--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/00_chapters.tex	Tue May 18 13:47:58 2010 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+
+\input{./chapters/consumer_to_creator.tex}
+
+\input{./chapters/free_culture_in_relation_to_software_freedom.tex}
+
+\input{./chapters/the_darling_conceptions_of_your_time.tex}
+
+\input{./chapters/jabber.tex}
+
+\input{./chapters/free_beer.tex}
+
+\newpage
+\mbox{}\vfill\begin{center}\LARGE{Intermission}\end{center} \vfill\mbox{}
+\newpage
+
+\input{./chapters/creating_debian_packages_from_cpan.tex}
+
+\newpage
+\mbox{}\vfill\begin{center}\LARGE{Intermission end}\end{center} \vfill\mbox{}
+\newpage
+
+\input{./chapters/kopimi.tex}
+
+\input{./chapters/hackers_gnunited.tex}
+
+\input{./chapters/unexpected_collaborations.tex}
+
+\input{./chapters/weaver_birds.tex}
+
+\input{./chapters/artificial_scarcity.tex}

     1.1--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     1.2+++ b/Makefile	Tue May 18 13:47:58 2010 +0200
     1.3@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
     1.4+# Change this to sane values for you
     1.5+DOC_PREFIX=$(HOME)/build/
     1.6+PDF_COMMAND=rubber
     1.7+PDF_FLAGS=-p -d -f
     1.8+PDF_VIEWER=evince
     1.9+# Stop changing here
    1.10+
    1.11+MAIN_DOCUMENT=book
    1.12+
    1.13+INTERMEDIATE_FILES=*.pdf *.ps *.aux *.bbl *.blg *.idx *.log *.out *.toc *.lof *.lot *.nlo *.dvi
    1.14+
    1.15+all: book view
    1.16+
    1.17+
    1.18+book: $(PDF_COMMAND) $(DOC_PREFIX)
    1.19+	mv $(MAIN_DOCUMENT).pdf $(DOC_PREFIX)
    1.20+	$(MAKE) clean
    1.21+
    1.22+rubber: $(DOC_PREFIX) 
    1.23+	$(PDF_COMMAND) $(PDF_FLAGS) $(MAIN_DOCUMENT).tex
    1.24+	$(PDF_COMMAND) $(PDF_FLAGS) $(MAIN_DOCUMENT).tex
    1.25+
    1.26+pdflatex: $(DOC_PREFIX)
    1.27+	$(PDF_COMMAND) $(PDF_FLAGS) $(MAIN_DOCUMENT).tex
    1.28+	bibtex $(MAIN_DOCUMENT)
    1.29+	$(PDF_COMMAND) $(PDF_FLAGS) $(MAIN_DOCUMENT).tex
    1.30+	$(PDF_COMMAND) $(PDF_FLAGS) $(MAIN_DOCUMENT).tex
    1.31+
    1.32+clean:
    1.33+	rm -f $(INTERMEDIATE_FILES)
    1.34+
    1.35+mrproper: clean
    1.36+	rm -f $(DOC_PREFIX)$(MAIN_DOCUMENT).pdf
    1.37+
    1.38+view:
    1.39+	@if [ ! -z "$(PDF_VIEWER)" ]; then \
    1.40+		if [ ! -f /tmp/$(MAIN_DOCUMENT).pid ] || \
    1.41+		! ps x | grep -q "^[ ]*$$(cat /tmp/$(MAIN_DOCUMENT).pid)\>"; then \
    1.42+			$(PDF_VIEWER) $(DOC_PREFIX)$(MAIN_DOCUMENT).pdf & \
    1.43+			echo -n $$! > /tmp/$(MAIN_DOCUMENT).pid ; \
    1.44+		fi ; \
    1.45+	fi
    1.46+
    1.47+$(DOC_PREFIX):
    1.48+	mkdir -p $(DOC_PREFIX)
    1.49+
    1.50+.PHONY: book clean mrproper view 

     2.1--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     2.2+++ b/bibtex/ref.bib	Tue May 18 13:47:58 2010 +0200
     2.3@@ -0,0 +1,653 @@
     2.4+@MISC{debs_cpan-git_dh_make_perl,
     2.5+    author = {Damyan Ivanov},
     2.6+	title = {{Unofficial Git repository of the dh-make-perl Debian package}},
     2.7+    howpublished = {\\\url{http://ur1.ca/f6l2}},
     2.8+    month = {October},
     2.9+	year = {2009}
    2.10+}
    2.11+
    2.12+@MISC{debs_cpan-new_maint_guide-rules,
    2.13+    author = {Josip Rodin},
    2.14+    title = {{Debian New Maintainers' Guide -- `rules' file}},
    2.15+    howpublished = {\\\url{http://ur1.ca/f6me}},
    2.16+    month = {June},
    2.17+    year = {2008}
    2.18+}
    2.19+
    2.20+@MISC{debs_cpan-new_maint_guide,
    2.21+    author = {Josip Rodin},
    2.22+    title = {{Debian New Maintainers' Guide}},
    2.23+    howpublished = {\\\url{http://ur1.ca/f6ns}},
    2.24+    month = {June},
    2.25+    year = {2008}
    2.26+}
    2.27+
    2.28+@MISC{debs_cpan-debian_policy,
    2.29+    title = {{Debian Policy Manual -- Binary Packages -- Dependencies}},
    2.30+    howpublished = {\\\url{http://ur1.ca/f6nu}},
    2.31+    month = {August},
    2.32+    year = {2009}
    2.33+}
    2.34+
    2.35+@MISC{debs_cpan-debian_perl_policy,
    2.36+    author = {Raphaël Hertzog and Brendan O'Dea},
    2.37+    title = {Debian Perl Policy},
    2.38+    howpublished = {\\\url{http://ur1.ca/f6nv}}
    2.39+}
    2.40+
    2.41+@MISC{debs_cpan-debian_perl_team,
    2.42+    title = {{Debian Perl Group}},
    2.43+    howpublished = {\\\url{http://ur1.ca/f6nw}}
    2.44+}
    2.45+
    2.46+
    2.47+
    2.48+
    2.49+
    2.50+
    2.51+
    2.52+
    2.53+
    2.54+
    2.55+
    2.56+
    2.57+
    2.58+
    2.59+
    2.60+@BOOK{gnunited-babbage71,
    2.61+    author = {Babbage, C.},
    2.62+    year = {1971},
    2.63+    title = {{On the economy of machinery and manufactures}},
    2.64+    address = {New York},
    2.65+    publisher = {Kelley}
    2.66+}
    2.67+
    2.68+@ARTICLE{gnunited-barbrook02,
    2.69+    author = {Barbrook, R.},
    2.70+    year = {2002},
    2.71+    title = {{The Regulation of Liberty: Free Speech, Free Trade and Free Gifts on the Internet}},
    2.72+    journal = {Science as Culture},
    2.73+    volume = {11.(2.)},
    2.74+    pages = {150-177}
    2.75+}
    2.76+
    2.77+@BOOK{gnunited-bell73,
    2.78+    author = {Bell, D.},
    2.79+    year = {1973},
    2.80+    title = {{The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting}},
    2.81+    address = {New York},
    2.82+    publisher = {Basic Books}
    2.83+}
    2.84+
    2.85+@BOOK{gnunited-berg80,
    2.86+    author = {Berg, M.},
    2.87+    year = {1980},
    2.88+    title = {{The Machinery Question and the Making of Political Economy}},
    2.89+    address = {Cambridge},
    2.90+    publisher = {Cambridge University Press}
    2.91+}
    2.92+
    2.93+@BOOK{gnunited-braverman74,
    2.94+    author = {Braverman, H.},
    2.95+    year = {1974},
    2.96+    title = {{Labor and Monopoly Capital}},
    2.97+    address = {New York},
    2.98+    publisher = {Monthly Review Press}
    2.99+}
   2.100+
   2.101+@BOOK{gnunited-braverman98,
   2.102+    author = {Braverman, H.},
   2.103+    year = {1998},
   2.104+    title = {{Labor and Monopoly Capital}},
   2.105+    address = {New York},
   2.106+    publisher = {Monthly Review Press}
   2.107+}
   2.108+
   2.109+@BOOK{gnunited-braverman98-318,
   2.110+    author = {Braverman, H.},
   2.111+    year = {1998},
   2.112+    title = {{Labor and Monopoly Capital}},
   2.113+    address = {New York},
   2.114+    publisher = {Monthly Review Press},
   2.115+    pages = {318}
   2.116+}
   2.117+
   2.118+@BOOK{gnunited-braverman98-320,
   2.119+    author = {Braverman, H.},
   2.120+    year = {1998},
   2.121+    title = {{Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century}},
   2.122+    address = {New York},
   2.123+    publisher = {Monthly Review Press},
   2.124+    pages = {320}
   2.125+}
   2.126+
   2.127+@MISC{gnunited-broersma08,
   2.128+    author = {Broersma, M.},
   2.129+    year = {2008},
   2.130+    month = {April},
   2.131+    title = {{Proprietary Vendors Lose £30bn to Open Source}},
   2.132+    publisher = {ZDNet}
   2.133+}
   2.134+
   2.135+@BOOK{gnunited-brown77,
   2.136+    author = {Brown, G.},
   2.137+    year = {1977},
   2.138+    title = {{Sabotage – A study in Industrial Conflict}},
   2.139+    address = {Nottingham},
   2.140+    publisher = {Spokesman}
   2.141+}
   2.142+
   2.143+@ARTICLE{gnunited-coleman08,
   2.144+    author = {Coleman, G.},
   2.145+    year = {2008},
   2.146+    title = {{Hacker practice: Moral Genres and the Cultural Articulation of Liberalism}},
   2.147+    journal = {Anthropological Theory},
   2.148+    volume = {8},
   2.149+    pages = {255-277}
   2.150+}
   2.151+
   2.152+@ARTICLE{gnunited-dafermos_soderberg09,
   2.153+    author = {Dafermos, G. and Söderberg, J.},
   2.154+    year = {2009},
   2.155+    title = {{The Hacker Movement as a Continuation of Labour Struggle}},
   2.156+    journal = {Capital \& Class},
   2.157+    volume = {97},
   2.158+    pages = {53-73}
   2.159+}
   2.160+
   2.161+@BOOK{gnunited-edwards79,
   2.162+    author = {Edwards, R.},
   2.163+    year = {1979},
   2.164+    title = {{Contested Terrain}},
   2.165+    address = {London},
   2.166+    publisher = {Basic Books}
   2.167+}
   2.168+
   2.169+@BOOK{gnunited-edwards96,
   2.170+    author = {Edwards, P.},
   2.171+    year = {1996},
   2.172+    title = {{The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America}},
   2.173+    address = {Cambridge},
   2.174+    publisher = {MIT Press}
   2.175+}
   2.176+
   2.177+@BOOK{gnunited-gay02,
   2.178+    author = {Gay, J.},
   2.179+    year = {2002},
   2.180+    title = {{Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman}},
   2.181+    address = {Boston},
   2.182+    publisher = {Cop}
   2.183+}
   2.184+
   2.185+@ARTICLE{gnunited-hannemyr99,
   2.186+    author = {Hannemyr, G.},
   2.187+    year = {1999},
   2.188+    title = {{Technology and Pleasure: Considering Hacking Constructive}},
   2.189+    journal = {First Monday},
   2.190+    volume = {4(2)}
   2.191+}
   2.192+
   2.193+@ARTICLE{gnunited-hobsbawm52,
   2.194+    author = {Hobsbawm, E.},
   2.195+    year = {1952},
   2.196+    month = {February},
   2.197+    title = {{The Machine Breakers}},
   2.198+    journal = {Past and Present},
   2.199+    volume = {1},
   2.200+    pages = {57-70}
   2.201+}
   2.202+
   2.203+@MISC{gnunited-kay1832,
   2.204+    author = {Kay, J.},
   2.205+    year = {1832},
   2.206+    title = {{Moral and Physical Conditions of the Operatives Employed in the Cotton Manufacture in Manchester}},
   2.207+    pages = {24}
   2.208+}
   2.209+
   2.210+@BOOK{gnunited-kraft77,
   2.211+    author = {Kraft, P.},
   2.212+    year = {1977},
   2.213+    title = {{Programmers and Managers: The Routinisation of Computer Programming in the United States}},
   2.214+    address = {New York},
   2.215+    publisher = {Springer-Verlag}
   2.216+}
   2.217+
   2.218+@BOOK{gnunited-lakhani_wolf05,
   2.219+    author = {Lakhani, K. and Wolf, R.},
   2.220+    year = {2005},
   2.221+    title = {{Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Projects in: Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Hissam, S., Lakhani, K., Cusumano, M. \& Shirky, Clay (eds.) Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software}},
   2.222+    address = {Cambridge},
   2.223+    publisher = {MIT Press}
   2.224+}
   2.225+
   2.226+@ARTICLE{gnunited-lerner_tirole02,
   2.227+    author = {Lerner, J. and Tirole, J.},
   2.228+    year = {2002},
   2.229+    title = {{Some Simple Economics of Open Source}},
   2.230+    journal = {Journal of Industrial Economics},
   2.231+    volume = {50 (2)},
   2.232+    pages = {197-234}
   2.233+}
   2.234+
   2.235+@BOOK{gnunited-marx76,
   2.236+    author = {Marx, K.},
   2.237+    year = {1976},
   2.238+    title = {{Capital vol. I.}},
   2.239+    address = {London},
   2.240+    publisher = {Penguin Books},
   2.241+    pages = {554-555}
   2.242+}
   2.243+
   2.244+@BOOK{gnunited-mcchesney_wood_foster98,
   2.245+    author = {McChesney, R. and Wood, E. and Foster, J.},
   2.246+    year = {1998},
   2.247+    title = {{Capitalism and the Information Age: The Political Economy of the Global Communication Revolution}},
   2.248+    address = {New York},
   2.249+    publisher = {Monthly Review Press}
   2.250+}
   2.251+
   2.252+@MISC{gnunited-moglen99,
   2.253+    author = {Moglen, E.},
   2.254+    year = {1999},
   2.255+    title = {{Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright}},
   2.256+    publisher = {First Monday},
   2.257+    howpublished = {\\\url{http://ur1.ca/f6nx}}
   2.258+}
   2.259+
   2.260+@BOOK{gnunited-moody01,
   2.261+    author = {Moody, G.},
   2.262+    year = {2001},
   2.263+    title = {{Rebel Code: Linux and the Open Source Revolution}},
   2.264+    address = {London},
   2.265+    publisher = {Penguin},
   2.266+    pages = {248}
   2.267+}
   2.268+
   2.269+@BOOK{gnunited-noble84,
   2.270+    author = {Noble, D.},
   2.271+    year = {1984},
   2.272+    title = {{Forces of Production – A Social History of Industrial Automation}},
   2.273+    address = {New York},
   2.274+    publisher = {Alfred A Knopf}
   2.275+}
   2.276+
   2.277+@ARTICLE{gnunited-oriain04,
   2.278+    author = {O'Riain, S.},
   2.279+    year = {2004},
   2.280+    title = {{Net-Working for a Living: Irish Software Developers in the Global Workplace in: Ash, A. \& Thrift, N. (Eds.)}},
   2.281+    address = {Malden},
   2.282+    journal = {Cultural Economy Reader},
   2.283+    publisher = {Blackwell}
   2.284+}
   2.285+
   2.286+@BOOK{gnunited-polanyi01,
   2.287+    author = {Polanyi, K.},
   2.288+    year = {2001},
   2.289+    title = {{The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time}},
   2.290+    address = {Boston},
   2.291+    publisher = {Beacon Press}
   2.292+}
   2.293+
   2.294+@ARTICLE{gnunited-pollack98,
   2.295+    author = {Pollack, A.},
   2.296+    year = {1998},
   2.297+    title = {{in (ed.) Robert McChesney, Ellen Meiksins Wood \& John Bellamy Foster, Capitalism and the Information Age -- The Political Economy of the Global Communication Revolution}},
   2.298+    address = {New York},
   2.299+    publisher = {Monthly Review Press}
   2.300+}
   2.301+
   2.302+@MISC{gnunited-riccardo1821,
   2.303+    author = {Riccardo, D.},
   2.304+    year = {1821},
   2.305+    title = {{Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 3rd edition}}
   2.306+}
   2.307+
   2.308+@BOOK{gnunited-robins_webster88,
   2.309+    author = {Robins, K. and Webster, F.},
   2.310+    year = {1988},
   2.311+    title = {{in (ed.) Mosco \& Wasko The Political Economy of Information}},
   2.312+    address = {Madison},
   2.313+    publisher = {University of Wisconsin Press}
   2.314+}
   2.315+
   2.316+@BOOK{gnunited-ross91,
   2.317+    author = {Ross, A.},
   2.318+    year = {1991},
   2.319+    title = {{Strange Weather – Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits}},
   2.320+    address = {London},
   2.321+    publisher = {Verso}
   2.322+}
   2.323+
   2.324+@BOOK{gnunited-sale95,
   2.325+    author = {Sale, K.},
   2.326+    year = {1995},
   2.327+    title = {{Rebels Against the Future -- The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution, Lessons for the Computer Age}},
   2.328+    address = {Reading, Mass.},
   2.329+    publisher = {Addison-Wesley Publishing Company}
   2.330+}
   2.331+
   2.332+@BOOK{gnunited-shaiken86,
   2.333+    author = {Shaiken, H.},
   2.334+    year = {1986},
   2.335+    title = {{Work Transformed: Automation and Labor in the Computer Age}},
