-12-22 date, issued: 2002-12-22
date .available; 2902-12-22 date. modified: 2002-12-22
date. v a l i d : 2002-12-22 language; US

Other versions o f this document:

manifest:
httrv / A i n . n . r M i t iiift AA/Cifii/fiAfi £rtr rill tiTOi rrtdt'/fi On m *5 n i fftc t H fl'll I
Other versions of this document:

manifest:
http : //www.j us.u io. no/s isu/f ree_f or_aIl.peter_wayner/sisu_man i fest,html

htni 1: http://w w w.jus .uio. no/sisu/free_for_a 11.peter_ way n er/toc.htmI

pdf: h ttp:// w ww. j us.uio. no/sisu/f rce_for_a 11.peter_way ner/port rai t.pdf

http : //ww,j us.uio. no/sisu/f ree_for_alLpeter_ wayner/ia ndscape.pdf

plaintext (plain text): http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/

free_for_a 11.peter_way ner/pla in. txt at: http://www.way ner.org/books/f fa/

• Generated by: SiSU 0.46.0 of 2006w32/6 (20060812) *

Ruby version: ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [i486-linux| * Last Generated on: Sat
Aug 12 12:20:48 BST 2006 * SiSU http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu
No/an, Chris, " Microsoft Antitrust: the Cass e Factor: U.S, Reportedly Looks
into Obstacles for B e Operating System," San Jose Mercury News, February 11,
1999.

http://w rw.sjmercury,com/svtech/columns/talkischeap/docs/cn021199,html

Oakes, Chris. "Netscape Browser Guru: We Failed." Wired News, A p r i l 2, 1999,

http: // w w w. w i red. com/new s/news/technology/s tory /I 892 6. h tm I

Ousterhouc John. ' Free Software Needs Profit," Or, Dobb s Journal website,
1999,

http: // w w w, ddj .com/o p cd/ 19 9 9/o ust, h tm

Perens, Brio, Wichert Akkerman, and fan Jackson. "The Apple Public Source
License--Our Concerns." March 1999.

http: // peren s.com/ A PSL .ht m 1/

"Thn Clntm Cniirro nnfinitinn ” I n Clnnn ftniVOC' VrtirfiC frnm r h n Anan Alin'S
i ur iiutj, r r e i _ M c i c dinner riruri ? ujiu iufi julajuiJj l iil np|JLC i liijjju jljuilc

License-Chir Concerns March 1999.

http ://perens.com/A PSL .html/

"The Open Source Definition.'1 I n Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source
Revolution, ed. Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone. 171-85. San
Francisco; O'Reilly* 1999.

Picarille, Lisa, end Malcolm Maclachlan. "Apple Defends Open Source

1
initiative/ March 24, 1999.

http:// w w w.techweb.com/ w i re/story/TW B 19990324 S0027

Raymond, Eric The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open
Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. San Francisco: O'Reilly, 1999.

Reilly, Patrick. "Nader’s Microsoft Agenda: Progressive Nonprofit Plan for Free1
Software/' Capital Research Center, April 1, 1999.

http ://www.cap ital research. org/t rends/ot-0499a.htm I

Rubini, Alessandro. "Tour of the Linux Kernel Source." Linux Documentation

Project,

Rusling, David A. "The Linux Kernel.

action movies begin with some death or explosion in the first two minutes. They
all run through a few car chases dial lead io the dramatic final confrontation. The
television world is filled w i t h 30-minute sitcoms about a bunch of young kids
trying to make it on their own. Il's sort of surprising that Hollywood continues to
suggest that the copyright laws actually promote creativity.

I t s not hard to believe that we might be better off if some o f the characters were
protected by an open source license. Superman and Batman have both gone
through several decades of character morphing as the artists and writers assigned
to the strips change. Of course, that change occurred under the strict control o f
the corporation with the copyright.

The thousands of fan novels and short stories are better examples. Many fans of
movies l i k e Star Trek or Star Wars often write their own stories using the
protected characters without permission. Most of the time the studios and
megalithic corporations holding the copyright look the other way. The work
doesn’t make much money and is usually born out of love for the characters. The
lawyers who have the job o f defending the copyrights are often cool enough to
let i t slide.
megalithic corporations holding the copyright look the other way. The work
doesn't make much money and is usually born out of love for the characters. The
lawyers who have the job of defending the copyrights are often cool enough to
let it slide.

Each of these novels provides some insight into the characters and also the
novelist. While not every novelist is as talented as the original authors, it can still
be fun to watch the hands of another mold the characters and shape his or her
destiny. The world of [he theater has always accepted the notion that directors
and actors will fiddle with plays and leave their own marks on them. Perhaps it
wouldn't be so bad if writers could have the same latitude after the original
author enjoyed a short period of exclusivity.

There are many ways in which the free software world is strange and new to
society, but sharing ideas without limitations is not one of them. Almost all
businesses let people tinker and change the products they buy, The software
industry likes to portray itself as a bunch of libertarians who worship the free
market and ail of its competition. I n reality, the leading firms are riding a wave
of power- grabbing that has lasted several decades. The firms and their lawyers
have consistently interpreted their rules to allow them to shackle their customers
with stronger and stronger bonds designed to keep them loyal and everspending.

This is all part of a long progression that affects all industries. Linus Torvalds
explained his view of the evolution when he told the San Jose Mercury-News,
After B S D versus G P L , the next greatest fault line is the choice of editor Some
use the relatively simple vi, which came out of Berkeley and the early versions
o f BSD. Others cleave to Stallman's Emacs, which is far more baroque and
extreme. The v i camp loves the simplicity. The Emacs fans brag about how
they’ve programmed their version of Emacs to break into the White House, snag
secret pictures of people i n compromising positions, route them through an
anonymous remailer, and negotiate for a b i g tax refund all with one complicated
control-meta-trans keystroke.

W h i l e this war is well known, it has little practical significance. People can
choose for themselves, and their choices have no effect on others. GPL or B S D
can affect millions; v i versus Emacs makes no big difference. It's just one of the
endless gag controversies i n the universe. I f Entertainment Tonight were
covering the free software world, they would spend hours cataloging which stars
used v i and which used Emacs. D i d Shirley MacLaine use vi or Emacs or even
wordstar i n a previous life?

Some o f the other fault lines aren't so crisp, but end up being very important.
The amount of order o r lack of order is an important point of distinction for
many free source people, and there is a wide spectrum o f choices available.
wordstar i n a previous life?

Some of the other fault lines aren't so crisp, but end up being very important
The amount of order or lack of order is an important point of distinction for
many free source people, and there is a wide spectrum of choices available,
While the fact that all of the source code is freely redistributable makes the
realm crazy, many groups try to control it with varying amounts of order, Some
groups are fanatically organized. Others are more anarchic. Each has a particular
temperament.

The three BSD projects are well known for keeping control of all the source
code for all the software in the distribution. They're very centrally managed and
brag about keeping all the source code together i n one build tree. The Linux
distributions, on the other hand, include software from many different sources.
Some include the K D E desktop. Others choose GNOME. Many include both.

Some of the groups have carefully delineated jobs. The Debian group elects a
president and puts individuals i n charge of particular sections of the distribution.
Or perhaps more correctly, the individuals nominate themselves for jobs they can
accomplish. The group is as close to a government as exists i n the open software
world. Many of the Open Source Initiative guidelines on what fits the definition
of “open source" evolved from the earlier rules drafted by the Debian group to
help define what could and couldn't be included i n an official Debian
distribution. The Open BSD group, on the other hand, opens up much of the
advertisements. This requirement was loosened i n 1999 when the list o f people
who needed credit on software projects grew too long. Many groups were taking
the B S D license and simply replacing the words "University o f California'" w i t h
their name. The list of people who needed to be publicly acknowledged grew
w i t h each new project. As the distributions grew larger to include all o f these
new projects, the process of listing all the names and projects became onerous.
The University o f California struck the clause requiring advertising credit i n the
hopes o f setting an example that others would follow.

Today, many free software projects begin with a debate of ‘"GNU versus BSD"’ as
the initial founders argue whether i t is a good idea to restrict what users can do
with the code. The G N U side always believes that programmers should be
forced to donate the code they develop back to the world, while the B S D side
pushes for practically unlimited freedom.

Rick Rashid is one of the major forces behind the development of Microsoft's
Windows NT and also a major contributor to our knowledge o f how to build a
computer operating system. Before he went to Microsoft, he was a professor at
Carnegie-Mellon. While he was there, he spearheaded the team responsible for
developing Mach, an operating system that offered relatively easv4o-use
Rick Rashid is one of the major forces behind the development of Microsoft's
Windows NT and also a major contributor to our knowledge of how to build a
computer operating system. Before he went to Microsoft, he was a professor at
Carnegie-Mellon, While he was there, he spearheaded the team responsible for
developing Mach, an operating system that offered relatively easy-to-use
multitasking built upon a very tiny kernel. Mach let programmers break their
software into multiple ’’threads" that could run independently of each other while
sharing the same access to data.

When asked recently about Mach and the Mach license, he explained that he
deliberately wrote the license to be as free as possible.

The G N U GPL, he felt, wasn't appropriate for technology that was developed
largely with government grants. The work should be as free as possible and
shouldn't force "other people to do things (e.g„ give away their personal work)
i n order to get access to what you had done."

He said, in an e-mail interview, ”It was my intent to encourage use of the system
both for academic and commercial use and it was used heavily in both
environments. Accent, the predecessor to Mach, had already been
commercialized and used by a variety of companies. Mach continues to be
heavily used today—both as the basis for Apple's new MacOS and as the basis
for variants of Unix in the marketplace (e.g., Compaq's 64-bit Unix for the
Alpha).1'
The free software charity is often a bit cleaner. B i l l Gates and many of the other
Microsoft millionaires aren't shy about giving away real money to schools and
other needy organizations. Melinda Gales, Bill's wife, runs a charitable
foundation that is very generous. In 1999, for instance, the foundation made a
very real gift of tuition money for minority students. The foundation has also
given millions of dollars to help fund medical research throughout the globe.

Still, at other times, there has been a sly edge to the Gates benevolence. I n some
cases, the company gives away millions o f dollars i n Microsoft software. This
helps get kids used to Microsoft products and acts like subtle advertising. Of
course, there's nothing new about this kind of charity. Most corporations insist
that they receive some publicity for their giving. It's how they justify the
benevolence to their shareholders.

The value of giving copies o f software away is a difficult act to measure. One
million copies of Windows 95 might retail for about $100 million, but lhe cost to
Microsoft is significantly lower. CD-ROMs cost less than one dollar to
duplicate, and many schools probably received one C D - R O M for all of their
machines. Giving the users support is an important cost, but it can be controlled
and limited bv restricting, the number o f employees dedicated to particular phone
million copies of Windows 95 might retail for about $100 million, but the cost to
Microsoft is significantly lower. CD-ROMs cost less than one dollar to
duplicate, and many schools probably received one CD- RO M for ah of their
machines. Giving the users support is an important cost, but it can be controlled
and limited by restricting the number of employees dedicated to particular phone
lines. Determining the value of all of the benevolence must be a tough job for the
tax accountants. H o w Microsoft chose to account for its donations is a private
matter between Gates, the Internal Revenue Service, and his God.

Consider the example of an imaginary proprietary software company called

SoftSoft that gives away one million copies of its $50 Widget Ware product to
schools and charities across the United States. This is, i n many ways, generous
because SoftSoft only sells 500,000 copies a year, giving them gross revenues of
$25 million.

I f SoftSoft values the gift at the full market value, they have a deduction of $50
million, which clearly puts them well in the red and beyond the reach of taxes
for the year. They can probably carry the loss forward and wipe out next year's
earnings, too.

The accountants may not choose to be so adventurous. The IRS might insist that
they deduct the cost of the goods given, not their potentially inflated market
price. Imagine that the company's cost for developing WidgetWare came to $21
million. I f there were no gift, they would have a nice profit of $4 million.
UNIX OS in with the package.

But the PC world was different. Il was filled with guys i n garages who wanted to
build simple boards that would let a PC communicate on the Internet. These
guys were efficient and knewr how to scrounge up cheap pans from all over the
world. Some of them had gone to Berkeley and learned to program on the
VAXes and Sun workstations running Berkeley's version of U N I X . A fcwr of
them had even helped write o r debug the code. They didn’t see why they had to
buy such a b i g license for something that non- AT&T folks had written w i t h the
generous help o f large government grants. Some even worked for corporations
that gave money to support Berkeley's projects, w h y couldn't they get at the
code they helped pay to develop?

K i r k McKusick, one o f the members of the Computer Systems Research Group

at the time, remembers, "People came to us and said, 'Look, you wrote TCP/IP.
Surely y o u shouldn't require an AT&T license for that?' These seemed like
reasonable requests. We decided to start w i t h something that was clearly not part
o f the U N I X we got from AT&T. I t seemed very clear that we could pull out the
TCP/IP stack and distribute that without running afoul o f AT&Ts license.
Surely you shouldn't require an AT&T license for that?' These seemed like
reasonable requests. We decided to start with something that was clearly not part
of the U N I X we got from AT&T, i t seemed very clear that we could pull out the
TCP/IP stack and distribute that without running afoul of AT&T's license,"

So the Berkeley Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) created what they
called Network Release 1 and put it on the market for $1,000 in June 1989. That
wasn't really the price because the release came with one of the first versions of
what would come to be known as the BSD-style license. Once you paid the
$1,000, you could do whatever you wanted with the code, including just putting
it up on the Net and giving it away.

"We thought that two or three groups would pay the money and then put the
code on the Internet, but i n fact, hundreds of sites actually paid the one thousand
dollars for it," says McKusick and adds, "mostly so they could get a piece of
paper from the university saying, 'You can do what you want with this. "

This move worked out well for Berkeley and also for UNIX. The Berkeley
TCP/IP stack became the best-known version of the code, and it acted like a
reference version for the rest of the Net. I f it had a glitch, everyone else had to
work around the glitch because i t was so prevalent, Even today, companies like
Sun like to brag that their TCP/IP forms the backbone of the Net, and this is one
of the reasons to buy a Sun instead of an NT workstation. O f course, the code in
Sun's OS has a rich, Berkeley-based heritage, and it may still contain some of the
web. They aren't supposed to create a graphical user interface for drawing
windows and icons on the screen that's much better than Windows. They aren't
supposed to create supercomputers with slicker prices of $3,000. Money isn't
supposed to lose.

Of course, the folks who are working o n free software projects have advantages
that money can t buy. These programmers don’t need lawyers to create licenses,
negotiate contracts, or argue over terms. Their software is free, and lawyers lose
interest pretty quickly when there's no money around. The free software guys
don't need to scrutinize advertising copy. Anyone can download the software and
just try i t . The programmers also don't need to sit i n the corner when their
computer crashes and complain about the idiot who wrote the software. Anyone
can read the source code and f i x the glitches.

The folks i n the free source software world are, i n other words, grooving on
freedom. They're high on ihe original American dream of life, liberty, and die
pursuit o f happiness. The founders of the United Slates o f America didn't set out
to create a wealthy country where citizens spent their days worrying whether
they would be able to afford new sport utility vehicles when the stock options
were vested. The founders just wanted to secure the blessings o f liberty for
freedom. They're high on the original American dream of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. The founders o f the United States of America didn't set out
to create a wealthy country where citizens spent their days worrying whether
they would be able to afford new sport utility vehicles when the stock options
were vested, The founders just wanted to secure the blessings of liberty for
posterity, Somehow, the wealth followed.