   2.336+    address = {Lexington, Mass.},
   2.337+    publisher = {Lexington Books},
   2.338+    pages = {272}
   2.339+}
   2.340+
   2.341+@BOOK{gnunited-shell_dodge02,
   2.342+    author = {Shell, B. and Dodge, J.},
   2.343+    year = {2002},
   2.344+    title = {{The Hacking of America: Who's Doing it, Why, and How}},
   2.345+    address = {Westport, CT.},
   2.346+    publisher = {Quorum Books}
   2.347+}
   2.348+
   2.349+@BOOK{gnunited-shiller99,
   2.350+    author = {Shiller, D.},
   2.351+    year = {1999},
   2.352+    title = {{Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System}},
   2.353+    address = {London},
   2.354+    publisher = {MIT Press}
   2.355+}
   2.356+
   2.357+@BOOK{gnunited-sussman_lent98,
   2.358+    author = {Sussman, G. and Lent, J.},
   2.359+    year = {1998},
   2.360+    title = {{Global Productions – Labour in the Making of the 'Information Society'}},
   2.361+    address = {Cresskill},
   2.362+    publisher = {Hampton Press}
   2.363+}
   2.364+
   2.365+@ARTICLE{gnunited-terranova00,
   2.366+    author = {Terranova, T.},
   2.367+    year = {2000},
   2.368+    title = {{Free Labour: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy}},
   2.369+    journal = {Social Texts},
   2.370+    volume = {18},
   2.371+    pages = {33-57}
   2.372+}
   2.373+
   2.374+@BOOK{gnunited-torvalds_diamond01,
   2.375+    author = {Torvalds, L. and Diamond, D.},
   2.376+    year = {2001},
   2.377+    title = {{Just For Fun -- The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary}},
   2.378+    address = {New York},
   2.379+    publisher = {HarperCollins Publisher}
   2.380+}
   2.381+
   2.382+@BOOK{gnunited-webster02,
   2.383+    author = {Webster, F.},
   2.384+    year = {2002},
   2.385+    title = {{Theories of the Information Society}},
   2.386+    address = {New York},
   2.387+    publisher = {Routledge}
   2.388+}
   2.389+
   2.390+@MISC{gnunited-weed08,
   2.391+    author = {Weed},
   2.392+    year = {2008},
   2.393+	title = {{The Dark Side of Cyberspace – Inside the Sweatshops of China's Computer Hardware Production}},
   2.394+    howpublished = {\\\url{http://ur1.ca/f6ny}}
   2.395+}
   2.396+
   2.397+@BOOK{gnunited-wood82,
   2.398+    author = {Wood, S.},
   2.399+    year = {1982},
   2.400+    title = {{The Degradation of Work? Skill, Deskilling and the Labour Process}},
   2.401+    address = {London},
   2.402+    publisher = {Hutchinson}
   2.403+}
   2.404+
   2.405+@BOOK{gnunited-ure1835,
   2.406+    author = {Ure, A.},
   2.407+    year = {1835},
   2.408+    title = {{The Philosophy of manufactures: or, an exposition of the scientific, moral and commercial economy of the factory system of Great Britain}},
   2.409+    address = {London},
   2.410+    publisher = {Knight}
   2.411+}
   2.412+
   2.413+@BOOK{gnunited-zimbalist79,
   2.414+    author = {Zimbalist, A.},
   2.415+    year = {1979},
   2.416+    title = {{in: (ed.) Zimbalist, A. A Case Studies of the Labor Process}},
   2.417+    address = {New York},
   2.418+    publisher = {Monthly Review Press}
   2.419+}
   2.420+
   2.421+@ARTICLE{gnunited-zizek02,
   2.422+    author = {Zizek, S.},
   2.423+    year = {2002},
   2.424+    title = {{A Cyberspace Lenin: Why Not?}},
   2.425+    journal = {International Socialism Journal},
   2.426+    volume = {95}
   2.427+}
   2.428+
   2.429+@BOOK{gnunited-zuboff88,
   2.430+    author = {Zuboff, S.},
   2.431+    year = {1998},
   2.432+    title = {{In The Age Of The Smart Machine: The Future Of Work And Power}},
   2.433+    address = {New York},
   2.434+    publisher = {Basic Books}
   2.435+}
   2.436+
   2.437+@BOOK{gnunited-jordan02,
   2.438+    author = {Jordan, T.},
   2.439+    year = {2002},
   2.440+    title = {{Activism!: Direct Action, Hacktivism and the Future of Society}},
   2.441+    address = {London},
   2.442+    publisher = {Reaktion Books}
   2.443+}
   2.444+
   2.445+
   2.446+
   2.447+
   2.448+
   2.449+
   2.450+
   2.451+
   2.452+
   2.453+
   2.454+
   2.455+
   2.456+@BOOK{darling-lakoff_johnson80,
   2.457+    author = {Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.},
   2.458+    year = {1980},
   2.459+    title = {{Metaphors we live by}},
   2.460+    address = {Chicago},
   2.461+    publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   2.462+    pages = {6}
   2.463+}
   2.464+
   2.465+@BOOK{darling-castells00,
   2.466+    author = {Castells, M.},
   2.467+    year = {2000},
   2.468+    title = {{The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd edition}},
   2.469+    address = {Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK},
   2.470+    publisher = {Blackwell},
   2.471+    pages = {500}
   2.472+}
   2.473+
   2.474+@ARTICLE{darling-morgan99,
   2.475+    author = {Morgan, G.},
   2.476+    year = {1999},
   2.477+    title = {{Organisationsmetaforer}},
   2.478+    address = {Lund, Sweden},
   2.479+    journal = {Studentlitteratur},
   2.480+    pages = {9-15}
   2.481+}
   2.482+
   2.483+@BOOK{darling-vago09,
   2.484+    author = {Vago, S.},
   2.485+    year = {2009},
   2.486+    title = {{Law and society}},
   2.487+    address = {Upper Saddle River, N.J.},
   2.488+    publisher = {Pearson Prentice Hall, coop},
   2.489+    pages = {335-336}
   2.490+}
   2.491+
   2.492+@BOOK{darling-castells96,
   2.493+    author = {Castells, M.},
   2.494+    year = {1996},
   2.495+    title = {{The Information Age: economy, society and culture}},
   2.496+    address = {Malden, Mass.},
   2.497+    publisher = {Blackwell},
   2.498+    volume = {1. The rise of the network society}
   2.499+}
   2.500+@BOOK{darling-castells97,
   2.501+    author = {Castells, M.},
   2.502+    year = {1997},
   2.503+    title = {{The Information Age: economy, society and culture}},
   2.504+    address = {Malden, Mass.},
   2.505+    publisher = {Blackwell},
   2.506+    volume = {2. The power of identity}
   2.507+}
   2.508+@BOOK{darling-castells98,
   2.509+    author = {Castells, M.},
   2.510+    year = {1998},
   2.511+    title = {{The Information Age: economy, society and culture}},
   2.512+    address = {Malden, Mass.},
   2.513+    publisher = {Blackwell},
   2.514+    volume = {3. End of millennium}
   2.515+}
   2.516+
   2.517+@ARTICLE{darling-santos95a,
   2.518+    author = {Santos, Boaventura de Sousa},
   2.519+    year = {1995},
   2.520+    title = {{Three metaphors for a new conception of law: The Frontier, the Baroque, and the South}},
   2.521+    journal = {Law and Society Review},
   2.522+    volume = {29 (4)},
   2.523+    pages = {569-584}
   2.524+}
   2.525+
   2.526+@BOOK{darling-santos95b,
   2.527+    author = {Santos, Boaventura de Sousa},
   2.528+    year = {1995},
   2.529+    title = {{Toward a New Common Sense: Law, Science and Politics in the Paradigmatic Transition}},
   2.530+    address = {New York},
   2.531+    publisher = {Routledge}
   2.532+}
   2.533+
   2.534+@BOOK{darling-fridholm84,
   2.535+    author = {Fridholm, M. and Isacson, M. and Magnusson, L.},
   2.536+    year = {1984},
   2.537+    title = {{Industrialismens rötter. Om förutsättningarna för den industriella revolutionen i Sverige}},
   2.538+    address = {Stockholm, Sweden},
   2.539+    publisher = {Bokförlaget Prisma}
   2.540+}
   2.541+
   2.542+@MISC{darling-sundqvist01,
   2.543+    author = {Sundqvist, G.},
   2.544+    year = {2001},
   2.545+    title = {{Bredbandspolitik - En tekniksociologisk analys av kommunala bredband}},
   2.546+    publisher = {STS Research #2, Avd. för teknik- och vetenskapsstudier}
   2.547+}
   2.548+
   2.549+@MISC{darling-ewerman_hyden97,
   2.550+    author = {Ewerman, A. and Hydén, H.},
   2.551+    year = {1997},
   2.552+    title = {{IT och social förändring}},
   2.553+    publisher = {Byggforskningsrådet}
   2.554+}
   2.555+
   2.556+@BOOK{darling-hyden08,
   2.557+    author = {Hydén, H.},
   2.558+    year = {2008},
   2.559+    title = {{Från samhällsutveckling till samhällsförändring – om behovet av att tänka nytt, in Hydén, ed. (2008) FRAMTIDSBOKEN: Volym 1.0 ``The Darling Conceptions of Your Time''}},
   2.560+    address = {Lund, Sweden},
   2.561+    publisher = {Lund University}
   2.562+}
   2.563+
   2.564+@BOOK{darling-naess07,
   2.565+    author = {Næss, A.},
   2.566+    year = {2007},
   2.567+    title = {{När jorden stod stilla. Galileo Galilei och hans tid}},
   2.568+    address = {Stockholm},
   2.569+    publisher = {Leopard förlag}
   2.570+}
   2.571+
   2.572+@MASTERSTHESIS{darling-larsson05,
   2.573+    author = {Larsson, S.},
   2.574+    year = {2005},
   2.575+    title = {{Intellectual Property Rights in a Transitional Society – Internet and File Sharing from a Sociology of Law Perspective (in Swedish.) [Musikupphovsrätten i ett samhälle under förändring – Internet och fildelning ur ett rättssociologiskt perspektiv]}},
   2.576+    address = {Lund, Sweden},
   2.577+    school = {University of Lund},
   2.578+    pages = {28-29}
   2.579+}
   2.580+
   2.581+@MISC{darling-kierkegaard05,
   2.582+    author = {Kierkegaard, Sylvia Mercado},
   2.583+    year = {2005},
   2.584+    title = {{Taking a sledgehammer to crack the nut: The EU Enforcement Directive}},
   2.585+    journal = {Computer Law \& Security Report},
   2.586+    volume = {21},
   2.587+    pages = {488-495}
   2.588+}
   2.589+
   2.590+@BOOK{darling-tollborg08,
   2.591+    author = {Töllborg, D.},
   2.592+    year = {2008},
   2.593+    title = {{Hegemoniska revolutioner, in Hydén, ed. (2008) FRAMTIDSBOKEN: Volym 1.0 ``The Darling Conceptions of Your Time''}},
   2.594+    address = {Lund, Sweden},
   2.595+    publisher = {Lund University}
   2.596+}
   2.597+
   2.598+@BOOK{darling-karnell70,
   2.599+    author = {Karnell, G.},
   2.600+    year = {1970},
   2.601+    title = {{Rätten till programinnehållet i TV}},
   2.602+    address = {Stockholm},
   2.603+    publisher = {Jurist- och samhällsvetareförbundets förlag},
   2.604+    pages = {70}
   2.605+}
   2.606+
   2.607+@BOOK{darling-lessig06,
   2.608+    author = {Lessig, L.},
   2.609+    year = {2006},
   2.610+    title = {{Code version 2.0}},
   2.611+    address = {New York},
   2.612+    publisher = {Basic Books},
   2.613+    pages = {175}
   2.614+}
   2.615+
   2.616+@MISC{darling-hyden02,
   2.617+    author = {Hydén, H.},
   2.618+    year = {2002},
   2.619+    title = {{Normvetenskap, Lund studies in Sociology of Law}}
   2.620+}
   2.621+
   2.622+@BOOK{darling-holden08,
   2.623+    author = {Holden, J.},
   2.624+    year = {2008},
   2.625+    month = {December},
   2.626+    title = {{Democratic culture - opening up the arts to everyone}},
   2.627+    address = {London},
   2.628+    publisher = {Demos}
   2.629+}
   2.630+
   2.631+% UNKNOWN
   2.632+@MISC{darling-larsson08,
   2.633+    author = {Larsson, S.},
   2.634+    year = {2008},
   2.635+    title = {{Om Sanning och Rätt, in Hydén, ed. (2008) FRAMTIDSBOKEN: Volym 1.0
   2.636+        ``The Darling Conceptions of Your Time''}},
   2.637+    address = {Lund, Sweden},
   2.638+    publisher = {Lund University}
   2.639+}
   2.640+
   2.641+% UNKNOWN
   2.642+@MISC{darling-larsson_hyden08,
   2.643+    author = {Larsson, S. and Hydén, H.},
   2.644+    year = {2008},
   2.645+    title = {{Different darling conceptions tied to different societal systems. The case of illegal file sharing in a brave new world}},
   2.646+    howpublished = {paper presented at Research Committee Sociology of Law annual meeting, Law and Justice in the Risk Society, Milan and Como, Italy July 9-12, 2008}
   2.647+}
   2.648+
   2.649+
   2.650+
   2.651+
   2.652+@MISC{culture-licenses,
   2.653+    title = {Chart of Licences},
   2.654+    howpublished = {\url{http://ur1.ca/f6o2}}
   2.655+}
   2.656+

     3.1--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     3.2+++ b/book.tex	Tue May 18 13:47:58 2010 +0200
     3.3@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
     3.4+\documentclass[a4paper,11pt,titlepage]{book}
     3.5+
     3.6+\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
     3.7+\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
     3.8+
     3.9+\usepackage{url}
    3.10+\usepackage[dvips,bookmarks=false]{hyperref}
    3.11+\hypersetup{
    3.12+    colorlinks=true,
    3.13+    citecolor=black,
    3.14+    filecolor=black,
    3.15+    linkcolor=black,
    3.16+    urlcolor=blue
    3.17+}
    3.18+
    3.19+\usepackage{times}
    3.20+\usepackage{courier}
    3.21+\usepackage{color}
    3.22+\usepackage{xcolor}
    3.23+% needed for the copyleft symbol
    3.24+%\usepackage{textcomp}
    3.25+\usepackage{graphicx}
    3.26+\usepackage{wrapfig}
    3.27+
    3.28+% Disabled so that {\dh} (Icelandic eth) will work
    3.29+%\usepackage{ae}                 
    3.30+\usepackage{tocloft} % manages the design of ToC, LoF, LoT etc
    3.31+\usepackage[avantgarde]{quotchap} % changes style of chapter headings
    3.32+
    3.33+\usepackage{multirow}
    3.34+\usepackage{footnote}
    3.35+\makesavenoteenv{tabular}
    3.36+
    3.37+
    3.38+% suppress widows and orphans 
    3.39+\widowpenalty=10000 % try eliminate single trailing lines on top of new page
    3.40+\clubpenalty=10000 %
    3.41+
    3.42+% prevents vertical whitespace in pages it cannot sufficiently fill
    3.43+\usepackage{setspace}
    3.44+\onehalfspacing
    3.45+
    3.46+% don't use these two unless absolutely necessary, they screw up code-listing
    3.47+% (listings package) boxes by pushing the caption into the code box
    3.48+%\raggedbottom
    3.49+%\usepackage{parskip}
    3.50+
    3.51+\usepackage{listings} % for code, wrapping across several lines etc
    3.52+% add more languages here if needed (Java, Python, whatever)
    3.53+% list of supported languages here: http://www.tjansson.dk/?p=419
    3.54+\lstloadlanguages{sh, bash}
    3.55+
    3.56+% something is ``off'' with caption package (or some interaction between it and
    3.57+% some other package. The caption box is offset down and right :/
    3.58+\usepackage{caption}
    3.59+%\DeclareCaptionFont{white}{\color{white}}
    3.60+%\DeclareCaptionFormat{listing}{\colorbox{gray}{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1#2#3}}}
    3.61+%\captionsetup[lstlisting]{format=listing,labelfont=white,textfont=white}
    3.62+\DeclareCaptionFont{white}{\color{white}}
    3.63+\DeclareCaptionFormat{listing}{
    3.64+    \colorbox[cmyk]{0.43, 0.35, 0.35,0.01}{
    3.65+        \parbox{\textwidth}{\hspace{24pt}#1#2#3}}}
    3.66+\captionsetup[lstlisting]{
    3.67+    format=listing,
    3.68+    labelfont=white,
    3.69+    textfont=white,
    3.70+    singlelinecheck=false,
    3.71+    margin=0pt,
    3.72+    font={bf,footnotesize}
    3.73+}
    3.74+
    3.75+\setcounter{tocdepth}{0}
    3.76+
    3.77+\begin{document} 
    3.78+    \title{\Huge{Free Beer}}
    3.79+    \author{\textbf{Written by speakers at FSCONS 2008}\\\\ Edited by Stian Rødven Eide\\ \LaTeX{} by Patrik Willard}
    3.80+    \date{\today}
    3.81+
    3.82+    \definecolor{listinggray}{gray}{0.9}
    3.83+
    3.84+    \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{0.85cm}
    3.85+    \maketitle
    3.86+    \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.85cm}
    3.87+
    3.88+    \pagestyle{empty}
    3.89+    % without textcomp package we cannot import the licensepage, if we do, it
    3.90+    % won't compile
    3.91+    \input{licencepage.tex}
    3.92+    \tableofcontents
    3.93+    \newpage
    3.94+
    3.95+    \mainmatter
    3.96+    \pagestyle{plain}
    3.97+    \input{./00_chapters.tex}
    3.98+
    3.99+    \appendix
   3.100+    %\input{appendix/appendix.tex}
   3.101+
   3.102+    \backmatter
   3.103+    
   3.104+    \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
   3.105+    \bibliography{./bibtex/ref.bib}
   3.106+
   3.107+    \newpage
   3.108+    \mbox{}
   3.109+    \thispagestyle{empty}
   3.110+
   3.111+\end{document}

     4.1--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     4.2+++ b/chapters/artificial_scarcity.tex	Tue May 18 13:47:58 2010 +0200
     4.3@@ -0,0 +1,1484 @@
     4.4+\begin{savequote}
     4.5+    \qauthor{\LARGE{Smári McCarthy}}
     4.6+\end{savequote}
     4.7+\chapter{The End of (Artif\hbox{}icial) Scarcity}
     4.8+\label{c:articifial_scarcity}
     4.9+
    4.10+The modern materials economy has been marked by an unwillingness to face the
    4.11+subtle repercussions of the industrial revolution. In this essay I intend to
    4.12+play out this future drama of mankind in three parts. F\hbox{}irst, I will set
    4.13+the stage by showing that we have perhaps unknowingly built several political
    4.14+assumptions into our society in such a way that we cannot see these 
    4.15+foundations, let alone replace them when they are sinking into the mire. 
    4.16+Second, I will show that the failure of these foundations is not merely
    4.17+inevitable, but that it has already happened. F\hbox{}inally I intend to try to
    4.18+describe a couple of methods we can use to build new egalitarian foundations 
    4.19+for our societies.
    4.20+
    4.21+
    4.22+\section{Act 1. Our Unspoken Mythology}
    4.23+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:unspoken_mythology}
    4.24+
    4.25+A myth is a powerful thing. The power of a story, an epic or a tale is 
    4.26+formative to a culture, from the epic of Gilgamesh to the stories collected by
    4.27+the Brothers Grimm and onwards to \textit{Star Wars} or \textit{Harry Potter}.
    4.28+The stories of our time give us the context by which we live our lives – the
    4.29+stock phrases, the iconography, even, nowadays, styles and variations. Every 
    4.30+era has its heroes, and the narratives they follow from are strongly woven into
    4.31+the mood of the era, as both reality and f\hbox{}iction move forward in a
    4.32+powerful symbiosis – who would Beowulf have been without the conception of evil
    4.33+hidden in the darkness personif\hbox{}ied by Grendel? Would James Bond have 
    4.34+been interesting if not for the Cold War and subsequent hiccups and hijinx in
    4.35+global politics?
    4.36+
    4.37+Before the advent of writing, stories were transmitted from person to person by
    4.38+word of mouth. Until the printing press came to be they continued to go by word
    4.39+of mouth primarily but were also preserved for posterity in a slightly more
    4.40+permanent and immutable form. The printing press changed all that, it provided 
    4.41+a platform by which two things could be achieved. F\hbox{}irst, the
    4.42+formalization of myths – no longer would they be subject to faulty memory or
    4.43+creative manipulation, embellishment or subjugation. Second, the elimination of
    4.44+scarcity – the printed myths in their more immutable form could be reproduced
    4.45+almost indef\hbox{}initely, allowing the ideas presented to reach an almost
    4.46+inf\hbox{}initely larger audience, given time.
    4.47+
    4.48+Our stories have captured well the struggle for freedom. The premise of Arabian
    4.49+nights is the thousand and one nights in which the sultan is told a fascinating
    4.50+tale by his harem-bound storyteller who yearns for freedom from captivity.
    4.51+Dickens's stories often featured themes of freedom, from \textit{The Tale of 
    4.52+Two Cities} to the \textit{Christmas Carol}, the protagonists seek freedom of
    4.53+some kind. \textit{Oliver Twist} told of a boy wishing for freedom from poverty
    4.54+that was unjustly assigned to him as an unwanted birthright. Even Shakespeare
    4.55+put his f\hbox{}inger on the topic every now and then; Romeo and Juliet's 
    4.56+desire to be free from the constraints of their social situation, feeling that
    4.57+the battles on the streets of Verona weren't necessarily what they signed up
    4.58+for.  Some are more blatant than others in this, Orwell's \textit{1984} and
    4.59+\textit{Animal Farm} notwithstanding.
    4.60+
    4.61+All of the above can be studied in a number of ways, and is. While folklorists
    4.62+may refer to the Aarne-Thompson system\footnote{A system which enumerates
    4.63+roughly 2,500 basic plots that manage to encompass most stories. See Antti
    4.64+Aarne, \textit{The Types of the Folktale: A Classif\hbox{}ication and
    4.65+Bibliography}, The F\hbox{}innish Academy of Science and Letters, Helsinki,
    4.66+1961, for Aarne's original system which was later expanded by Thompson.} as a
    4.67+way of understanding the stories' structure, and semioticians may consider the
    4.68+symbolism within a tale or the meaningful patterns that emerge in collections 
    4.69+of stories\footnote{A fairly benign guide to Semiotics for people unfamiliar
    4.70+with the term is Daniel Chandler's Semiotics for Beginners,
    4.71+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6ro}}, there may be a better f\hbox{}ield to use in our
    4.72+exploration of the theme which interests us the most in this instance, namely
    4.73+freedom.
    4.74+
    4.75+
    4.76+\subsection{Formative myths}
    4.77+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:unspoken_mythology:formative_myths}
    4.78+
    4.79+The f\hbox{}ield of memetics came out of Richard Dawkins' book \textit{The
    4.80+Self\hbox{}ish Gene}\footnote{Richard Dawkins, \textit{The Self\hbox{}ish 
    4.81+Gene}, 1976}, which applied the phraseology of epidemiology and genetics to the
    4.82+concepts of ideas.  Memetics studies evolutionary\footnote{It's worth 
    4.83+mentioning that not all evolution needs to be Darwinian evolution; I think 
    4.84+ideas are more of a Lamarckian type, if any model of ``evolution'' (as opposed
    4.85+to emergence) applies at all here.} models in the transmission of ideas, and is
    4.86+as such as much born out of information theory on the one hand and cybernetics
    4.87+on the other as much as it is from genetics. In fact I generally consider
    4.88+memetics to be a sub-f\hbox{}ield of cybernetics, which I'll come to later.
    4.89+
    4.90+The meme (or possibly meme-complex) of freedom is very popular and very
    4.91+powerful, being transmitted from an ardent believer (memoid) to a potential 
    4.92+host through various means. Indoctrination generally begins young as with any
    4.93+potent idea, like language or property or respect for elders. Freedom also 
    4.94+seems to be a meme that people are prone to reinvent if they aren't infected
    4.95+with it and they f\hbox{}ind it might be useful. Freedom, as a meme, has 
    4.96+several f\hbox{}laws though. It is largely undefended against 
    4.97+misrepresentation, it has inconsistent sociotypes (or social expressions of the
    4.98+meme), and it appears quite prone to memetic drift, or the idea becoming 
    4.99+watered down as time progresses, until such a time that it snaps back into full
   4.100+force, creating a sawtooth-wave of sorts.
   4.101+
   4.102+All myths are not f\hbox{}iction. Some myths are portrayed not as stories for
   4.103+campf\hbox{}ire sittings or late night movies, but rather as if they were the
   4.104+truth. These are generally called lies, but only after they have been 
   4.105+discovered to be untruthful. Until such a discovery is made, these
   4.106+\textit{f\hbox{}ictitious} myths are quite as formative as their
   4.107+f\hbox{}ictional counterparts to our society. A statement regarding some well
   4.108+respected businessman's deviant sexual behaviour can damage his reputation, 
   4.109+even if it is a lie. And even after such a lie has been discovered, much
   4.110+irrevocable damage may have been done.
   4.111+
   4.112+An example of such a formative lie would be McCarthyism in the 1950s. It was a
   4.113+widely held belief of the time that communists were a purposefully destructive
   4.114+force, acting in unity within US borders in an attempt to destroy democracy and
   4.115+freedom and all that. This belief was strengthened by the will of uncle
   4.116+Joe\footnote{I am in no way related to former senator Joseph McCarthy, but I
   4.117+sure like to make that joke. Apparently, so does the Icelandic media, as can be
   4.118+seen in a late June 2008 edition of Fréttabla{\dh}i{\dh}, where I am likened to the
   4.119+senator.} and others who used the myth to push forth their political agenda.
   4.120+Perhaps they believed in the myth, perhaps they didn't. It doesn't matter. The
   4.121+meme of anti-communist sentiment f\hbox{}lourished under these circumstances,
   4.122+the cognitive image was strengthened, and society changed because of it.
   4.123+
   4.124+Granted that we know that myths and lies can be formative to our society, and
   4.125+our keen interest in this meme called freedom, the central theme of our
   4.126+movement\footnote{This would be the \textit{Free Society Movement}, and it's
   4.127+sub-classif\hbox{}ications far and wide, reaching the shores of the Free
   4.128+Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, and
   4.129+so on.}, it is self-evident that we would benef\hbox{}it our choice meme 
   4.130+greatly if we were to discover lies which have a negative ef\hbox{}fect on it.
   4.131+There are two in particular that are worth mentioning in this context for their
   4.132+profound ef\hbox{}fect on our civilization over the past two hundred years and
   4.133+the astoundingly small amount of scrutiny they have received. 
   4.134+
   4.135+
   4.136+\subsection{Centralization culture}
   4.137+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:unspoken_mythology:centralization_culture}
   4.138+
   4.139+Modern political science narrowly and crudely separates all modes of thought
   4.140+into the socialist and individualist movements with few exceptions. Whilst most
   4.141+political scientists will agree that there is more to the world than exists in
   4.142+the capitalist and communist philosophies, they tend in general to sit on 
   4.143+either side of that particular fence and toss faeces thence without regarding
   4.144+other pastures. But deep within both political theories lie two assumptions 
   4.145+that are held up high. The Marxists may disagree with the Smithists on the
   4.146+issues of who should own what and who should rule over whom, but despite all
   4.147+their diatribes they are dear buddies when it comes to the questions of whether
   4.148+anybody should rule anybody and whether anybody need own anything.
   4.149+
   4.150+In 1651 Thomas Hobbes published his \textit{magnum opus Leviathan}, a thickset
   4.151+tome using complex language to explain a set of ideas regarding the nature of
   4.152+control in man and animal, the essence of authority and the purpose and correct
   4.153+modes of civilization. In it, he makes certain statements as to the nature of
   4.154+government in particular, easily stating that in lieu of a strong centralized
   4.155+government, human civilization will dissolve into chaos\footnote{``The only way
   4.156+to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion 
   4.157+of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in
   4.158+such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may
   4.159+nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and
   4.160+strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their
   4.161+wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will [\ldots]'', Thomas Hobbes,
   4.162+Leviathan, chapter XVII (Of the Causes, Generation, and Def\hbox{}inition of a
   4.163+Commonwealth)}.
   4.164+
   4.165+The reason given for this is that man is, in his own right, a haphazard beast
   4.166+and completely incapable of making rational decisions, and thus it is only
   4.167+natural that his welfare be put into the hands of inf\hbox{}initely more 
   4.168+capable people such as, say, kings.
   4.169+
   4.170+Does that sound a little bit odd? Consider this assumption in the context of
   4.171+capitalism. Very few capitalists entirely reject the notion of
   4.172+government\footnote{I could point at Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek,
   4.173+but I'm not going to for reasons that will become apparent.}, most saying 
   4.174+rather that the government should stay out of the way of the natural behaviour
   4.175+of the market, which is busy doing its thing. A government has very few tools
   4.176+with which to sway the behaviour of a community, the f\hbox{}irst and foremost
   4.177+being the legal system, which provides a system of restrictions (or
   4.178+\textit{boundary conditions}), which act as parameters within which everybody 
   4.179+is bound to act.  Restrictions, the capitalists note, put limits on the growth
   4.180+of an economy.  Rejecting government altogether would be to reject restrictions
   4.181+altogether, but most capitalists feel strongly about keeping government handy 
   4.182+in case they screw up.