This beautiful story is easy to embrace: a group of people started out swapping
cool software on the Net and ended up discovering that their free sharing created
better software than what a corporation could produce with a mountain of cash.

The programmers found that unrestricted cooperation made it easy for everyone
to contribute. No price tags kept others away. No stereotypes or biases excluded
anyone. The software and the source code were on the Net for anyone to read.

Wide-open cooperation also turned out to be wide-open competition because the

best software won the greatest attention. The corporate weasels with the ear o f
rhe president could not stop a free source software project from shipping. No
reorganization or downsizing could stop people from working on free software if
they wanted to hack. The freedom to create was more powerful than money.

That’s an idyllic picture, and the early success of Linux, FreeBSD, and other free
packages makes i t tempting to think that the success will build. Today, open
source servers power more than 50 percent of the web servers On the Internet,
license? Who's going to compute what some percentage of free is? Who's going
to come up with the money? These questions are much easier to answer i f you're
a corporation charging customers to buy a product. C2Net was doing that.
Peopie who bought Stronghold got a license from RSA that ensured they could
use the method without being sued.

The patent was only the first hurdle. SSL is a technology that tries to bring some
security to web connections by encrypting the connections between the browser
and the server. Netscape added one feature that allows a connection to be
established only i f the server has a digital certificate that identifies it. These
certificates are only issued to a company after i t pays a fee to a registered
certificate agent like Verisign.

In the beginning, certificate agents like Verisign would issue the certificates only
for servers created by b i g companies like Netscape or Microsoft. Apache was
just an amorphous group on die Net. Verisign and the other authorities weren't
paying attention to it.

Parekh went to them and convinced them to start issuing the certificates so he
could start selling Stronghold.
just an amorphous group on the Net. Verisign and the other authorities weren't
paying attention to it.

Parekh went to them and convinced them to start issuing the certificates so he
could start selling Stronghold,

"We became number three, right behind Microsoft and Netscape, Then they saw
how much money they were making from us, so they started signing certificates
for everyone," he said, Other Apache projects that used SSL found life much
easier once Parekh showed Verisign that there was plenty of money to be made
from folks using free software.

Parekh does not deny that C2Net has not made many contributions to the code
base of Apache, but he doesn't feel that this is the best measure. The political and
marketing work of establishing Apache as a worthwhile tool is something that he
feels may have been more crucial to its long-term health. When he started
putting money i n the hands of Verisign, he got those folks to realize that Apache
had a real market share. That cash talked.

The Stronghold fork, however, did not make everyone happy. SSL is an
important tool and someone was going to start creating another free version.
C2Net hired Eric Young and his collaborator 71m Hudson and paid them to do
some work for Stronghold. The core version of Young's original SSLeay stayed
open, and both continued to add bug fixes and other enhancements over time.
Netscape had special contracts with companies to provide a proprietary tool. See
also Mozilla Public License,

OpenBSD One of the three major versions of BSD available. The development
team, led by Theo de Raadt, aims to provide the best possible security by
examining the source code i n detail and looking for potential holes.
(www.opcnbsd.org) open source A broad term used by the Open Source
Initiative (w ww.opensourcc.org) to embrace software developed and released
under the G N U General Public License, the BSD license, the Artistic License,
the X Consortium, and the Netscape License, It includes software licenses that
put few restrictions on the redistribution of source code. The Open Source
Initiative's definition was adapted from the Debian Free Software Guidelines,
The OSl's definition includes 10 criteria, which range from insisting that the
software and the source code must be freely redistributable to insisting that the
license not discriminate.

Open Source Initiative A group created by Eric Raymond, Sam Ockman, Bruce
Perens, Larry Augustin, and more than a few others. The group checks licenses
to see i f they match their definition of open source. I f the license fits, then it can
wear the term "certified bv the OSI."
Open Source initiative A group created by Eric Raymond, Sam Ockman, Bruce
Perens, Larry Augustin, and more than a few others, rhe group checks licenses
to see i f they match their definition of open source. I f the license fits, then it can
wear the term ''certified by the OSI. 1'

Symmetric Mu/fLProcessing Much of the recent work in operating system design

is focused on finding efficient ways to run multiple programs simultaneously on
multiple CPU chips. This job is relatively straightforward i f the different pieces
of software run independently of each other. The complexity grows substantially
if the CPUs must exchange information to coordinate their progress. The kernel
must orchestrate the shuffle of information so that each CPU has enough
information to continue its work with a minimum amount of waiting time.
Finding a good way to accomplish this SMP is important because many ol the
new machines appearing after 2000 may come with multiple processors.

UNIX An operating system created at AT&T Bell Labs by Ken Thompson and
Dennis Ritchie. The system was originally designed to support multiple users on
a variety of different hardware platforms. Most programs written for the system
accept ASCII text anti spit out ASCII text, which makes it easy to chain them
together. The original name was "unicsC which was a pun on the then-popular
system known as Multics.

1. BIBLIOGRAPHY
substantive decisions about the group.

This world isn't much different from the world before the corporation. A mailing
list still carries debate and acts as the social glue for the group. But now the
decision-making process is formalized. Before, the members of the core group
would assign responsibility to different people but the decisions could only be
made by rough consensus. This mechanism could be bruising and fractious i f the
consensus was not easy. This forced the board to work hard to develop potential
compromises, but pushed them to shy away from tougher decisions. Now the
board can vote and a pure majority can win.

This seriousness and corporatization are probably the only possible steps that the
Apache group could take. They've always been devoted to advancing the
members' interests. Many of the other open source projects like Linux were
hobbies that became serious. The Apache project was always filled with people
who were in the business of building die w eb. While some might miss die small-
town kind of feel of the early years, the corporate structure is bringing more
certainty and predictability to the realm. The people don't have to wear suits now
that it's a corporation. I t just ensures that tough decisions will be made at a
predictable pace.
who were in the business of building the web. While some might miss the small-
town kind of feel o f the early years, the corporate structure is bringing more
certainty and predictability to the realm. I he people don't have to wear suits now
that it's a corporation. I t just ensures that tough decisions w i l l be made at a
predictable pace.

Still, the formalism adds plenty of rigidity to the structure. A n excited newcomer
can join the mailing lists, write plenty of code, and move mount ai ns for the
Apache group, but he won't be a full member before he is voted in. In the past,
an energetic outsider could easily convert hard work into political clout i n the
organization, Now, a majority of the current members could keep interlopers out
of the inner circle. This bureaucracy doesn't have to be a problem, but it has the
potential to fragment the community by creating an institution where some
people are more equal than others. Keeping the organization open in practice
w i l l be a real challenge for the new corporation.

1. T-SHIRTS

I f there's a pantheon for marketing geniuses, then i t must Include the guy who
realized people would pay S i for several cents' worth of sugar water i f i t came in
a shapely bottle blessed by the brand name CocaCola. It might also include the
guy who first figured out that adding new blue crystals to detergent would
increase sales. I t is a rare breed that understands how to get people to spend
Daniel said. "For some reason, projects don’t bifurcate in GPL space. People
don’t grab a copy of the code and call i t their own. For some reason there's a
sense o f community i n GPL code. There seems to be one version. There's one
GPL kernel and there's umpty-ump B S D branches."

Daniel is basically correct. The BSD code has evolved, or forked, into many
different versions with names like FreeBSD, OpcnBSD, and NetBSD while the
Linux U N I X kernel released under Stallman's GPL is limited to one fairly
coherent package. Still, there is plenty o f crosspollination between the different
versions of B S D UNIX, Both NetBSD 1.0 and FreeBSD 2.0, for instance,
borrowed code from 4,4 BSD-Lite. Also, many versions of Linux come with
tools and utilities that came from the B S D project.