   4.183+
   4.184+I mentioned that \textit{Leviathan} addressed ``nature of control in man and
   4.185+animal.'' This wording is not accidental. In the early 1950s they were used by
   4.186+mathematician Norbert Weiner in his description of a new f\hbox{}ield of study
   4.187+with which he had become infatuated, which he verily named 
   4.188+\textit{cybernetics}, or ``control theory''\footnote{In Lawrence Lessig's
   4.189+\textit{Code v2.0}, cybernetics is misrepresented as a study of ``control at a
   4.190+distance through devices,'' missing by far the subtlety of actually studying 
   4.191+the nature of control itself and the way it behaves in systems.  }. The purpose
   4.192+of cybernetics was to explore how authority propagates through systems, and it
   4.193+has alarmingly deep things to say about such things as computers and tribes and
   4.194+economies and so on. Nowadays cybernetics is rather unpopular, with one of the
   4.195+world's largest cybernetics faculties having recently been merged with a 
   4.196+faculty of computer science, as if it were so narrowly def\hbox{}ined. 
   4.197+
   4.198+In previous decades cybernetics had glorious times, like when Staf\hbox{}ford
   4.199+Beer spent time in Chile helping Salvador Allende's government install a
   4.200+computer-controlled network of sensors and transducers, connected upstream
   4.201+through statistical software, that gave a simple method of reacting to
   4.202+situations at the factory, district, county, or national level\footnote{See
   4.203+\textit{Fanfare for Ef\hbox{}fective Freedom}, by Staf\hbox{}ford Beer.}. The
   4.204+idea was to use a network of teletype terminals running through the phone
   4.205+system, a precursor to the Internet, to maintain complete information about the
   4.206+status of the nation's economy; the Marxist government having the ability to do
   4.207+without the capitalist theme of withholding information that may benef\hbox{}it
   4.208+competitors. 
   4.209+
   4.210+The project was killed along with Allende himself when the CIA sponsored
   4.211+\textit{coup d'etat} organized and enacted by General Augusto Pinochet shocked
   4.212+the Chileans into submission\footnote{See \textit{The Shock Doctrine}, by Naomi
   4.213+Klein.}. It is unsure to what degree the CyberSyn project, as it was called,
   4.214+af\hbox{}fected the CIA's decision to sponsor the coup, but it is clear that 
   4.215+one of the key motivations for replacing Allende's Marxist government was to
   4.216+temper the rising prices of copper, Chile's main export, which was required for
   4.217+the growing information infrastructure throughout the west: CyberSyn, by
   4.218+heightening the f\hbox{}low of information through the industrial sectors in
   4.219+Chile and af\hbox{}fording the workers a more egalitarian method of industrial
   4.220+organization, was threatening to make the adoption of information technology 
   4.221+too expensive in the western world at a pivotal point in time.  Perhaps one
   4.222+could argue that Pinochet saved the Internet by enslaving an entire nation, but
   4.223+in doing so set information technology back by decades.
   4.224+
   4.225+
   4.226+\subsection{Building the System}
   4.227+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:unspoken_mythology:building_system}
   4.228+
   4.229+In cybernetics, you consider a \textit{system} to be a \textit{state space} 
   4.230+upon which a set of \textit{transformations} may act\footnote{See \textit{An
   4.231+Introduction to Cybernetics}, by W. Ross Ashby.}, and by mapping all possible
   4.232+transformations on the state space you can f\hbox{}ind contextually congruent
   4.233+states and possible paths that the system can take. To visualize this, take a
   4.234+piece of paper and draw a circle on it. The paper is the system, the circle
   4.235+represents the desired operational boundary of the system. Now place a point
   4.236+randomly inside the circle. This is the system's state. Now without lifting the
   4.237+pencil, go back and forth within the circle, making scribbles.
   4.238+
   4.239+A number of interesting questions arise. What happens if you keep going back 
   4.240+and forth between the same places? This is called homoeostasis, and is 
   4.241+generally considered a good thing, albeit somewhat unexciting. It occurs when
   4.242+you have a harmonic oscillation between states. Call it harmony if you will.
   4.243+Don't call it Utopia, please.
   4.244+
   4.245+Does distance traversed within the circle matter? It does. If you go too far
   4.246+your system is very unstable, and is likely to explode. If you don't go far
   4.247+enough the system may grow ``cold'' and die out, being replaced by something
   4.248+else entirely\footnote{A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind: ``There is a theory
   4.249+which states that if anybody ever f\hbox{}igures out what the Universe is and
   4.250+what it's for, it will immediately by destroyed and replaced with something
   4.251+dif\hbox{}ferent.  There is another theory which states that this has already
   4.252+happened.''}. What is an explosion? That's when you leave the circle. That's
   4.253+when you enter uncharted waters. It shouldn't really happen, but let's remember
   4.254+that this is a large and complex chaotic system where we are faced with any
   4.255+number of situations such as global warming, \textit{coups d'etat} and
   4.256+f\hbox{}inancial meltdown. Not everything that can happen exists within the
   4.257+circle; rather, we def\hbox{}ine our circle in terms of what kind of behaviour
   4.258+we deem acceptable.
   4.259+
   4.260+Government then, is the device that draws the circle, that sets the rate of
   4.261+change in the states, or at least installs speed bumps and so forth to keep
   4.262+things in check and balance. If they draw the circle too tight – limiting
   4.263+freedoms too severely – they risk explosion. If they put in too many speed
   4.264+bumps, they risk cooling out and being replaced by something stronger.
   4.265+
   4.266+And that's why the capitalists like to keep the government around, because they
   4.267+control the lasso, they can make sudden changes to the playing f\hbox{}ield.
   4.268+This can prove useful, they believe.
   4.269+
   4.270+Consider now the implications of the \textit{Leviathan statement} on communism.
   4.271+Marx \& Engels noted the importance of the control of the means of production 
   4.272+to be in the hands of the producers themselves, which sounds quite reasonable.
   4.273+The idea being that nobody has a say in how and when things are produced unless
   4.274+they are actually going to be doing the work. They wrote of ownership by the
   4.275+proletariat, rather than ownership by the bourgeois\footnote{A term which has 
   4.276+no relevance any more, since industrialization and destruction of natural
   4.277+habitats have forced the majority of humanity to now live in cities. Now it
   4.278+would be more correct to speak of \textit{owners of capital}, or, erm,
   4.279+\textit{capitalists}.}.  So that was theoretical communism, drunken deeply from
   4.280+tankards forged in the anarchist tradition. But in applied communism we have
   4.281+seen all over the world a tendency towards drawing ever tighter concentric
   4.282+circles, building a centralist government which tells people what the plan is
   4.283+and how it shall be accomplished by way of bureaucratic output in industrial
   4.284+dimensions.
   4.285+
   4.286+Verily has a Leviathan been pulled from a hat, and the assumption of strong
   4.287+centralized government has been abjured into reality. The result is that most
   4.288+modern local or municipal level government activity is applied to jumping
   4.289+through hoops manufactured by authorities higher up in the chain. My local town
   4.290+government has employees writing reports for the ministries of industry and
   4.291+education and environment, and they in turn have employees writing even larger
   4.292+reports for the European Union and the United Nations and so on. The power base
   4.293+has even become so diluted that it is no longer clear exactly on whose 
   4.294+authority many things are being performed.
   4.295+
   4.296+
   4.297+\subsection{Scarcity set in Stone}
   4.298+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:unspoken_mythology:scarcity_in_stone}
   4.299+
   4.300+More than a century after Hobbes, an awkward man named William Godwin wrote a
   4.301+book named \textit{An Inquiry Concerning Political Justice}. In this book he
   4.302+argued against the \textit{Leviathan statement}, insisting that it was a myth, 
   4.303+a lie, something that might not actually be right and that somebody should
   4.304+check.  The book sold well at f\hbox{}irst, attracting the attention of many
   4.305+famous people such as the feminist Mary Wollstonecraft (who later became
   4.306+Godwin's wife), the romance poet Percy Shelley (who later ran away with 
   4.307+Godwin's daughter Mary) and former US vice president Aaron Burr (who later
   4.308+killed Alexander Hamilton because of a silly dispute\footnote{In \textit{The
   4.309+Federalist Papers} as published by Bantam Classics, Burr is spoken of as
   4.310+``volatile'' in defence of Hamilton, who wrote of freedom and traded in slaves.
   4.311+The entire Burr-Hamilton incident is a fascinating one but outside the scope of
   4.312+this essay.}). But amongst Godwin's erstwhile readers was at least one who
   4.313+didn't take the meme of political justice without a grain of salt. Thomas
   4.314+Malthus, being well versed in the \textit{Leviathan statement}, wrote in
   4.315+response to Godwin a vast tract, \textit{An Essay on the Principle of
   4.316+Population}.
   4.317+
   4.318+In his essay, Malthus pointed out that without a strong centralized government
   4.319+(without using those words) imposing arbitrary restrictions on resource
   4.320+allocation to the proletariat (without using that word), human population would
   4.321+continue to increase exponentially until such a time that all the resources
   4.322+available to man would be depleted and we would all die of starvation and chaos
   4.323+would ensue\footnote{``Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical
   4.324+ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight
   4.325+acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the f\hbox{}irst power in
   4.326+comparison of the second.  By that law of our nature which makes food necessary
   4.327+to the life of man, the ef\hbox{}fects of these two unequal powers must be kept
   4.328+equal.\\ This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population 
   4.329+from the dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}iculty of subsistence. This dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}iculty
   4.330+must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of
   4.331+mankind.'', Thomas Malthus, \textit{An Essay on the Principle of Population},
   4.332+Chapter 1.}. This was a commonly held belief at the time, but Malthus gained
   4.333+notoriety for putting it in words and justifying it with graphs.
   4.334+Suf\hbox{}f\hbox{}ice to say Thomas and William\footnote{And others, including
   4.335+Nicholas de Caritat, marquis de Condorcet, who developed the \textit{Condorcet}
   4.336+voting scheme.} argued about this for several decades, and Thomas won hands
   4.337+down. As in any philosophical debate, the validity of the arguments hinged not
   4.338+on their truthfulness, but on their memetic infectiousness, which in Thomas'
   4.339+case was severely augmented by support from the governmental powers in Britain,
   4.340+desperate to hold on. The Malthusian myth was forged and is still being
   4.341+reinforced to this day, yet depressingly few Malthusians go out of their way to
   4.342+read the works of Godwin and Condorcet which are heavily referenced in his
   4.343+\textit{Essay}.
   4.344+
   4.345+Consider our circle. In the cybernetic, this means that there exist innumerable
   4.346+paths from our current state that lead to states wherein we all die from
   4.347+starvation. I'll assume this lies outside of the circle since we deem that an
   4.348+unacceptable result. Malthus' claim was that it was government's job to prevent
   4.349+society from applying certain transformations that would lead to an exhaustion
   4.350+of resources.
   4.351+
   4.352+Remember that this is all happening just as the industrial revolution was 
   4.353+taking its f\hbox{}irst steps, tumbling awkwardly over itself, making silly
   4.354+mistakes and not really getting very far. Machines, back then, were a joke,
   4.355+despite Watt and Carnot and the others. So little could Malthus know (although
   4.356+Godwin predicted) that industry would alter the entire materials economy to a
   4.357+point where resources were the least of our problems\footnote{For a couple of
   4.358+hundred years, at least.}, so it's fair to forgive him. What cannot be forgiven
   4.359+is how this assumption of \textit{scarcity}, the meme of \textit{poverty}, has
   4.360+managed to survive the industrialization of the western world without being
   4.361+attacked or scrutinized too deeply.
   4.362+
   4.363+Look at the f\hbox{}igures. Agriculture in the western world now produces more
   4.364+food than would be needed for a humanity twice the size\footnote{Statistics
   4.365+available at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6rp}; for example, 784.786.580 tonnes of maize
   4.366+were produced worldwide in 2007, 651.742.616 tonnes of rice, 216.144.262 tonnes
   4.367+of soybeans, 1.557.664.978 tonnes of sugar cane, and so on. That year
   4.368+6.186.041.997 tonnes of \textit{vegetables} were produced worldwide, which is
   4.369+roughly a tonne of food per person per year. The US Department of Agriculture
   4.370+states at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6rr} that the average person consumed 884.52 kg
   4.371+of food per year, and that statistic includes meat and dairy products.}. About
   4.372+half of this food is thrown away\footnote{See Timothy Jones;
   4.373+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6rt}}, and yet about 800 million people are
   4.374+starving\footnote{According to FAO, 852 million people, about 13\% of the
   4.375+world's population. ``Of this, about 815 million people live in developing
   4.376+countries, 28 million in ``transition'' countries of the former Eastern Europe
   4.377+and ex-Soviet republics, and about nine million in the industrialised world.''
   4.378+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6ru}} and in the west millions of people are obese. Does
   4.379+this make sense? Does poverty make sense?
   4.380+
   4.381+Industry was supposed to remedy this. Wasn't it? Was industry not intended to
   4.382+replace the human hand with machines, transforming hard labour into a
   4.383+caretaker's af\hbox{}fair of relative ease, letting machines fulf\hbox{}il our
   4.384+every want and desire in plenty, letting us all lead comfortable lives of
   4.385+af\hbox{}f\hbox{}luence? Or was the industrial revolution a purely technical
   4.386+issue, hackers of yore making things that did suave stuf\hbox{}f just because
   4.387+they had a strong desire to solve technical problems? Doubtful. As 
   4.388+technocentric as hacker\footnote{I use the term \textit{hacker} in the sense 
   4.389+``A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal
   4.390+workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular,'' as
   4.391+def\hbox{}ined in RFC1392 and echoed in senses 1-7 in the Jargon f\hbox{}ile.
   4.392+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6rv}} culture tends to be, hackers have politics up to 
   4.393+here. Look at the free software movement, look at Wikipedia.  When technically
   4.394+minded individuals come together to address problems, be they technical or
   4.395+political or social, they do so with a fervour that makes people's heads spin.
   4.396+
   4.397+Nobody is going to convince me that Alessandro Volta didn't think electricity
   4.398+wasn't going to tip the game slightly in favour of the peasants. Nobody is 
   4.399+going to tell me that Robert Fulton wasn't acting in what he believed were the
   4.400+interests of mankind. ``Oh, look,'' I can't imagine him saying. ``there's an
   4.401+opportunity for further oppression of the working classes by making them not
   4.402+only have to work, but have to f\hbox{}ight for the right to work too by making
   4.403+them have to compete on an open market against machines capable of working
   4.404+tirelessly with arbitrary accuracy!'' Nobody is that stupid. Or are they?
   4.405+
   4.406+Let's fast forward a bit. In 1968, whilst student uprisings were happening in
   4.407+Paris, Milan and San Francisco, to name a few of the more important
   4.408+battlegrounds, a professor of biology at University of California at Santa
   4.409+Barbara, Garrett Hardin, crawls out of the woodwork of relative obscurity and
   4.410+writes of the \textit{Tragedy of the Commons}\footnote{Originally printed in
   4.411+Science magazine with the introductory line: ``The population problem has no
   4.412+technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality''. See
   4.413+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6rw}.}, a thought based very deeply on the
   4.414+\textit{Malthusian statement}. Here he claims that common ownership (or 
   4.415+rather – stewardship) will end in tears when the resources run out. But Hardin
   4.416+is a post-industrial person saying that the existence of a commons was
   4.417+contradictory to the assumption of scarcity. That with anything in common or
   4.418+communal ownership, be it works in the public domain or resources not
   4.419+specif\hbox{}ically allocated, there was a threat that the commons would wipe
   4.420+themselves out. Given scarcity, people would take and take and never give.
   4.421+
   4.422+Hardin, in making this statement, was doing game theory a big favour. Game
   4.423+theory was a relatively fresh branch of mathematics made famous by Nobel
   4.424+laureate John Nash, that inspected strategies and situations in terms of
   4.425+\textit{games} played by \textit{players}. Examples of strategies developed
   4.426+under game theory were minimax (commercialism: maximize the ef\hbox{}fect of
   4.427+your actions and minimize the ef\hbox{}fect of those of your opponent) and
   4.428+tit-for-tat (the cold war: if you launch nukes, so will we). Hardin produced a
   4.429+strategy that was widely adopted, and it is known as the CC-PP game. CC-PP
   4.430+stands for “Communize Costs-Privatize Prof\hbox{}its.” In this strategy you
   4.431+leech of\hbox{}f the investments of your competitors, making the community as a
   4.432+whole pay for as much of your own expansion as is possible, but at the same 
   4.433+time making sure to keep all prof\hbox{}its for yourself by not divvying out
   4.434+your booty to the rest of the pirates.
   4.435+
   4.436+Exploring this within our system-circle (which has now admittedly become
   4.437+something of a mess), what we're doing is pushing the system in directions that
   4.438+will make others pay for our prof\hbox{}its. Who better to do this but the
   4.439+government, which already has the legislative authority to do so?
   4.440+
   4.441+
   4.442+\subsection{The Best Insurance Policy Ever}
   4.443+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:unspoken_mythology:insurance_policy}
   4.444+
   4.445+Say what you will about Friedman and co, but at least they were
   4.446+honest\footnote{Well, no. But it's a good argument to make nevertheless.}. The
   4.447+rest of the capitalists are playing the CC-PP game. Consider a few examples:
   4.448+after the great depression John Maynard Keynes suggested ideas that became
   4.449+rolled into Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which was accepted and performed
   4.450+quite altruistically. But if we look at the situation, what was being done was
   4.451+huge debts were being forgiven towards the people who caused the depression to
   4.452+begin with and society as a whole was being made to pay. In Iceland in 2008, as
   4.453+soon as the f\hbox{}inancial situation of the banks was regarded as ominous, 
   4.454+the banks were – and get this – \textit{nationalized}\footnote{For more details
   4.455+on this, see \url{http://ur1.ca/f6rx} and it's many references.}. The assets of
   4.456+the banks were seized and the government put in direct control of the daily
   4.457+operations of the bank.
   4.458+
   4.459+The owners were magically freed from their already non-existent obligations
   4.460+towards the f\hbox{}inancial stability of the bank, losing a pile of money that
   4.461+didn't exist either anyway, and the full brunt of the debt that the owners had
   4.462+created within the bank pushed onto the nation.
   4.463+
   4.464+The exact same story happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and any number 
   4.465+of other examples come to mind. Would a bank ever be nationalized if it were
   4.466+doing well? Not at all. Indeed, as was seen in Bolivia in 2001\footnote{See
   4.467+\textit{¡Cochabamba!: Water War in Bolivia}, by Oscar Olivera and Tom Lewis.}
   4.468+the obverse is true. Prof\hbox{}itable ventures, such as selling water to
   4.469+peasants, tend towards privatization in any system that assumes scarcity of the
   4.470+same.  Instant prof\hbox{}it!
   4.471+
   4.472+The net result of the CC-PP game, in this instance, is the production of a
   4.473+situation where the rich play by the Marxian rules and the poor play by the
   4.474+Smithian rules: Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor. If you just
   4.475+happen to be one of the unlucky sods who doesn't own stocks and wear a \$5,000
   4.476+suit to work, you're in a dog-eat-dog world and getting beyond that point will
   4.477+always be problematic at best. Indeed, our cybernetic circle diverges into two
   4.478+circles at an ever-accelerating rate, where one of the circles is a game plan
   4.479+for the wealthy and the other is a game plan for the poor.
   4.480+
   4.481+The government, then, is a tool being used by two factions to preserve their 
   4.482+own dominance. For those who strive to increase their inf\hbox{}luence, a
   4.483+government is a way to satisfy their egotistical yearnings. For the 
   4.484+capitalists, a government is the best insurance policy other people's money can
   4.485+buy.
   4.486+
   4.487+
   4.488+\subsection{Manufactured Scarcity}
   4.489+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:unspoken_mythology:manufactured_scarcity}
   4.490+
   4.491+And all of this comes back to the underlying principles of the political
   4.492+doctrines of Smith and Marx: Hobbes' Lie and Malthus' Lie. There are other 
   4.493+lies, but these are the core, as far as I can tell. No other elementary
   4.494+assumptions built into the system are as well def\hbox{}ined and as thoroughly
   4.495+cherished by all parties.
   4.496+
   4.497+In fact, government has been very busy enforcing these lies, upholding the 
   4.498+myth.  Scarcity is the tool they use in conjunction with the owners as a method
   4.499+for ensuring the subservience and subjugation of those not indoctrinated in
   4.500+their world\footnote{I almost wrote \textit{of the working classes} here, but I
   4.501+fear instigating a class war is a perfect way to maintain the \textit{status
   4.502+quo}.  See any class war in history for examples of this.}. Scarcity in food 
   4.503+and commodities by an inherently faulty distribution network, implicitly 
   4.504+limited by people's lack of regard for one another and explicitly limited by
   4.505+trade barriers, tolls, taxes and tarif\hbox{}fs. Scarcity in culture by the
   4.506+conf\hbox{}inement of \textit{f\hbox{}ine art} and cultural events within the
   4.507+lucrative boundaries of the cityscapes, as well as the projection of knowledge
   4.508+into books – immutable and easily scarcif\hbox{}ied by the producers, who sell
   4.509+at whichever price f\hbox{}its their fancy. 
   4.510+
   4.511+Everywhere in the system, scarcity is being manufactured to insure the
   4.512+prof\hbox{}iteers against the dangers of abundance. Working from Malthus' Lie,
   4.513+the myth of scarcity is being upheld quite vigorously as a fundamental truth
   4.514+about the nature of the universe, while elsewhere in the system people are hard
   4.515+at work disposing of excess production and obstinate themes, colour schemes and
   4.516+styles in favour of new.
   4.517+
   4.518+An example of this is the production of academic textbooks. When a professor of
   4.519+some f\hbox{}ield appears at the publishers with a manuscript for a new 
   4.520+textbook on whichever subject, the publisher will explore the availability of
   4.521+other similar textbooks, the originality, the readability and the depth of the
   4.522+manuscript, and the statistics on how many people are likely to study such a
   4.523+subject. After which they will decide on the price of each copy of the book in
   4.524+such a way that they are destined to make a prof\hbox{}it. Quite reasonable,
   4.525+assuming scarcity, but the idea of publishing the manuscript in a readily
   4.526+copyable way has not caught on.
   4.527+
   4.528+Why? Copyright.
   4.529+
   4.530+Back in the time of Hobbes, copyright law did not exist\footnote{The
   4.531+f\hbox{}irst example of copyright law in the modern sense being the Statute of
   4.532+Anne from 1710.}. Mapmakers toiling day and night to copy out maps by hand for
   4.533+ships to sail by and people to travel by were extremely jealous of their
   4.534+property, and went to great extents to maintain their unequivocal right to
   4.535+produce maps based on their particular data set, and as a copy-protection
   4.536+measure they would mark in false roads, so called trap streets, or mangle names
   4.537+of places, so that if another were to copy their maps they would be easily 
   4.538+found out. Back in those days illegal copying wasn't a large problem, but
   4.539+despite this the producers of the maps were damaging their products by
   4.540+decreasing their accuracy in order to foil people who wish to mimic that
   4.541+(in)accuracy.
   4.542+
   4.543+This kind of early DRM\footnote{Digital Restrictions Management, or Digital
   4.544+Rights Management, depending on who you ask. Generally speaking a technological
   4.545+method intended to enforce copyright. These invariably fail for numerous
   4.546+reasons. See \textit{Microsoft Research DRM} talk by Cory Doctorow,
   4.547+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6s0}}, along with monopolies in the publishing
   4.548+business\footnote{Held originally in Britain by the Worshipful Company of
   4.549+Stationers and Newspaper Makers.} and later a succession of laws starting with
   4.550+the Statute of Anne and the Berne Convention and moving through to legislations
   4.551+such as the Sonny Bono act in the United States, copyright has been transformed
   4.552+into a means of production, not of works of art, but of scarcity. Scarcity of
   4.553+the very works of art it claims to protect. Before the advent of the printing
   4.554+press and the phonograph, this was almost cute, since it was rarely worth the
   4.555+hassle of copying data by illegal means anyway because of the shortcomings in
   4.556+the technology. But with the further digitization of society, copying became
   4.557+easier and easier, and the scarcity was upheld increasingly vigorously by the
   4.558+lawmakers.
   4.559+
   4.560+Imagine you live in a far away land where the penalty for stealing bread is
   4.561+quite severe. You are starving, and so you attempt to steal a loaf, but are
   4.562+caught bread-handed. This poor judgement on your part provides you with a ten
   4.563+year prison sentence. Fair enough, 'tis the law of the land. 
   4.564+
   4.565+But let's imagine that the day after you are incarcerated, a new technology is
   4.566+invented. This new technology produces bread out of thin air at no cost to
   4.567+anybody, in virtually inf\hbox{}inite quantities, and nobody need starve ever
   4.568+again.  How just, then, is your incarceration? You stole the bread while bread
   4.569+was still scarce, and there was no way of knowing that this technology was just
   4.570+around the corner, so perhaps it is still fair; but obversely, if a law were
   4.571+passed making it no longer criminal to steal the bread, would you not wish to 
   4.572+be released?
   4.573+
   4.574+No such law is passed, and a few years pass as you mull over these details in
   4.575+your stinky cell, when suddenly a new prisoner appears. It is your brother, and
   4.576+he has just been convicted of stealing bread. Outraged, you ask how can that 
   4.577+be, since bread now exists in such plethora that nobody needs to steal bread?
   4.578+
   4.579+Ah, your brother replies, it may well be that the technology exists to produce
   4.580+bread at no cost to anybody, but it is still criminal to steal bread, and not
   4.581+everybody owns a breadulator to make bread with. In fact, the bakeries that
   4.582+produced the bread before have bought up all the breadulators and have claimed 
   4.583+a patent for their design, so they can now prevent anybody from building their
   4.584+own breadulator. Now bread costs the same as it did before, and it is of course
   4.585+illegal to steal something that is scarce, be it from your neighbour or from 
   4.586+the bakery.
   4.587+
   4.588+This inane example illustrates in very silly terms how copyright works in the
   4.589+digital age, and highlights one important aspect of it: that not only is our
   4.590+sociopolitical system thoroughly dependent on the concept of scarcity, but the
   4.591+producers who control the means of production will use their means to produce
   4.592+scarcity as well as products, in order to maintain their worth in the system.
   4.593+
   4.594+With each producer doing this, including the producers of money itself, the
   4.595+system hangs in a balance where producers attempt to scarcify their produce to
   4.596+maintain their worth relative to the prices of everything they themselves
   4.597+require from other producers to survive. If anybody over-scarcif\hbox{}ies or
   4.598+under-scarcif\hbox{}ies, there is chance of a crisis emerging. If it's food 
   4.599+that is over-scarcif\hbox{}ied, people starve. If it's oil that's
   4.600+under-scarcif\hbox{}ied, middle-eastern nations get invaded. If it's money
   4.601+that's over scarcif\hbox{}ied, people stop trusting each other to maintain the
   4.602+scarcity-equilibrium and the entire economy explodes.
   4.603+
   4.604+
   4.605+\subsection{A Recipe for World War}
   4.606+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:unspoken_mythology:world_war}
   4.607+
   4.608+We're in our circle again, this time we draw a line against our will to the
   4.609+point where we get a deep f\hbox{}inancial recession, just like in the 1930s,
   4.610+just like in 2008. Then something weird occurs. In the cybernetic, this is
   4.611+called a backlash. This is when a large and sudden change in the system causes
   4.612+another sudden change in the system. A domino ef\hbox{}fect. Probability
   4.613+theorists call these Markov explosions\footnote{Markov explosions occur in
   4.614+stochastic processes when an inf\hbox{}inity of events occur simultaneously and
   4.615+the system resets itself to a random state. There is a lot of deep literature 
   4.616+on the subject that warrants scrutiny, but as an introduction for the
   4.617+mathematically minded, I suggest \textit{Markov Chains} by J.R. Norris}. An
   4.618+inf\hbox{}inite amount of events occur in the same instant, an apocalyptic
   4.619+causality that devours every aspect of the system, and then, suddenly, it's
   4.620+over. The world has changed.
   4.621+
   4.622+In a post-depression world, a lot of people have a hard time getting their
   4.623+bearings. Confused, people lash out against whatever they can f\hbox{}ind to
   4.624+fault, be it the government, the owners of the means of production, or even
   4.625+people from outside of their tribe, city, nation or other demographic group.
   4.626+Increased nationalism is quite a typical result of f\hbox{}inancial crisis, 
   4.627+look at World War I, World War II. Look at the Napoleonic wars. Each was
   4.628+preceded by a spike in nationalism, which in turn was preceded by a
   4.629+f\hbox{}inancial collapse of some type\footnote{The historical
   4.630+justif\hbox{}ication for this claim is complicated. The Great Depression is
   4.631+easy, but see also the implications of the 1873 panic following the crash of 
   4.632+the Vienna Stock Exchange on Eastern Europe, and the ef\hbox{}fects of the
   4.633+collapse of London banking house \textit{Neal, James, Fordyce and Down} in 1772
   4.634+on Western-European trade, which led directly to the Boston Tea Party. Consider
   4.635+Kondratiev waves in this regard.}.
   4.636+
   4.637+The Napoleonic wars followed immediately from the French revolution, which in
   4.638+turn followed bankruptcy in the French state. Simultaneously in the American
   4.639+colonies f\hbox{}inancial instability was also a hot topic, which led to demand
   4.640+for taxation with representation or no taxation at all. These events and others
   4.641+like it culminated in extreme nationalism – the Americans wanted to be
   4.642+Americans, the French wanted to rule everybody, the British wanted to rule
   4.643+everybody, the Danish and Norwegians had problems f\hbox{}ighting of\hbox{}f 
   4.644+the British while the Swedish and Russians and Prussians tried to f\hbox{}ight
   4.645+of\hbox{}f the French. F\hbox{}inancial instability led to nationalism led to
   4.646+world war. Is this not avoidable?
   4.647+
   4.648+
   4.649+\section{Act 2. Burning the bridges when we get to them}
   4.650+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:burning_bridges}
   4.651+
   4.652+From the preceding pages we can learn a few things. The most important lesson 
   4.653+is that the paradigms that form the basis of our mental models of reality can 
   4.654+be built upon assumptions that are neither intended, apparent, nor correct. A
   4.655+second is that all current forms of society and government are built around the
   4.656+assumption of scarcity, and that scarcity can be shown not to exist any
   4.657+more\footnote{Or at least be insignif\hbox{}icant. Further details of remaining
   4.658+scarcity follows.}. The third is that because of these assumptions, all higher
   4.659+dynamics within our system are fraught with terrible inequalities and
   4.660+eventualities, namely poverty, famine, oppression, bankruptcy, prejudice and
   4.661+war.
   4.662+
   4.663+
   4.664+\subsection{Homogeneity and Censorship}
   4.665+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:burning_bridges:homogeneity}
   4.666+
   4.667+At the outset I made f\hbox{}leeting mention that increasingly potent copying
   4.668+technologies had made creativity harder to accomplish, since accurate copying
   4.669+leaves little room for embellishment. Constant and well-def\hbox{}ined data,
   4.670+such as the text of the Constitution of the Swiss Confederation or the original
   4.671+manuscript of a Harry Potter book is fairly resilient to \textit{ad-hoc}
   4.672+editing, whether for creative or malicious reasons. In Orwell's \textit{1984}
   4.673+the protagonist's occupation was to be a historical revisionist, altering all
   4.674+distributed accounts of the past to meet the goals of the present.
   4.675+
   4.676+Such alterations of available information cause people to be less able to
   4.677+gingerly estimate their situation, especially if given evidence contradictory 
   4.678+to what they know. Revisionism contaminates the state-space we live in and
   4.679+ef\hbox{}fects our path through it like walls raised around us blocking other
   4.680+exits. Governmental speed-bumps have been transformed into causeways, designed
   4.681+to keep us forever within their boundaries at a speed that they can very easily
   4.682+control.