B u t Daniel's point is also clouded w i t h semantics. There are dozens i f not

hundreds of different L i n u x distributions available from different vendors. Many
differ i n subtle points, but some are markedly different. While these differences
are often as great as the ones between the various flavors o f BSD, the groups do
not consider them psychologically separate. They haven't forked politically even
though they've split off their code.
differ i n subtle points, but some are markedly different. While these differences
are often as great as the ones between the various flavors of BSD., the groups do
not consider them psychologically separate. They haven't forked politically even
though they've split off their code.

While different versions may be good for some projects, i t may be a problem for
packages like Free/SWAN that depend upon interoperability. I f competing
versions of Free/SWAN emerge, then all begin to suffer because the product was
designed to let people communicate with each other. I f the software can't
negotiate secure codes because of differences, then it begins to fail.

But it's not clear that the extra freedom is responsible for the fragmentation. In
reality, the different BSD groups emerged because they had different needs. The
NetBSD group, for instance, wanted to emphasize multiplatform support and
interoperability. Their website brags that the NetBSD release works well on 21
different hardware platforms and also points out that some of these hardware
platforms themselves are quite diverse. There are 93 different versions of the
Macintosh running on Motorola's 68k chips, including the very first Mac.
Eighty-nine of them run some part of NetBSD and 37 of them run all of it. That's
why they say their motto is "Of course it runs NetBSD."

The OpenBSD group, on the other hand, is emphasizing security without

compromising portability and interoperability. They want to fix all security bugs
immediately and be the most secure OS on the marketplace.
Still, hacking the kernel means anticipating what other programmers might do to
ruin tilings. You don’t know if someone's going to try to snag all 128 megabytes
o f R A M available. You don't know i f someone's going to hook up a strange old
daisy-wheel printer and try to dump a PostScript file down its throat. You don't
know i f someone's going to create an endless loop that's going to write random
numbers all over the memory. Stupid programmers and dumb users do these
things every day, and you've got to be ready for it. The kernel o f the OS has to
keep things flowing smoothly between all the different parts of the system. I f
one goes bad because o f a sloppy bit of code, the kernel needs to cut it o f f like a
l i m b that's getting gangrene. I f one job starts heating up, the kerne! needs to try
to give i t all the resources it can so the user will be happy. The kernel hacker
needs to keep all of these things straight.

Creating an operating system like this is no easy job. Many of the commercial
systems crash frequently for no perceptible reason, and most o f the public just
takes it.[ A 4] Many people somehow assume that it must be their fault that the
program failed. In reality, it’s probably the kernel's. Or more precisely, it's the
kernel designer's fault for not anticipating what could go wrong.

141: Microsoft now acknowledges die existence o f a bus i n the tens of millions
takes it.fM] Many people somehow assume that it must be their fault that the
program failed. In reality, it's probably the kernel's. Or more precisely, it's rhe
kernel designer's fault for not anticipating what could go wrong.

(4|: Microsoft now acknowledges the existence of a bug i n the tens of millions
of copies of Windows 95 and Windows 98 that w i l l cause your computer to 'stop
responding (hang)’-you know, what you call crash—after exactly 49 days, 17
hours, 2 minutes, and 47.296 seconds of continuous operation. .. . Why 49.7?
days? Because computers aren't counting the days. They're counting the
milliseconds. One counter begins when Windows starts up; when it gets to 232
millisecunds-which happens to be 49.7 days-- well, that’s the biggest number
this counter can handle. And instead of gracefully rolling over and starting again
at zero, it manages to bring the entire operating system to a hall/'-James Gleick
i n the New York Times.

By the mid-1970s, companies and computer scientists were already

experimenting with many different ways to create workable operating systems.
While the computers of (he day weren’t very powerful by modern standards, the
programmers created operating systems that let tens if not hundreds of people
use a machine simultaneously. The OS would keep the different tasks straight
and make sure that no user could interfere with another.

As people designed mure and mure operating systems, they quickly realized that
there was one tough question: how big should it be? Some people argued that the
This Source can then be run again and again to finish a task. Making this tool
available to users has been a challenge for Apple because i t forces them to make
programming easier. Many people learn AppleScript by turning o n the recording
feature and watching what happens when they do what they would normally do.
Then they learn how to insert a few more commands to accomplish the task
successfully. In the end, they become programmers manipulating the Source
without realizing it.

O'Reilly and others believe that the open source effort is just an extension of this
need. A s computers become more and more complex, the developers need to
make the internal workings more and more open to users. This is the only way
users can solve their problems and use the computers effectively.

"The cutting edge of the computer industiy is i n infoware. There's not all that
much juice in the kind of apps w e wrote i n the eighties and nineties. A s we get
speech recognition, we'll go even more in the direction of open source," he says.

"There are more and more recipes that are written down. These are going to
migrate into lower and lower layers of software and the computer is going to get
a bigger and bigger vocabulary."
speech recognition, we'll go even more i n rhe direction of open source," he says.

"There are more and more recipes that are written down. These are going to
migrate into lower and lower layers of software and the computer is going to get
a bigger and bigger vocabulary."

That is, more and more of the Source is going to need to become transparent to
the users. It's not just a political battle of Microsoft versus the world. It's not just
a programmer's struggle to poke a nose into every corner of a device. It's about
usability. More and more people need to write programs to teach computers to
do what they need to do. Access to the Source is the only way to accomplish it.

i n other words, computers are becoming a bigger and bigger part o f our lives.
Their language is becoming more readily understandable by humans, and
humans are doing a better job of speaking the language of computers. We're
converging. The more we do so, the more important the Source w i l l be. There's
nothing that Microsoft or corporate America can do about this. They're going to
have to go along. They're going to have to give us access to rhe Source,

1. PEOPLE

When I was in college, a friend of mine i n a singing group would often tweak his
audience by making them recite Steve Martin's "Individualist's Creed" i n unison.
Everyone would proclaim that they were different, unique, and wonderfully
The sun never sets on the open source empire.

On January 14, 1999, for instance, Peter Jeremy, an Australian, announced that
he had just discovered a potential Y2K problem in the control software i n the
central database that helped maintain the FreeBSD source code. H e announced
this by posting a note to a mailing list that forwarded the message to many other
FreeBSD users. The problem was that the software simply appended the two
characters 1T 9 " to the front of the year. When the new millennium came about a
year later, the software would start writing the new date as "191 00." Oops. The
problem was largely cosmetic because it only occurred i n some of the support
software used by the system,

FreeBSD is a close cousin to the Linux kernel and one that predates it i n some
ways. It descends from a long tradition of research and development o f operating
systems at the University of California at Berkeley. The name B S D stands for
"Berkeley Software Distribution," die name given to one of the first releases o f
operating system source code that Berkeley made for the world. That small
package grew, morphed, and absorbed many other contributions over the years.

Referring to Linux and FreeBSD as cousins is an apt term because they share
"Berkeley Software Distribution/ 1 the name given to one of the first releases of
operating system source code that Berkeley made for the world. That small
package grew, morphed, and absorbed many other contributions over the years.

Referring to Linux and FreeBSD as cousins is an apt term because they share
much of the same source code in the same way that cousins share some of the
same genes. Both borrow source code and ideas from each other. I f you buy a
disk with FreeBSD, which you can do from companies like Walnut Creek, you
may get many of the same software packages that you get from a disk from Reel
Flat Linux. Both include, for instance, some of the G N U compilers that turn
source code into something that can be understood by computers.