   4.683+
   4.684+In less abstract terms, this is the purpose of the Great F\hbox{}irewall of
   4.685+China\footnote{A computer f\hbox{}irewall that f\hbox{}ilters all Internet
   4.686+traf\hbox{}f\hbox{}ic passing within Chinese borders, allowing arbitrary and
   4.687+even asymmetrical censorship by the government.} and other censorship tools,
   4.688+including the less well known Swedish law that allows censorship of websites
   4.689+considered to contain child pornography. The danger of such systems is that
   4.690+there is no way to know what has been placed on such blacklists without
   4.691+bypassing the censorship. Perhaps somebody has maliciously censored information
   4.692+that could af\hbox{}fect the direction taken by the society with regard to
   4.693+certain issues.
   4.694+
   4.695+Censorship need not be absolute to be ef\hbox{}fective. Western governments 
   4.696+have in recent decades realized that by applying knowledge of trends and
   4.697+emotional reactions, they can avoid the need for censorship by simply placing
   4.698+information out of sight. Press conferences confronting uncomfortable issues 
   4.699+can be pushed to times of the day where they're unlikely to be televised, or if
   4.700+televised not watched by many. Unpopular results, such as dioxin output from
   4.701+industry, can be drowned in bureaucratic noise, such as measurements of other
   4.702+less damaging chemicals, so that very few would be willing or able to plough
   4.703+through the data looking for the bad results. In legislation unpopular motions
   4.704+can be stacked up with more popular issues in sets, to hide them from scrutiny.
   4.705+
   4.706+The point of this tangential discussion is that not only the mythology upon
   4.707+which the system is built af\hbox{}fects the way we behave, but also the 
   4.708+quality of the information available to us.
   4.709+
   4.710+Memetics and indeed cybernetics is a dangerous f\hbox{}ield because of the
   4.711+danger of misunderstanding. Faulty data can be worse than no data at all, as 
   4.712+our credence for getting some output is generally high; it's only when we get
   4.713+nothing – like those living behind the Great F\hbox{}irewall of 
   4.714+China\footnote{A stunning feature of the Great F\hbox{}irewall of China is how
   4.715+it feigns non-censorship. The HTTP protocol def\hbox{}ines error codes such as
   4.716+200 (everything is okay), 500 (internal server error), 404 (f\hbox{}ile not
   4.717+found) and 403 (unauthorized to access). When a censored page is accessed from
   4.718+within the f\hbox{}irewall, instead of reporting 403, clearly stating that the
   4.719+page has been censored, the f\hbox{}irewall reports 404, as if the censored
   4.720+article did not exist at all.} – that we start to raise our eyebrows.
   4.721+
   4.722+In our journey through the state-space of our reality, being pushed this way 
   4.723+and that by cybernetic inf\hbox{}luences that we may or may not be aware of, we
   4.724+are seldom aware of where we are going or what we will f\hbox{}ind when we get
   4.725+there. A well drawn circle will allow people within to believe themselves to be
   4.726+completely free whilst imposing fairly rigorous boundaries on what paths can be
   4.727+taken.
   4.728+
   4.729+
   4.730+\subsection{The Dance F\hbox{}loor}
   4.731+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:burning_bridges:dance_floor}
   4.732+
   4.733+An important feature of authority or control is that everything and everybody
   4.734+has it, and it cannot be entirely eliminated. Authority will always necessarily
   4.735+exist and cannot be done away with entirely\footnote{This may seem a
   4.736+self-contradictory statement from somebody f\hbox{}lying the f\hbox{}lag of
   4.737+anarchism, but it doesn't trouble me and if you understand where I'm going with
   4.738+all this cybernetics talk, it won't trouble you either.}.
   4.739+
   4.740+Consider a dance f\hbox{}loor. The dancers on this dance f\hbox{}loor are when
   4.741+we gaze upon them paired up, one as the \textit{lead}, the other as a
   4.742+\textit{follow}. Sometimes the couples break apart and singularly dance
   4.743+freestyle, and sometimes dancers \textit{steal} partners from one another. The
   4.744+objective shared by each of them is to solve a particular task, dancing, and
   4.745+they do this by submitting control to others or taking control of\hbox{}f
   4.746+others, but no single dancer can at any given time have complete knowledge of
   4.747+the status of the entire dance f\hbox{}loor. Their knowledge is limited by 
   4.748+their perception at any given point, but a dancer who perceives a potential
   4.749+problem arising (such as a collision between two couples) or a solution (such 
   4.750+as a fancy move) will take control of the vicinity momentarily to produce
   4.751+results.
   4.752+
   4.753+In this example – and it is a realistic one – although no individual or group 
   4.754+of individuals has been designated as rulers over the others, authority still
   4.755+exists. Each individual has complete authority over herself to begin with, but
   4.756+as the dance progresses individuals may temporarily cede their authority to a
   4.757+\textit{trusted interlocutor} in order to maximize gain.
   4.758+
   4.759+The key here is that authority f\hbox{}lows between individuals in the system,
   4.760+and manipulations of that authority can alter our collective path through the
   4.761+system. Imagine a dance f\hbox{}loor where one person stood in the middle
   4.762+yelling out orders, trying to micromanage the crowd. It would not function, as
   4.763+even if we were to grant this single person the unlikely talent of complete
   4.764+oversight, he would not be able to holler orders out fast enough. And if this
   4.765+person were a choreographer who plotted all the movements beforehand, there
   4.766+would be no spontaneity, and the dancing would have to stop intermittently to
   4.767+allow for more choreography. Authority must exist, yes, but like any resource 
   4.768+it must be well spent and fairly distributed. \textit{Ad-hoc} authority appears
   4.769+to allow for the highest synergistic benef\hbox{}its, as the natural agreement
   4.770+of all parties to the temporary authority will requisite the mutual
   4.771+benef\hbox{}it of all parties.
   4.772+
   4.773+This understanding of the nature of authority is a valuable tool to aid our
   4.774+understanding of cybernetics: with this, we have not only established a model
   4.775+for understanding peer-to-peer behaviour, but have also highlighted that any
   4.776+stable system is necessarily and inherently creative. This will be important.
   4.777+
   4.778+
   4.779+\subsection{Non-Rival Scarcity}
   4.780+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:burning_bridges:non-rival}
   4.781+
   4.782+A lot of what has been said can be traced back to a few people. Identifying the
   4.783+villains of this story early on as Hobbes, Malthus and Hardin, the heroes
   4.784+already mentioned are Godwin, Weiner and Beer, and now two more members of our
   4.785+cast shall appear: George Pask and Richard Buckminster-Fuller.
   4.786+
   4.787+Fuller is well known for his contributions to architecture and engineering, 
   4.788+most notably the geodesic dome, but in his less well known book \textit{Nine
   4.789+Chains to the Moon} he wrote of a process he dubbed ephemeralization, by which
   4.790+he meant the way in which advances in technology would allow us to do more with
   4.791+less.  Industrialization was exactly that: the advent of machines allowed 
   4.792+people to produce more goods with less workforce behind the production; 
   4.793+assembly lines allowed for more rapid assembly with less waste of time. 
   4.794+Advances in materials science have given us carbon f\hbox{}ibre strengthened
   4.795+plastics (CFSPs) that are both stronger and lighter than metals.
   4.796+
   4.797+The Internet is the hallmark of ephemeralization: it allows us to perform
   4.798+mind-boggling amounts of direct telecommunications and distributed computation
   4.799+using a very elementary method of sending electrical or optical pulses through
   4.800+copper and glass f\hbox{}ibre. More with less.
   4.801+
   4.802+Malthus could not have imagined the industrial revolution, but he could have
   4.803+paid attention to the trend of ephemeralization that Godwin appeared aware of,
   4.804+even if he didn't have quite such a fancy word for it. Ephemeralization alone
   4.805+kills the Malthusian argument entirely. We will be able to sustain an
   4.806+increasingly large population by applying advances of our understanding of the
   4.807+nature of reality to the aim of sustainability. Less will give us more, and
   4.808+chaos is not a given.
   4.809+
   4.810+This requires some hefty proof. Thankfully it is ample\footnote{See \textit{The
   4.811+Wealth of Networks} by Yochai Benkler and \textit{The Democratization of
   4.812+Innovation} by Eric von Hippel for much more proof than I shall provide here.}.
   4.813+
   4.814+Things can be categorized into two categories: rival goods and non-rival goods.
   4.815+Non-rival goods are not scarce by def\hbox{}inition, giving of them will not
   4.816+diminish one's own supply. This applies to software and mp3s, but not to CDs 
   4.817+and concert tickets. The latter are rival goods, but rival goods can be either
   4.818+scarce or abundant, where we def\hbox{}ine abundance of a rival good not by
   4.819+there being more than we need, but that the function of availability grows
   4.820+faster than the function of need.
   4.821+
   4.822+
   4.823+\subsection{Food}
   4.824+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:burning_bridges:food}
   4.825+
   4.826+One of the most profound examples of this comes from a research paper by
   4.827+Perfecto, \textit{et al}\footnote{\textit{Organic agriculture and the global
   4.828+food supply} , Ivette Perfecto, \textit{et al.}}, where it is shown that by
   4.829+exchanging manufactured fertilizer with organic fertilizer, for certain crops 
   4.830+it would be a simple matter to quadruple the annual yield, with multiplicative
   4.831+results across the board. Add this to the earlier statement that we already
   4.832+produce enough food even discounting meat, f\hbox{}ish and dairy products to
   4.833+sustain humanity at its current level and still have leftovers, and it is clear
   4.834+that we are not destined to starve to death any time soon. Food, our most basic
   4.835+need, is a rival good, but can be considered abundant because it is currently
   4.836+available in much greater quantities than is required, and because it appears
   4.837+that technological advances will maintain this superiority in the food supply. 
   4.838+
   4.839+The beauty of the food discussion is that it is so long since invalid. Peter
   4.840+Kropotkin wrote in 1892 \textit{The Conquest of Bread}, wherein he points out
   4.841+fallacies in feudal and capitalist economical systems in part by showing the
   4.842+global abundance of food indisputably.
   4.843+
   4.844+
   4.845+\subsection{Shelter}
   4.846+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:burning_bridges:shelter}
   4.847+
   4.848+Another of our basic needs is shelter. Globally we are faced with a housing
   4.849+crisis, with an estimated 100 million homeless in highly developed
   4.850+areas\footnote{See \textit{HUMAN RIGHTS: More Than 100 Million Homeless
   4.851+Worldwide}, Gustavo Capdevilla,
   4.852+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6s1}} and a further 600 million in
   4.853+developing countries. Note here two things. F\hbox{}irst, there is 
   4.854+approximately one starving person for each homeless person worldwide, but in
   4.855+developed countries homelessness is disparate to hunger. Second, the Geneva
   4.856+Convention grants prisoners of war rights to shelter, food and a blanket, 
   4.857+whilst not a single government in the world has granted homeless people the 
   4.858+same rights although they are granted by the Universal Declaration of Human
   4.859+Rights\footnote{``Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
   4.860+the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
   4.861+clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right
   4.862+to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old
   4.863+age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.'',
   4.864+Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.1.}. With the size of homes
   4.865+having grown substantially in the western world over the last f\hbox{}ifty
   4.866+years, there is absolutely no reason why there should be prevailing
   4.867+homelessness. 
   4.868+
   4.869+The argument made for homelessness is generally a lack or high cost of 
   4.870+materials for building construction. One cause of this is the high standards
   4.871+maintained by legislation in the form of building codes in some countries, 
   4.872+where many forms of af\hbox{}fordable housing have been simply made illegal,
   4.873+such as the Hexayurt infrastructure package\footnote{See Vinay Gupta's
   4.874+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6s2}} and many other comparable projects\footnote{See
   4.875+\textit{Architecture for Humanity} by Cameron Sinclair.}. Another cause is
   4.876+luxuriation. In the city of Malmö, Sweden, authorities faced with a large 
   4.877+number of lower and middle class people without adequate housing started a huge
   4.878+project building expensive luxury homes along the southern waterfront. The 
   4.879+logic was that with luxury homes available, upper class citizens would move to
   4.880+these, freeing up cheaper homes elsewhere in the city for the lower and middle
   4.881+class citizens. This is generally referred to as ``trickle-down'' economics,
   4.882+where raising the standards for the uppermost echelons is expected to raise the
   4.883+overall average to acceptable levels. 
   4.884+
   4.885+The real result was that many of these luxury homes still stand vacant and most
   4.886+of those which have been purchased were bought by upper class people from other
   4.887+cities looking to own a second home. The housing problem was in no way averted
   4.888+by these ef\hbox{}forts, but rather compounded as it resulted in less viable
   4.889+land for development. If the issue had been dealt with directly the result 
   4.890+might have been dif\hbox{}ferent.
   4.891+
   4.892+Regarding material costs of housing, these can be severely reduced in a number
   4.893+of ways. Jökull Jónsson \textit{et al} have shown that improvements to the
   4.894+accuracy of the application of the Navier-Stokes  equations to structural
   4.895+integrity estimation of concrete can yield signif\hbox{}icant strength
   4.896+improvements with reduced materials volume and cost. Wallewik \textit{et al}
   4.897+have shown that modif\hbox{}ications of concrete viscosity can increase spread
   4.898+speed, allowing for much faster concrete pouring and setting. This could allow
   4.899+for layered 3D printing of buildings in the future, but for the near term 
   4.900+allows for much faster modular housing construction. Buckminster-Fuller showed
   4.901+the feasibility of tensigrity structures in housing, which distribute 
   4.902+structural load over the entire structure rather than on few key points, which
   4.903+lowers the requirements for overall material strength. Vinay Gupta has 
   4.904+developed a \$300 infrastructure package for temperate and tropic climates that
   4.905+can house a small family in close quarters with acceptable living conditions.
   4.906+Marcin Jakubowski \textit{et al} have shown that it is entirely possible to
   4.907+build a single storey 100m$^2$ building from compacted earth blocks for less
   4.908+than \$400 in materials costs in the American Midwest. Cameron Sinclair and his
   4.909+Architecture for Humanity project have collected hundreds of examples of
   4.910+ephemeralization in building construction and provided ample proof that current
   4.911+methods of housing construction is both overly expensive and poorly organized.
   4.912+
   4.913+Long story short, housing is not a problem any more than food. But what of 
   4.914+other things? 
   4.915+
   4.916+
   4.917+\subsection{Electronics}
   4.918+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:burning_bridges:electronics}
   4.919+
   4.920+Consumer electronics are an example of a f\hbox{}ield where decentralization is
   4.921+currently extremely dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}icult, and yet profoundly simple.
   4.922+
   4.923+The dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}iculty here lies in chip fabrication: the arrangement and
   4.924+casting of specialized integrated circuits is a process that, by way of Moore's
   4.925+law, requires increasing amounts of specialization each year. Current
   4.926+microprocessors have circuit pitches of around 3$\mu$m in some cases, and this
   4.927+is expected to decrease even more. Each order of magnitude reduction in circuit
   4.928+pitch within ICs increases the complexity further as far as fabrication goes, as
   4.929+they require increasingly pristine manufacturing conditions, including clean
   4.930+rooms, high accuracy machine tools, and so on. However, three things may change
   4.931+that.
   4.932+
   4.933+The f\hbox{}irst is that with increasingly fast FPGAs, or F\hbox{}ield
   4.934+Programmable Gate Arrays, unspecialised integrated circuits made in bulk can be
   4.935+specialized \textit{in the f\hbox{}ield}, meaning that whichever specialization
   4.936+is required can be def\hbox{}ined by the end user rather than it needing to be
   4.937+def\hbox{}ined during the fabrication process. While FPGAs remain by far
   4.938+inferior to specialized chips, they are already eating away at the second
   4.939+factor, which is that hardware-level specialization is increasing overall 
   4.940+whilst demand increase for generalized computing devices is slowing. This is 
   4.941+due to desktop computing slowly losing out to laptop computers, and the 
   4.942+ubiquity of hand-held devices such as mobile phones, music players and other
   4.943+such gizmos.  All of these call for integrated circuits of a kind where one 
   4.944+size does not f\hbox{}it all, which pressures the chip producers to develop
   4.945+FPGAs even further or to develop smaller scale fabrication techniques. 
   4.946+
   4.947+The third point is that current 3D printing technologies are already lending
   4.948+ef\hbox{}fort towards arbitrary fabrication of circuits, and as this technology
   4.949+develops it is inevitable that accuracy will increase, eventually to such a
   4.950+level that printing out ICs may become feasible.
   4.951+
   4.952+At any rate, the assembly of the end products has never been a problem in the
   4.953+consumer electronics industry. The original personal computer was developed in 
   4.954+a garage by Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, and this trend has held throughout 
   4.955+the decades, albeit with some f\hbox{}luctuation, with a recent explosion in 
   4.956+the hobby electronics industry giving new strength to user groups such as NYC
   4.957+Resistor, magazines and e-zines such as \textit{Make Magazine} and
   4.958+\textit{Instructibles}, and to open hardware projects such as the
   4.959+Arduino\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6s4}}. A lack of strict
   4.960+regulations on electronics production has helped this a lot, although there is
   4.961+signif\hbox{}icant barrier to entry into commercial production of consumer
   4.962+electronics through safety regulations such as CE.
   4.963+
   4.964+
   4.965+\subsection{Transportation}
   4.966+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:burning_bridges:transportation}
   4.967+
   4.968+Even the titanic automotive and aeronautic industries are starting to buckle
   4.969+under stress from the decentralization movement, as open source cars, airplanes
   4.970+and even tractors are seeing the light of day. As with housing, here regulations
   4.971+are impeding progress. As Burt Rutan has commented\footnote{See
   4.972+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6s5}}, increasing safety regulations in the aeronautics
   4.973+industry have all but extinguished aircraft development, making progress
   4.974+insanely slow even for large companies such as Boeing and Airbus. For small
   4.975+groups aiming to build manned aircraft, secrecy is just about the only way to
   4.976+avoid the transactional overhead put in placed by aviation authorities.
   4.977+    
   4.978+Automotive regulations are nowhere near as stringent, but in many countries
   4.979+regulations for road safety are impeding reasonable developments. For example,
   4.980+in many Asian countries such as India the auto-rickshaw is a very common mode 
   4.981+of transportation, but it is almost inconceivable that such a device would be
   4.982+allowed to drive on British roads.
   4.983+
   4.984+With corporations such as General Motors having collapsed and the entire
   4.985+ecosystem of transportation being overturned by smaller units like the C,mm,n
   4.986+project and companies like Tesla, what is inevitable is the future realization
   4.987+that these things can be done dif\hbox{}ferently.
   4.988+
   4.989+
   4.990+\subsection{Exotic Objects and Real Scarcity}
   4.991+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:burning_bridges:exotic_objects}
   4.992+
   4.993+It's worth noting that there will always be scarcity for some things. I call
   4.994+them \textit{exotic objects}. One example is the Eif\hbox{}fel Tower. You can
   4.995+copy the Eif\hbox{}fel Tower exactly atom for atom, but it won't be the
   4.996+Eif\hbox{}fel Tower, it'll just be a copy. Anybody who's been to Las Vegas 
   4.997+knows that it isn't quite the same.  There's lots of things like that: Mona
   4.998+Lisa, the Statue of Liberty \ldots more or less anything that is what it is for
   4.999+cultural or historical reasons rather than physical reasons. My friend Olle
  4.1000+Jonsson called this \textit{aura}, which is neat: \textit{aura} can't be 
  4.1001+copied, although it can be manifested symbolically.
  4.1002+
  4.1003+Scarce things versus abundant is a very important point. We tend to treat
  4.1004+everything as scarce and that's a very bad thing, but as we stop treating
  4.1005+abundant things as scarce things, we should also take note of which things
  4.1006+really are scarce and f\hbox{}igure out how we're going to treat them. Food
  4.1007+isn't scarce, but there's a limited amount of bauxite in the world and thus a
  4.1008+limited amount of aluminium. Likewise, things can be abundant globally but
  4.1009+scarce locally. Either way, taking stock of the exotic objects and the scarce
  4.1010+goods is important if we want to make the most of them and benef\hbox{}it those
  4.1011+who need them to the greatest degree.
  4.1012+
  4.1013+But while we think of everything as scarce, we're going to waste a lot of
  4.1014+ef\hbox{}fort on trying to overcome scarcity that has been artif\hbox{}icially
  4.1015+generated, which is stupid.
  4.1016+
  4.1017+The lesson to take from this is that we've been doing things in a way that is
  4.1018+manifestly stupid and there are innumerable examples in existence of how to do
  4.1019+things better. Conservatism will only bring a people so far, and we're past 
  4.1020+that point already. We've been crossing increasingly rickety bridges as we get
  4.1021+to them for far too long, and it's about time we burned them down and built new
  4.1022+ones to better places.
  4.1023+
  4.1024+
  4.1025+\section{Act 3. F\hbox{}ive steps, a spin, and a new tomorrow}
  4.1026+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:five_steps}
  4.1027+
  4.1028+The foundations for the current society are the myths that underlie our entire
  4.1029+economy, the lies that structure our mental models, that guide us through the
  4.1030+state space. That without a centralized government our civilization will
  4.1031+fragment into particles and humanity will devour itself in a war of all against
  4.1032+all, and that without regulations on the distribution of goods we will consume
  4.1033+faster than we can produce and exterminate ourselves.
  4.1034+
  4.1035+These myths have been compounded, mostly in good faith, by consolidation of
  4.1036+power and legislative systems that diminish people's ability to self-governance
  4.1037+on the one hand and ef\hbox{}fective utilization of resources on the other,
  4.1038+ef\hbox{}fectively the opposite of what these systems were meant to prevent.
  4.1039+
  4.1040+The system we live by has f\hbox{}ive core institutions that I'd like to address
  4.1041+here brief\hbox{}ly.
  4.1042+
  4.1043+The f\hbox{}irst of these is the monetary system. We live by a monetary system
  4.1044+that has, as Bernard Liataer pointed out\footnote{See \textit{The Future of
  4.1045+Money} by Bernard Liataer.}, four core features: money is created out of 
  4.1046+nothing and has no material backing, money is created as a result of loans
  4.1047+between banks, currencies are def\hbox{}ined geographically, and interest is
  4.1048+paid on loans. These features mean that the sum of the entire monetary system
  4.1049+(all debit plus all credit) is much less than zero, and it grows smaller
  4.1050+constantly. There is no way to repay all the debt in the system, and as a 
  4.1051+result money itself becomes a rival good – we are playing a game where the goal
  4.1052+is to pay all debts.  In this game, to lose is to go bankrupt. If many
  4.1053+bankruptcies occur simultaneously we suf\hbox{}fer a Markovian explosion of
  4.1054+sorts, called a depression or crisis.
  4.1055+
  4.1056+The second of these institutions is our economy. This is dif\hbox{}ferent from
  4.1057+the monetary system: the monetary system is the means for exchange, while the
  4.1058+economy is the exchange itself. Because the means for exchange are rival goods,
  4.1059+the economy adapts by assuming rivalry and scarcity in all goods even when 
  4.1060+there is abundance. Competition replaces cooperation as each strives to pay
  4.1061+of\hbox{}f his debts, and companies and individuals use missing information –
  4.1062+that is to say, secrecy – to their advantage, to increase their chances of
  4.1063+winning, to get the competitive edge. Secrecy causes an inability to accurately
  4.1064+measure the state of the economy, an inability to relatively estimate demand 
  4.1065+and supply, so all companies guesstimate their production requirements and
  4.1066+invariably squander resources as a result. Companies are then punished for this
  4.1067+by the legislative system for certain types of waste while other types of waste
  4.1068+are not punished.
  4.1069+
  4.1070+The third system is the legislative system itself: Small groups of people make
  4.1071+decisions about a set of rules that guide societies through the state space, 
  4.1072+and all are made to comply. The law represents the needs of the most
  4.1073+inf\hbox{}luential persons in the economy and legislation is guided by their
  4.1074+need to not go bankrupt. With every law which is passed, the Hobbesian lie is
  4.1075+strengthened, and the capitalists reinforce their insurance policy at the cost
  4.1076+of the poor.  Instead of the legal system being a small set of simple rules 
  4.1077+that everybody can agree to, it has become a behemothic beast, our very own
  4.1078+Grendel.
  4.1079+
  4.1080+The fourth system is the executive authority system. A small group of people is
  4.1081+selected to make decisions about the execution of all the ideas they have about
  4.1082+how society as a whole ought to be run, and this authority reaches to every
  4.1083+niche of society. With regulations and exact control individuals are made to
  4.1084+suf\hbox{}fer their own individuality, trapped within a vicious cycle produced
  4.1085+for that very purpose in concordance with the Malthusian and Hobbesian
  4.1086+principles.
  4.1087+
  4.1088+F\hbox{}inally, the judicial system has been erected to divvy out punishments 
  4.1089+to those who act against society, even in some cases for its own good. The
  4.1090+executive authorities select judges who make decisions about how arguments
  4.1091+should be resolved and these decisions, in many countries, become quite as
  4.1092+authoritative for future discourse as the law itself. Judges have become monks
  4.1093+who none may question.
  4.1094+
  4.1095+This may be done dif\hbox{}ferently.
  4.1096+
  4.1097+
  4.1098+\subsection{Identity infrastructure}
  4.1099+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:five_steps:identity_infrastructure}
  4.1100+
  4.1101+For our future society we must recognize that at our civilization's core are
  4.1102+individuals, not rules or money. People are the most important aspect of our
  4.1103+reality and everything should be based upon our needs.
  4.1104+
  4.1105+The cornerstone of being attributed to the ``people'' group is currently the
  4.1106+acknowledgement of the government and the owners of banks and corporations of
  4.1107+one's existence, which is frequently circularly dependent, which gives one
  4.1108+access to the institutions listed above. A national census, a registration
  4.1109+of\hbox{}f\hbox{}ice, the publishers of bank accounts, birth
  4.1110+certif\hbox{}icates, passports and drivers licences, these are the
  4.1111+identity-management organizations of our society.
  4.1112+
  4.1113+Understanding that identity underlies everything we are and everything we do is
  4.1114+paramount, without that understanding we are bound to remain in the current
  4.1115+system indef\hbox{}initely.
  4.1116+
  4.1117+So I suggest a new system, one in which the individual is the alpha and the
  4.1118+omega, and greed and the production of artif\hbox{}icial scarcity is not
  4.1119+rewarded.
  4.1120+
  4.1121+Step one is to alter the identif\hbox{}ication system. Rather than being
  4.1122+identif\hbox{}ied as members of society by a centralized institution, embroiled
  4.1123+in bureaucracy and haphazardly associated with the truth, we can use friendships
  4.1124+as def\hbox{}initions of identity. One's identity can be def\hbox{}ined by one's
  4.1125+friends more accurately than it can be def\hbox{}ined by an institution. This is
  4.1126+the philosophy of Ubuntu: ``I am who I am because of who we all are''. To
  4.1127+accomplish this we are going to need a bit of mathematics and a bit of
  4.1128+anthropology.
  4.1129+
  4.1130+Michael Gurevich, Stanley Milgram, Benoit Mandelbrot and others\footnote{See
  4.1131+\textit{The Small World Problem} by Stanley Milgram. It should be noted that 
  4.1132+the idea has been largely debunked in its original form, but the level of
  4.1133+interconnectivity between people is still very high.} have suggested that in
  4.1134+human society connections between people are so dense that the longest path
  4.1135+between people is six steps. Malcolm Gladwell\footnote{See \textit{The Tipping
  4.1136+Point} by Malcolm Gladwell} has expanded on the \textit{six degrees of
  4.1137+separation} idea by identifying certain individuals as connectors – socialites
  4.1138+who are more accomplished than others in creating and maintaining connections
  4.1139+between people and who act as social hubs. Although the idea has been largely
  4.1140+debunked it still remains true that the maximum number of connections between
  4.1141+people appears to be a relatively low number. This matters when we consider the
  4.1142+social network.
  4.1143+
  4.1144+A graph is def\hbox{}ined mathematically as a collection of vertices and edges.
  4.1145+If we let the vertices be people and the edges be friendships or acquaintances
  4.1146+between people, we call it a social network. The maximum number of connections
  4.1147+in a graph is def\hbox{}ined by the formula n(n-1)/2 for a graph of n vertices,
  4.1148+which basically means that for a graph of two vertices the maximum is one
  4.1149+connection, for three vertices the maximum is three, for four vertices the
  4.1150+maximum is six, and so on. For 150 vertices you have a maximum of 11,175
  4.1151+connections, for 300,000 vertices there are roughly 45 billion connections at
  4.1152+maximum.
  4.1153+
  4.1154+The value of a network is def\hbox{}ined by Metcalfe's law as the ratio between
  4.1155+the number of connections and the maximum number of connections – how close are
  4.1156+you to a perfectly connected network. It is obvious that one person could not
  4.1157+have 300,000 friends, but if 300,000 people all had 300,000 friends, we would
  4.1158+have so many pairwise connections that it would be mind-boggling. This gives us
  4.1159+that in small cities (or countries such as Iceland) it is nonsensical to assume
  4.1160+that everybody will know each other. In fact, even in a town of 5,000 people
  4.1161+there would be twelve and a half million pairwise connections at maximum, which
  4.1162+is realistically unattainable.
  4.1163+
  4.1164+The anthropologist Robin Dunbar found\footnote{See \textit{Neocortex size as a
  4.1165+constraint on group size in primates} by Robin Dunbar} a correlation between the
  4.1166+average number of members in a tribe of primates and the size of the brain.
  4.1167+Extrapolating from his acquired data, human tribes should have a weighted mean
  4.1168+size of 148 individuals\footnote{150 is frequently quoted as Dunbar's number.}.
  4.1169+Comparing this to real data of primitive tribes has shown this to be fairly
  4.1170+accurate in general, with tribes being known to split after having reached a
  4.1171+certain ``supercritical'' size. Applying technological mechanisms such as legal
  4.1172+and monetary systems, and even communications technology such as telephones and
  4.1173+the Internet has the potential to artif\hbox{}icially augment this
  4.1174+f\hbox{}igure, but hardly beyond a certain degree. The average number of friends
  4.1175+on Facebook is signif\hbox{}icantly higher than Dunbar's number\footnote{See
  4.1176+\textit{Facebook study reveals users 'trophy friends'} by Roger Highf\hbox{}ield
  4.1177+and Nic F\hbox{}leming, \textit{Daily Telegraph}.  \url{http://ur1.ca/f6s7}},
  4.1178+but the availability of telecommunications people more f\hbox{}lagrantly
  4.1179+befriend people, using assistive technology to maintain more friendships than
  4.1180+was previously possible; some have called this \textit{trophying}, but the truth
  4.1181+might simply be that we are far more socially motivated than our brains can keep
  4.1182+up with without assistance.
  4.1183+
  4.1184+The point here is that our world is fairly small because of our ``limited''
  4.1185+cognitive capacity, and a perfectly isolated tribe of 150 may have 11,175
  4.1186+connections internally but in reality it is more likely that people will be
  4.1187+meshed globally, with relatively few connection steps between any given pair.