FreeBSD, i n fact, has some o f its own fans and devotees. The FreeBSD site lists
thousands of companies large and small that use the software. Yahoo, the big
Internet directory, game center, and news operation, uses FreeBSD in some of its
servers. So does Blue Mountain Ans, the electronic greeting card company that
is consistently one of the most popular sites on the web. There are undoubtedly
thousands more who aren't listed on the FreeBSD site. The software produced by
the FreeBSD project is, after all, free, so people can give it away, share i t with
their friends, or even pretend they are ''stealing" it by making a copy of a disk at
work. N o one really knows how many copies of FreeBSD are out there because
there’s no reason to count. Microsoft may need to count heads so they can bill
everyone for using Windows, but FreeBSD doesn't have that problem.
lock.

H e has a p o i n t Linux is a lot o f fun to play with and it is now a very stable OS,
but it took a fair number o f years to get to this point. Many folks i n the free
source world l i k e to say things like, "It used to be that the most fun in Linux was
just getting i t to work." Companies l i k e Morgan Stanley, Schwab, American
Airlines, and most others live and die on the quality of their computer systems.
They're quite willing to pay money i f it helps ensure that things don't go wrong.

McVby's solution hasn't rubbed everyone die right way. The Open Source
Initiative doesn't include his snitch ware license i n a list of acceptable solutions.
"The consensus of the license police is that my license is N O T open source/' he
says. "The consensus of my lawyer is that it is. But I don't call it open source
anymore."

He's going his o w n way. " I made my own determination o f what people value i n
the OS community: they have to be able to get the source, modify the source,
and redistribute the source for no fee. A l l o f the other crap is yeah, yeah
whatever," he says.
He's going his own way. " I made my own determination of what people value in
the OS community: they have to be able to get the source, modify the source,
and redistribute the source for no fee. A l l of the other crap is yeah, yeah
whatever," he says,

"The problem with rhe GPL is the GPL has an ax to grind, and in order to grind
that ax it takes away all of the rights of the person who wrote the code. I t serves
the need of everyone i n the community' except the person who wrote it."

McVoy has also considered a number of other alternatives. Instead of taking

away something that the free software folks don't value, he considered putting i n
something that the businesses would pay to get rid of, The product could show
ads it downloaded from a central location. This solution is already well known
on the Internet, where companies give away e-mail, searching solutions,
directories, and tons of information in order io sell ads. This solution, however,
tends to wreck the usability of the software. Eudora, the popular e-mail program,
is distributed with this option.

McVoy also considered finding a way to charge for changes and support to
B i (Keeper. "The Cygnus model isn't working well because it turns them into a
contracting shop. That means you actually have to do something for every hour
of work,"

To him, writing software and charging for each version can generate money
without work-that is, without doing further work. The support house has to have
Gilmore also rims the cypherpunks mailing list on a computer i n his house
named Toad H a l l near Haight Street i n San Francisco. The mailing list is devoted
to exploring how to create strong encryption tools that w i l l protect people's
privacy and is well known for the strong libertarian tone o f the deliberations.
Practically the whole list believes (and frequently reiterates) that people need tlie
right to protect their privacy against both the government and private
eavesdropping. Wired magazine featured Gilmore on the cover, along with
fellow travelers Eric Hughes and T i m May.

One of his recent tasks was creating a package of free encryption utilities that
worked at the lowest level of the network operating system. These tools, known
as Free/SWAN, would allow two computers that meet on the Internet to
automatically begin encoding the data they swap w i t h some of the best and most
secure codes available. H e imagines that banks, scientific laboratories, and home
workers everywhere w i l l want to use the toolkit. I n fact, AT&T is currently
examining how to incorporate the toolkit into products it is building to sell more
highspeed sendees to workers staying at home to avoid the commute.

Gilmore decided to use the G N U license to protect the Free/SWAN software, i n

Dart because he has had bad experiences i n die oast w i t h totally free software. H e
examining how to incorporate the toolkit into products it is building to sell more
highspeed services to workers staying at home to avoid the commute.

Gilmore decided to use the G N U license to protect the Free/SWAN software, in

part because he has had bad experiences in the past with totally free software. He
once wrote a little program called PDTar that was an improvement over the
standard version of Tar used on the Internet to bundle together a group of files
into one big, easy-tomanage bag of bits often known affectionately as Tarballs."
He decided he wasn't going to mess around with Stallman's G N U license or
impose any restrictions on the source code at all. He was just going to release it
into the public domain and give eveiyone total freedom.

This good deed did not go unpunished, although the punishment was relatively
minor. He recalls, T never made PDTar work for DOS, but six or eight people
did. For years after the release, I would get mail saying, Tve got this binary for
the DOS release and i t doesn't work? They often didn't even have the sources
that went with the version so 1 couldn't help them i f 1 tried/' Total freedom, i t
turned out, brought a certain amount of anarchy that made it difficult for him to
manage the project. While the total freedom may have encouraged others to
build their own versions of PDTar, it didn't force them to release the source code
that went with their versions so others could learn from or fix their mistakes
Hugh Daniel, one of the testers for the Free/SWAN project, says that he thinks
the GNU General Public License will help keep some coherency to the project.
"There's also a magic thing with GPL code that open source doesn't have/
great writers. Spending days, weeks, months, and years of your life
communicating by e-mail and newsgroups teaches people how to write well and
get to the point quickly. The Internet is very textual, and the hard-core computer
programmers have plenty o f experience spitting out text. As every programmer
knows, you're supposed to send e-mail to the person next to you i f you want to
schedule lunch. That person might be i n the middle of something.

O f course, there’s a danger to making a sweeping generalization implying that

the free source world is filled w i t h great writers. The fact is that we might not
have heard from the not-so-great writers who sit lurking on the Net. While some
of the students who led the revolutions of 1968 were quite articulate, many o f
the tie-dyed masses were also i n the picture. You couldn't miss them. On the
Internet, the silent person is invisible.

Some argue that the free software world has burgeoned because the silent folks
embraced the freely available source code. Anyone could download die source
code and play w i t h it without asking permission or spending money. That meant
that 13-y ear-old kids could start using the software without asking their parents
for money. SCO U n i x and Windows N T cost big bucks.
embraced the freely available source code. Anyone could download rhe source
code and play with it without asking permission or spending money. That meant
that 13-year-old kids could start using the software without asking their parents
for money. SCO Unix and Windows NT cost big bucks.

This freedom also extended to programmers at work. In many companies, the

computer managers are doctrinaire and officious. They often quickly develop
knee-jerk reactions to technologies and use these stereotypes to make technical
decisions. Free software like Linux was frequently rejected out of hand by the
gatekeepers, who thought something must be wrong with the software if no one
was charging for it. These attitudes couldn't stop the engineers who wanted to
experiment with the free software, however, because it had no purchase order
that needed approval.

The invisible-man quality is an important part of the free software world. While
I've described the bodies and faces of some of the belterknown free source poster
boys, i t is impossible to say much about many of the others. The community is
spread out over the Internet throughout the world. Many people who work
closely on projects never meet each other. The physical world with all of its
ways of encoding a position in a hierarchy are gone. No one can tell how rich
you are by your shoes. The color of your skin doesn't register, it's all about
technology aod technological ideas.

I n fact, there is a certain degree of Emily Dickinson i n the world. Just as that
"He's plugged into that community and mailing lists a lot more," explains Naef,
"There are oilier people here who are, too, but there are all these tools out there
i n the open source world. There's code out there that can be incorporated into our
computer projects. I t can cut your development costs i f you can find stuff y o u
can use."

Of course, all of this justification and rationalization aren’t the main reason why
Newberry spends so much of his time hacking on Linux. Sure, it may help his
company's bottom line. Sure, it might beef up his r sum by letting h i m brag that
he got some code i n the Linux kernel. But he also sees this as a b i t of charity.

" I get a certain amount of satisfaction from the work. .. but 1 get a certain amount
o f satisfaction out o f helping people. Improving Linux and especially its
integration with Macs has been a pet project of mine for some time," he says.
Still, he sums up his real motivation by saying, "1 write software because I just
love doing IL" Perhaps we’re just lucky that so many people love writing open
source software and giving it away.

1. LOVE
love doing it." Perhaps we're just lucky that so many people love writing open
source software and giving i t away.

1, L O V E

It's not hard to find bad stories about people who write good code. One person at
a Linux conference told me, "The strange thing about Linus Torvalds is that he
hasn't really offended everyone yet. A l l of the other leaders have managed to
piss off someone at one time nr another. It's hard to find someone who isn't hated
by someone else." While he meant it as a compliment for Torvalds, he sounded
as i f he wouldn't be surprised i f Tbrvalds did a snotty, selfish, petulant thing. It
would just be par for the course.

There are thousands of examples of why people in the open source community
hate each other and there are millions of examples of why they annoy each other.
The group is filled with many strong-minded, independent individuals who aren't
afraid to express their opinions. Flame wars spring up again and again as people
try to decide technical questions like whether i t makes more sense to use long
integers or floating point numbers to hold a person's wealth in dollars.

Of course, hate is really too strong a word. I f you manage to pin down some of
the people and ask them, point blank, whether they really hate someone, they'll
say, "No." They really just don't like a few of that person's technical decisions.
source tree to everyone on the team. Anyone can make changes. Core areas, on
the other hand, are still controlled by leaders.

Some groups have become very effective marketing forces. Red Hat is a well-
run company that has marketing teams selling people on upgrading their
software as well as engineering teams with a job of writing improved code to
include in future versions, Red Hat packages their distribution in boxes that are
sold through normal sales channels like bookstores and catalogs. They have a
big presence at trade shows like LinuxExpo, in part because they help organize
them.

Other groups like Slackware only recently opened up a website. OpenBSD sells
copies to help pay for its Internet bills, not to expand its marketing force. Some
distributions are only available online.

In many cases, there is no clear spectrum defined between order and anarchy.
The groups just have their own brands of order. OpenBSD brags about stopping
security leaks and going two years without a rootlevel intrusion, hut some of its
artwork is a bit scruffy. Red Hat, on the other hand, has been carefully working
to make Linux easy for everyone to use, but they're not as focused on security
I n many cases, there is no clear spectrum defined between order and anarchy.
The groups just have their own brands of order. OpenBSD brags about slopping
security leaks and going two years without a rootlevel intrusion, but some of its
artwork is a bit scruffy. Red Hat, on the other hand, has been carefully working
to make Linux easy for everyone to use. but they're not as focused on security
details.

Of course, this amount of order is always a bit of a relative term. None of these
groups have strong lines of control. A l l of them depend upon the contributions of
people. Problems only get solved i f someone cares enough to do it.

This disorder is changing a bit now that serious companies like Red Hat and VA
Linux are entering the arena. These companies pay fulltime programmers to
ensure that their products are bug free and easy to use. I f their management does
a good job, the open source software world may grow more ordered and actually
anticipate more problems instead of waiting for the right person to come along
with the lime and the inclination to solve them.

These are just a few of the major fault lines. Practically every project comes with
major technical distinctions that split the community. Is Java a good language or
another attempt at corporate control? How should the basic Apache web sciver
handle credit cards? What is the best way to handle 64-bit processors? There arc
thousands of differences, hundreds of fault lines, scores of architectural
arguments, and dozens of licenses. But at least all of the individuals agree upon
world. The notion of sharing source code with the world owes a great deal to the
academic tradition of publishing results so others can read them, think about
them, critique them, and ultimately extend them. Many of the government
granting agencies l i k e the National Science Foundation and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency fostered this sharing by explicitly requiring
that people w i t h grants release the source code to the world w i t h no restrictions.
Much of the Internet was created by people who gave out these kinds of
contracts and insisted upon shared standards that weren’t proprietary. This
tradition has fallen on harder times as universities became more obsessed with
the profits associated w i t h patents and contract research, but the idea is so
powerful that it's hard to displace.

The free software movement i n particular owes a great deal to the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Richard Stallman, the man who is credited w i t h starting
the movement, began working i n MITs computer labs in the 1970s, H e gets
credit for sparking the revolution because he wrote the GNU Manifesto i n 1984.
The document spelled out why it’s essential to share the source code to a
program w i t h others. Stallman took the matter to heart because he also practiced
what he wrote about and contributed several great programs, including a text
editor with thoiKanrk of featiirpc;
credit for sparking the revolution because he wrote the G N U Manifesto i n 1984.
The document spelled out why it’s essentia] to share the source code to a
program with others. Stallman took the matter to heart because he also practiced
what he wrote about and contributed several great programs, including a text
editor with thousands of features.

Of course. Stallman doesn't take credit for coming up with the idea of sharing
source code. He remembers his early years at MIT quite fondly and speaks of
how people would share their source code and software without restrictions. The
computers were new, complicated, and temperamental. Cooperation was the only
way that anyone could accomplish anything. That's why IBM shared the source
code to the operating systems on their mainframes though the early part of the
1960s.

This tradition started to fade by the early 1980s as the microcomputer revolution
began. Companies realized that most people just wanted software that worked.
They didn't need the source code and ail the instructions that only programmers
could read. So companies quickly learned that they could keep the source code
to themselves and keep their customers relatively happy while locking out
competitors. They were kings who built a wall to keep out the intruders.

The G N U Manifesto emerged as the most radical reaction to the trend toward
locking up the source code. While many people looked at the G N U Manifesto
with confusion, others became partial converts. They began donating code that
One of the best places to see this destabilization i s in the efforts of the United
States government to regulate die flow of encryption software around the globe.
Open source versions of encryption technology are oozing through the cracks of
a carefully developed mechanism for restricting the flow of the software. The
U.S. government has tried to keep a l i d on the technology behind codes and
ciphers since World War IL Some argue that the United States won World War JI
and many of the following wars by a judicious use o f eavesdropping.
Codebreakers i n England and Poland cracked the German Enigma cipher, giving
the Allies a valuable clue about German plans. The Allies also poked holes i n
the Japanese code system and used this to w i n countless battles. N o one has
written a comprehensive history of how code-breaking shifted the course o f the
conflicts i n Vietnam, Korea, o r the Middle East, but the stories are bound to be
compelling.

In recent years, the job o f eavesdropping on conversations around the world has
fallen o n the National Security Agency, which is loath to lose the high ground
that gave the United Stales so many victories i n the past. Cheap consumer
cryptographic software threatened the agency’s ability to vacuum up bits of
intelligence throughout the world, and something needed to be done. I f good
srramblinp snfrwarp was built into pvpku rnnv nf Fiidnra and Mirrnsnft Wnrd
fallen on the National Security Agency, which is loath to lose the high ground
that gave the United Stares so many victories i n rhe past. Cheap consumer
cryptographic software threatened the agency's ability to vacuum up bits of
intelligence throughout the world, and something needed to be done. I f good
scrambling software was built into every copy of Eudora and Microsoft Word,
then many documents would be virtually unreadable. The United Stales fought
the threat by regulating the export of all encryption source code. The laws
allowed the country to regulate the export of munitions, and scrambling software
was p u t i n that category.

These regulations have caused an endless amount of grief i n Silicon Valley, The
software companies don't want someone telling them what, to write. Clearing
some piece of software with a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C, is a real pain in
the neck. It's hard enough to clear it with your boss. Most of the time, the
bureaucrat won't approve decent encryption software, and that means the U.S.
company has a tough choice: it can either not export its product, or build a
substandard one.

There are branches of the U.S. government that would like to go further. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation continues to worry that criminals w i l l use the
scrambling software to thwart investigations. The fact that encryption software
can also be used by average folks to protect their money and privacy’ has
presented a difficult challenge to policy analysts from the FBI. From lime to
lime, the F B I raises the specter of just banning encryption software outright.
who are into economic competition for the ego gratification of having a bigger
sport utility vehicle than everyone else on tlie street are going to be disappointed.

To some extent, the politics of the free source movement are such a conundrum
that people simply project their wishes onto it John Gilmore told me over
dinner, "Weil, it depends. Eric Raymond is sort of a libertarian but Richard
Stallman is sort of a communist I guess it's both." The freedom makes it
possible for people to mold the movement to be what they want.

Raymond has no problem seeing his libertarian dreams acted out in die free
software community. He looked at the various groups creating their own
versions of free source code and saw a big bazaar where merchants competed to
provide the best solutions to computer users everywhere. People wrote neat stuff
and worked hard to make sure that others were happy. It was competition at its
finest, and there was no money or costs of exchange to get in the way.

Most people quickly become keenly aware of this competition. Each of the
different teams creating distributions flags theirs as the best, the most up-to-date,
the easiest to install, and the most plush. The licenses mean that each group is
free to grab stuff from the other, and this ensures that no one builds an
Most people quickly become keenly aware of this competition. Each of the
different teams creating distributions flags theirs as the best. the most up-to-date,
the easiest to install, and the most plush. The licenses mean that each group is
free to grab stuff from the other, and this ensures that no one builds an
unstoppable lead like Microsoft did in the proprietary OS world. Sure, Red Hat
has a large chunk of the mindshare and people think their brand name is
synonymous with Linux, bin anyone can grab their latest distribution and start
making improvements on it. it takes little time at all.

Stallman and his supposed communist impulse is a bit harder to characterize. He

has made his peace with money and he's quick to insist that he's not a communist
or an enemy of the capitalist state. He's perfectly happy when people charge for
their work as programmers and he often does the same. But its easy to see why
people start to think he's something of a communist. One of his essays, which he
insists is not strictly communist, is entitled "Why Software Should Not Have
Owners.’ 1

Some of his basic instincts sure look Marxist. The source code to a program
often acts like the means of production, and this is why the capitalists running
the businesses try to control it. Stallman wanted to place these means of
production i n the hands of everyone so people could be free to do what they
wanted. While Stallman didn't rail against the effects of money, he rejected the
principle that intellectual capital, the source code, should be controlled.
Torvalds looked at Stallman and decided to follow his lead with open source
code. Torvalds's free software began to attract people who liked to play around
with technology. Some just glanced at i t . Others messed around for a few hours.
Free is a powerful incentive. It doesn't let money, credit cards, purchase orders,
and the boss’s approval get i n the way o f curiosity. A few, like Alan Cox, had
such a good time taking apart an operating system that they stayed on and began
contributing back to the project.

In time, more and more people like Alan Cox discovered Torvalds's little project
o n the Net. Some slept late. Others kept normal hours and worked i n offices.
Some just found bugs. Others fixed the bugs. Still others added new features that
they wanted. Slowly, the operating system grew from a toy that satisfied the
curiosity of computer scientists into a usable tool that powers supercomputers,
web servers, and millions o f other machines around the world.

Today, about a thousand people regularly work with people like Alan Cox on the
development of the Linux kernel, the official name for the part o f the operating
system that Torvalds started writing hack in 1991. That may not be an accurate
estimate because many people check i n for a few weeks when a project requires
their Dartici nation. Some follow everything. but most neonleare lust interested
Today, about a thousand people regularly work with people like Alan Cox on the
development of the Linux kernel, the official name for the part of the operating
system that Torvalds started writing back in 1991. That may not be an accurate
estimate because many people check in for a few weeks when a project reqHires
their participation. Some follow everything, but most people are just interested
In little corners. Many other programmers have contributed various pieces of
software such as word processors or spreadsheets. All of these are bundled
together into packages that are often called plain Linux or GNU/Linux and
shipped by companies like Red Hat or more ad hoc groups like Debian j
While Torvalds only wrote the core kernel, people use his name, Linux, to stand
fora whole body of software written by thousands of others. It's not exactly fair,
but most let it slide. I f there hadn't been the Linux kernel, the users wouldn't
have tlie ability to run software on a completely free system. The free software
would need to interact with something from Microsoft, Apple, o r I B M . O f
course, if it weren't for all of the other free software from Berkeley, the G N U
project, and thousands of other garages around the world, there would be little
for the Linux kernel to do.

( 1): /Linux Weekly News/ keeps a complete list of distributors. These range from
the small, one- or two-man operations to the biggest, most corporate ones like
Red Hat: Alzza Linux, Apokalvpse, Armed Linux, Bad Penguin Linux, Bastille
Linux, Best Linux (Finnish/Swedish), Bifrost, Black Cat Linux
(Ukrainian Russian), Caldera OpenLinux, CCLinux, Chinese Linux Extension,
Complete Linux, Conectiva Linux (Brazilian), Debian GNU/Linux, Definite
The free source world is suffering from an acute case of success. Many of the
great projects like Apache and Sendmail are growing up and being taken over by
corporations with balance sheets. Well, not exactly taken over, but the
corporations w i l l exist and they'll try to shepherd development. Other
corporations like Apple, Sun, and Netscape are experimenting with open source
licenses and trying to make money while sharing code. Some quaint open source
companies like Red Hat are growing wealthy by floating IPOs to raise some
money and maybe buy a few Porsches for their stakeholders. There's a l o t of
coming of age going on.

On the face of it, none of this rampant corporatization should scare the guys who
built the free software world in their spare cycles. The corporations are coming
to free source because it's a success. They want to grab some of the open
software mojo and use it to drive their own companies. The suits on the plane are
al] tuning into Slashdot, buying T-shirts, and reading Eric Raymond's essay "The
Cathedral and the Bazaar” in the hopes of glomming o n to a great idea. The suits
have given up their usual quid pro quo: be a good nerd, keep the code running,
and we l l let y o u wear a T-shiit in your basement office. N o w they want to try to
move i n and live the life, too. I f Eric Raymond were selling Kool-Aid, they
wrmlrl hp f idhtino t n drink it
Cathedral and the Bazaar" in the hopes of glomming on to a great idea. The suits
have given up their usual quid pro quo: be a good nerd, keep the code running,
and we'll let you wear a T-shirt i n your basement office, Now they want to try to
move i n and live the life, too. i f Eric Raymond were selling Kool-Aid, they
would be fighting to drink it.

The talk is serious, and it's affecting many of the old-line companies as well.
Netscape started the game by releasing the source code to a development version
of their browser in March of 1998. Apple and Sun followed and began giving
away the source code to part of their OS. Of course, Apple got pan of the core of
their OS from the open source world, but that's sort of beside the point. They're
still sharing some of their new, Apple-only code. Some, not all. But that's a lot
more than they shared before. Sun is even sharing die source code to their Java
system. I f you sign the right papers or click the right buttons, you can download
the code right now. Its license is more restrictive, but they're joining the club,
getting religion, and hopping on the bandwagon.

Most of the true devotees are nervous about all of this attention. The free
software world was easy to understand when it was just late-night hackfests and
endless railing against AT&T and U N I X . It was simple when it was just messing
around with grungy code that did way cool things. It was a great, he-man,
Windoze- hating clubhouse back then..

Well, the truth is that some of the free software world is going to go off to
 1. GLOSSARY

Apache License A close cousin of the B S D License. The software comes w i t h

few restrictions, and none prevent you from taking a copy o f Apache, modifying
it, and selling binary versions. The only restriction is that you can't call it
Apache. For instance, C2Net markets a derivative of Apache known as
Stronghold.

AppleScript A text language that can be used to control the visual interface of the
Macintosh. It essentially says things like "Open that folder and double click on
Adobe Photoshop to start i t up. Then open the file named 'Pete's Dog’s Picture."'
architecture Computer scientists use the word "architecture" to describe the high-
level, strategic planning of a system. A computer architect may decide, for
instance, dial a new system should come with three multiplier circuits but not
four after analyzing the sequence o f arithmetic operations that a computer w i l l
likely be called upon to execute. I f there are often three multiplications that
could be done concurrently, then installing three multiplier circuits would
increase efficiency. Adding a fourth, however, would be a waste o f effort i f there
r
w ere few occasions to use it. In most cases, the term "coniDuter architect"
four after analyzing (he sequence of arithmetic operations that a computer will
likely be called upon to execute. I f there are often three multiplications that
could be done concurrently, then installing three multiplier circuits would
increase efficiency. Adding a fourth, however, would he a waste of effort i f there
were few occasions to use it. In most cases, the term ' computer architect"
applies only to hardware engineers. A l l sufficiently complicated software
projects, however, have an architect who makes lhe initial design decisions.

Zirfisnc License A license created to protect the original perl language. Some
users dislike the license because it is too complex and filled with loopholes,
Bruce Perens writes, "The Artistic License requires you to make modifications
free, but then gives you a loophole ( i n Section 7) that allows you to take
modifications private or even place parts of the Artistic-licensed program i n the
public domain!"

BeOS A n operating system created by die Be, a company run by ex Apple

executive Jean Louis Gass e.

BSD A n abbreviation for Berkeley Software Distribution, a package first

released by B i l l Joy in the 1970s. The term has come to mean both a class of
U N I X that was part of the distribution and also the license that protects this
software. There are several free versions of B S D UNIX that are well-accepted
and we 11-supported by the free source software community. OpenBSD, NetBSD,
and FreeBSD are three of them. Many commercial versions of UNIX, like Sun's
Red Hat, Caldera, or a group like OpenBSD to do some of the basic research i n
building a Linux system. All of the distribution companies charge for a copy of
their software and throw i n some support. While the software is technically free,
you pay for help to get i t to work.

I f the free source code is protected by the G N U General Public License, then
you end up paying again when you're forced to include your changes with the
software you ship. Bundling things up, setting u p a server, writing
documentation, and answering users’ questions take time. Sure, it may be fair,
good, and nice to give your additions back to the community, but it can be more
of a problem for some companies. Let’s say you have to modify a database to
handle some proprietary process, like a weird way to make a chemical or
manufacture a strange widget. Contributing your source code back into the
public domain may reveal something to a competitor. Most companies won’t
have this problem, but being forced to redistribute code always has costs.

Of course, the cost of this is debatable. Tivo, for instance, is a company that
makes a set-top box for recording television content on an internal hard disk.
The average user just sees a fancy, easy-to-use front end, but underneath, the
entire system runs on the L i n u x operating system. T i v o released a copy of the
Of course, the cost o f this is debatable. Tivo, for instance, is a company that
makes a set-top box for recording television content on an internal hard disk.
The average user just sees a fancy, easy-to-use front end, but underneath, the
entire system runs on the Linux operating system. Tivo released a copy of the
stripped-down version of Linux it ships on its machines on its website, fulfilling
its obligation to the G N U GPL. The only problem I've discovered is that the web
page (www.tivo.com/linux/) is not particularly easy to find from the home page.
I f I hadn't known it was there, I wouldn't have found it.

Of course, companies that adopt free source software also end up paying i n one
way or another because they need to hire programmers to keep the software
running. This isn’t necessarily an extra cost because they would have hired
Microsoft experts anyway. Some argue that the lice source software is easier to
maintain and thus cheaper to use, but these are difficult arguments to settle.

I n each of these ways, the free software community is giving away something to
spark interest and then finding a way to make up the cost later. Some in the free
software community sell support and others get jobs. Others give back their
extensions and bug fixes. A running business is a working ecology where
enough gets reinvested to pay for the next generation of development. The free
source world isn't a virtual single corporation like the phone company or the
cable business, but it can be thought of i n that way. Therefore, the free software
isn't much different from the free toasters at the banks, the free lollipops at the
stream to use. A company like Adobe can integrate some neat new streaming
technology or compression algorithm and add the cost of a patent license to the
price of the product. A free software tool can't.

This does not preclude the free software world from using some ideas or
software. There’s no reason why Linux can't run proprietary application software
that costs money. Perhaps people w i l l sell licenses for some distributions and
patches. Still, the users must shift mental gears when they encounter these
packages.

There are no easy solutions to patent problems. The best news is that proprietary,
patented technology rarely comes to dominate the marketplace. There are often
ways to work around solutions, and other engineers are great at finding them.
Sure, there w i l l be the occasional brilliant lightbulb, transistor, radio, or other
solution that is protected by a broad patent, but these w i l l be relatively rare.

There are a few things that the open source community can do to protect
themselves against patents. Right now, many o f the efforts at developing open
source solutions come after technology emerges. For instance, developing
drivers for D V D disks is one of the current challenges at the time that I'm
There are a few things that the open source community can do to protect
themselves against patents. Right now, many of the efforts at developing open
source solutions come after technology emerges. For instance, developing
drivers for DVD disks is one o f the current challenges at the time that I'm
writing this chapter even though the technology has been shipping with many
midpriced computers for about a year.

There is no reason why some ivory-tower, blue-sky research can't take place in a
patent- free world of open source. Many companies already allow their
researchers to attend conferences and present papers on their open work and
classify this as "precum petit ivc" research. Standards like JPEG or MPEG emerge
from committees that pledge not to patent their work. There is no reason why
these loose research groups can't be organized around a quasi-BSD or G N U
license that forces development to be kept in the open.

These research groups w i l l probably he poorly funded but much more agile than
rhe corporate teams or even the academic teams. They might be organized
around a public newsgroup or mailing list that is organized for the purpose of
publicly disclosing ideas. Once they're officially disclosed, no patents can be
issued on them. Many companies like I B M and Xerox publish paper journals for
defensive purposes.

Still, the debate about patents will be one that w i l l confound the entire software
This was one of the first times that a major corporation started taking note of
what was happening in the garages and basements of hardcore computer
programmers. I t was also one o f the first times that a corporation looked at an
open source operating system and did not react with fear or shock. Sun was
always a big contributor of open source software, but they kept their OS
proprietary. H a l l worked tirelessly at Digital to ensure that the corporation
understood the implications o f the GPL and saw that it was a good way to get
more interested i n the Alpha chip, H e says he taught upper management at
Digital how to ’say the L - w o r d / '

Hall also helped start a group called Linux International, which works to make
the corporate world safe for Linux. "We help vendors understand the Linux
1
marketplace/ H a l l told me. ’There's a lot of confusion about what the GPL
means. Less now, but still there’s a lot of confusion. We helped them find the
markets.”

Today, Linux International helps control the trademark on the name Linux and
ensures that i t is used i n an open way. "When someone wanted to call themselves
something l i k e 'Linux University/ we said that’s bad because there’s going to be
more than one. ’Linux University o f North Carolina’ is okav. It ooens un the
Today, Linux International helps control the trademark on the name Linux and
ensures that it is used i n an open way. "When someone wanted to call themselves
something like Linux University/ we said that's bad because there's going to be
more than one. 'Linux University of North Carolina' is okay. It opens up the
space/'

hi the beginning, Torvalds depended heavily on the kindness of strangers like

Hall, He didn't have much money, and the Linux project wasn't generating a
huge salary for him. Of course, poverty also made it easier for people like H a l l
to justify giving him a machine. Torvalds wasn't rich monetarily, but he became
rich i n machines.

By 1994, when Hall met Torvalds, Linux was already far from just a one-man
science project. The floppy disks and CD-ROMs holding a version of the OS
were already on the market, and this distribution mechanism was one of the
crucial unifying forces. Someone could just plunk down a few dollars and get a
version that was more or less ready to run. Many simply downloaded their
versions for free from die Internet.

9,2 M A K I N G I T EASY TO USE

I n 1994,. getting Linux to run was never really as simple as putting the CD-ROM