  4.1188+
  4.1189+Let's make use of this, but before we do, let's do some cryptography. The RSA
  4.1190+algorithm\footnote{See \textit{A Method for obtaining Digital Signatures and
  4.1191+Public-Key Cryptosystems} by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman.} uses a
  4.1192+mathematical trapdoor function – something that is easy to do but very hard to
  4.1193+undo – to perform asymmetric encryption. Instead of a pair of individuals
  4.1194+sharing a secret they use to exchange other secrets, each publishes a public key
  4.1195+and maintains his own secret private key. The asymmetry can be used in many
  4.1196+ways. For encrypting, you apply the recipient's public key to a message, and to
  4.1197+decrypt the recipient applies his private key to the cipher text. For digital
  4.1198+signatures one applies one's private key to a message and to verify it one
  4.1199+checks against the public key.
  4.1200+
  4.1201+If people in the social network generate key pairs and digitally sign public
  4.1202+keys belonging to their friends as a method both of verif\hbox{}ication of the
  4.1203+validity of the public key and to ``formalize'' the friendship (or
  4.1204+acquaintance). This way, your identity is established by your friends as you
  4.1205+establish theirs, in a peer-to-peer fashion, without any central authority.
  4.1206+This allows us to proceed with changing the world.
  4.1207+
  4.1208+From this simple feature we get f\hbox{}ive results: A monetary system without
  4.1209+central banking, an economy without secrets, a legislative system without
  4.1210+elitism, an executive authority model without a government, and a judicial
  4.1211+system without courts.
  4.1212+
  4.1213+I shall explain these results individually.
  4.1214+
  4.1215+
  4.1216+\subsection{Monetary system}
  4.1217+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:five_steps:monetary_system}
  4.1218+
  4.1219+By utilizing the trusted network in a particular way we can construct mutual
  4.1220+credit currencies where business transactions happen like so: Alice wishes to
  4.1221+purchase a product from Bob. They decide on a price. Alice digitally signs the
  4.1222+invoice, and Bob then does the same. Each takes a copy and encrypts it to
  4.1223+themselves. This process can be simply obscured behind the ``put credit card in
  4.1224+card reader'' praxis we are all familiar with, or placed into cellphones or
  4.1225+other equipment.
  4.1226+
  4.1227+What is happening when this occurs is quite technical, and yet it is quite as
  4.1228+simple if not simpler than our current monetary system. Essentially in every
  4.1229+transaction money is created by the parties to the agreement and debited to one
  4.1230+while being credited to the other, a loan. The sum of each transaction is thus
  4.1231+zero, and therefore the sum of the entire system is zero. Because the
  4.1232+transactions are small, frequent and symmetrical, it is nonsensical to resort 
  4.1233+to usury.
  4.1234+
  4.1235+The idea that every single person in the system can create money appears weird
  4.1236+to people used to our current system. Today banks create money by lending money
  4.1237+they don't have to each other, which is an act of trust. In this suggested
  4.1238+system, if Bob does not trust Alice personally for the loan of this amount of
  4.1239+money, he can either deny her the transaction, or, more sensibly, traverse the
  4.1240+trusted network in search of a trusted connection that would allow for that
  4.1241+large a transaction. Some sequence of friends connect the two of them together,
  4.1242+and based on the amount of trust available between them, they can agree on the
  4.1243+debt. Bob trusts Carl who trusts Damien who trusts Eve who trusts Alice, and
  4.1244+through this sequence of friendships the business is conducted. Trust becomes
  4.1245+the backbone of the f\hbox{}inancial system – he who has many friends is a rich
  4.1246+man.
  4.1247+
  4.1248+This is not much dif\hbox{}ferent from our current system, but it is stronger 
  4.1249+in that the failure of one node (a bank) is far less likely to disrupt the 
  4.1250+whole system.  Furthermore nobody need ever lose this game – the sum is zero,
  4.1251+and thus nobody will ever go bankrupt. Some may misuse other people's trust and
  4.1252+f\hbox{}ind it hard to f\hbox{}ind goodwill and credit, but notice that in this
  4.1253+system people are under pressure not to be untrustworthy!
  4.1254+
  4.1255+At any given point in time the monetary system can be resolved, meaning that
  4.1256+circular debts can be nullif\hbox{}ied. If Alice owes Bob and Bob owes Carl and
  4.1257+Carl owes Alice, the smallest common value can be zeroed out. By traversing the
  4.1258+entire network every transaction can be nullif\hbox{}ied to some extent, and 
  4.1259+the result will show how far from the average each individual is (and at least
  4.1260+one person in the system can be at zero). This can be looked on as a measure of
  4.1261+how much a person has contributed to society. Furthermore, for simplicity it is
  4.1262+useful to resolve the system frequently, although resolutions may not be useful
  4.1263+if too frequent; this hinges on the level of activity in the economy.
  4.1264+
  4.1265+Whilst remaining a f\hbox{}iat monetary system, this idea removes interest,
  4.1266+centralization and geographical restriction from the monetary system in one go,
  4.1267+and it does so simply by utilizing the trust af\hbox{}forded by our personal
  4.1268+relationships already.
  4.1269+
  4.1270+
  4.1271+\subsection{Economic system}
  4.1272+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:five_steps:economic_system}
  4.1273+
  4.1274+One of the more destructive features of the economy as it is today is a result
  4.1275+of the monetary system. Our collective drive to repay our debts causes us to
  4.1276+attempt increasingly larger business transactions due to the time-ef\hbox{}fort
  4.1277+overhead of conducting any given transaction – maximizing the mark-up is
  4.1278+essential. Large sums are unlikely to be the norm in business in this system as
  4.1279+they are in our current system. For distribution purposes end-buyers are both
  4.1280+capable and incentivized to link up with producers directly. Middlemen serve
  4.1281+less of a purpose except as glorif\hbox{}ied stockpilers, who can be paid by 
  4.1282+the producers rather than the consumers to maintain a more localized cache of
  4.1283+goods. This would make sense for things such as tantalum, which is mainly mined
  4.1284+in the Congo, and may be scarce elsewhere, but would make less sense for things
  4.1285+such as capacitors, which, while made of tantalum, could essentially be made
  4.1286+anywhere.
  4.1287+
  4.1288+Consumption in the economy is stabilized by this kind of ``bottom up'' rather
  4.1289+than ``top down'' transaction sequence. ``The rich \ldots consume little more
  4.1290+than the poor,''\footnote{See \textit{The Wealth of Nations}, Adam Smith} and
  4.1291+what little they do consume beyond the poor is a function of the opportunity
  4.1292+cost of consumption. Access to radically decentralized production and high
  4.1293+availability of skilled craft industries\footnote{See \textit{The Second
  4.1294+Industrial Divide}, Michael Piore \& Charles Sabel} can of\hbox{}fset that
  4.1295+opportunity cost by reducing the importance of the distribution subsystem.
  4.1296+
  4.1297+Because it is no longer important for middlemen to compete for market dominance
  4.1298+and producers to worry about their market share of the demand curve (due to the
  4.1299+free availability of \textit{trust dollars}), not only can they strive to 
  4.1300+create better products that last longer, but they can also freely share
  4.1301+information amongst themselves about their production output, methods, and
  4.1302+demand; in fact it may even be favourable for them to gloat. This would provide
  4.1303+data for a readily available \textit{ad-hoc} worldwide information system
  4.1304+regarding the state of the economy as a whole, making futures markets more
  4.1305+prof\hbox{}itable, commodities markets less wasteful, and business in general
  4.1306+move faster and with less impedance. This is Staf\hbox{}ford Beer's CyberSyn:
  4.1307+predicting and resolving market-level and production-level problems before they
  4.1308+occur.
  4.1309+
  4.1310+
  4.1311+\subsection{Legislative system}
  4.1312+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:five_steps:legislative_system}
  4.1313+
  4.1314+For this to work we need radical changes to the legislative system. By 
  4.1315+utilizing the trusted network we can build a form of direct democracy that does
  4.1316+not suf\hbox{}fer from the shortcomings of direct democracy that its opponents
  4.1317+will gladly point out. 
  4.1318+
  4.1319+Granting everybody the ability to submit legislative proposals to the trusted
  4.1320+network, legislature itself can be crowd-sourced. Bills can be prioritized by
  4.1321+popularity (vote up/down) or reference counts (Pagerank) as a measure of
  4.1322+importance, and likewise bills can be altered and ``forked'' to create
  4.1323+derivative bills that can compete. This way anybody can contribute to the
  4.1324+options available to voters, for example ``yes'', ``no'' and ``broccoli'', with
  4.1325+the last of these being obviously silly and likely to be revised out in
  4.1326+subsequent edits.
  4.1327+
  4.1328+Voters can choose the options on the bill, and when enough people have voted it
  4.1329+becomes \textit{validated}, meaning that the result of the popularity contest
  4.1330+between the available options is law. By allowing voters to change their vote 
  4.1331+at any time, law can change dynamically over time, perhaps with a mandated time
  4.1332+lag or signif\hbox{}icance factor put into the legal framework to cull
  4.1333+instability, which serves as a method to clean out laws that do not serve their
  4.1334+purpose or are obsolete. 
  4.1335+
  4.1336+Similarly, when voters die their vote is discarded, and new voters also get to
  4.1337+have their say on any given bill. This causes the society at any given time to
  4.1338+be in agreement on the current state of legislature, at least to a
  4.1339+signif\hbox{}icant degree, rather than people being bound by historical
  4.1340+legislation that may now be counterproductive.
  4.1341+
  4.1342+Elections on a given bill are performed by the vote being digitally signed and
  4.1343+encrypted to counting parties, which may be one or many, in the form of 
  4.1344+``double envelopes''. The signature identif\hbox{}ies the voter but by way of
  4.1345+encryption it is segregated from the vote itself, which protects vote secrecy.
  4.1346+
  4.1347+Since votes can be changed at any time, election theft is almost impossible, as
  4.1348+voters can be asked to ``check their votes'' and people can not be violently
  4.1349+caused to vote a certain way as they can change them after the vote is 
  4.1350+complete, and killing people after they have voted will lead to the vote being
  4.1351+discarded.
  4.1352+
  4.1353+This also means that there is no reason to impose arbitrary restrictions on
  4.1354+voter age: any born human can have a vote, and even if the parents use the 
  4.1355+votes of their children in any which way, the children can change their votes
  4.1356+whenever they have asserted their independence or come of age. Disparity 
  4.1357+created by families having more votes is minimal, as family sizes tend to 
  4.1358+reduce as prosperity increases, and in fact this provides families with 
  4.1359+children with a better footing in terms of social welfare and so on.
  4.1360+
  4.1361+Here comes the smart part: not everybody, say the naysayers, is interested in
  4.1362+participating in all votes and claim to be apolitical. Traditional voting
  4.1363+systems provide for two exposed functions for interacting with ballots:
  4.1364+abstaining (or voting blank, which for our purposes can be considered the 
  4.1365+same), or selecting an option.
  4.1366+
  4.1367+The third option, that eliminates much abstinence from apolitical people, is to
  4.1368+allow voters to proxy their votes, essentially selecting any third party to 
  4.1369+cast a vote on their behalf. This type of representation can be on a per-bill
  4.1370+basis, categorical, or total, and it can be revoked at any time.
  4.1371+
  4.1372+Giving people the ability to defer to their peers in this way creates a highly
  4.1373+dynamic system in which every single organizational structure ever seen in 
  4.1374+human history exists as a state: parliamentary governments are a state in which
  4.1375+a small f\hbox{}ixed number of people get votes proxied to them in equal
  4.1376+measure; dictatorships or monarchies are the state in which all people grant 
  4.1377+one person with their vote (either directly or indirectly), and direct 
  4.1378+democracy is where nobody grants anybody their vote. None of these situations 
  4.1379+is incredibly likely, as the number of possible states within this system are
  4.1380+approximately two to the power of the number of voters.
  4.1381+
  4.1382+
  4.1383+\subsection{Executive system}
  4.1384+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:five_steps:executive_system}
  4.1385+
  4.1386+Since the economical system has been restructured in such a way that personal
  4.1387+gain need not be enacted by way of greed, it is perfectly reasonable to remove
  4.1388+the concept of government entirely. Private entrepreneurship can be trusted to
  4.1389+fulf\hbox{}il all the roles of government without fear of there being
  4.1390+inequality; as long as private individuals and collectives thereof operate in
  4.1391+accordance to the law which they themselves have created, and conduct their
  4.1392+af\hbox{}fairs in whichever way will garner them the most trust outwardly, all
  4.1393+traditional functions of government are void save for a few.
  4.1394+
  4.1395+The purposes of police and military can be replaced by private security
  4.1396+contractors, the purpose of foreign af\hbox{}fairs ministries can be replaced
  4.1397+with trade agreements enacted by syndicates, embassies operated as social
  4.1398+centres, and so on. 
  4.1399+
  4.1400+Such ``privatization'' must not be misconstrued as the same kind of
  4.1401+privatization we've seen in propertarian governments in previous decades, where
  4.1402+banks, telephone companies and television networks have been placed wholesale
  4.1403+into the hands of prof\hbox{}iteering individuals for a fraction of their 
  4.1404+value, but rather, it is closer to the ideas of the anarcho-syndicalist ideas 
  4.1405+of free association and collective ef\hbox{}fort to solve problems facing
  4.1406+society or individuals within it. 
  4.1407+
  4.1408+
  4.1409+\subsection{Judicial system}
  4.1410+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:five_steps:judicial_system}
  4.1411+
  4.1412+There not being any government poses a problem to all the lawyers and judges 
  4.1413+out there: without there being an executive authority to decide who they deem 
  4.1414+is capable of being impartial in every possible dispute, the entire system of
  4.1415+jurisprudence may falter. Nobody has the authority to select a judge – or,
  4.1416+perhaps it is everybody who has that authority.
  4.1417+
  4.1418+Social contract or law may cause disputing factions to elect judges to try 
  4.1419+their case. An example of a method of electing judges would be that the
  4.1420+disagreeing parties would f\hbox{}ind the subset of the trusted network wherein
  4.1421+all members are four (to pick a number) or more steps from themselves, and six
  4.1422+(to pick a number) randomly selected members from that set are asked to act as
  4.1423+judges.  These people need not be lawyers, rather they would pass judgement
  4.1424+based on their convictions in light of the law, perhaps enlisting lawyers they
  4.1425+would hire to be \textit{their} legal counsels: the disputing parties would 
  4.1426+pool to pay for the proceedings.
  4.1427+
  4.1428+With these changes it is not hard to envision an equally networked model for
  4.1429+education, health care, and so on. By utilizing the nature of the trusted 
  4.1430+social network we can ef\hbox{}fectively build a system that makes no
  4.1431+assumptions about the correct structure of society, allowing natural structure
  4.1432+to emerge. It may, at the end of the day, be similar or identical to our 
  4.1433+current system, but at least then we'll know.
  4.1434+
  4.1435+
  4.1436+\subsection{The Curtain drops}
  4.1437+\label{s:artificial_scarcity:five_steps:curtain}
  4.1438+
  4.1439+Let's be clear: These are not idle thoughts. Many of these systems are being
  4.1440+tried, none of these ideas are new. It is the context that they are given that
  4.1441+provides them with novelty. The software required to enact these changes is
  4.1442+rapidly coming into existence, there are social movements popping up all over 
  4.1443+to enact these changes. They're not inevitable, but it'd take a \textit{force
  4.1444+majeure} to derail this train.
  4.1445+
  4.1446+And it is here that the narrator leaves the stage and takes a seat amongst the
  4.1447+audience, and the audience becomes the stage, as the interactions of the actors
  4.1448+become the deepest plot of the most amazing drama, the most horrible tragedy,
  4.1449+the most delightful comedy, the best story ever. And this is no myth: this is
  4.1450+humanity, we are here, now, doing our thing, dancing to our tune, together.
  4.1451+
  4.1452+I write these f\hbox{}inal words from the trenches of a complex network of
  4.1453+revolutions where our only opponents are our own broken assumptions and the
  4.1454+horrifying systems that run on them. But rather than being muddy and stinky and
  4.1455+littered with our fallen comrades, these trenches are digital landscapes of
  4.1456+unending variety, a tribute to human creativity. They are the hallmark of all 
  4.1457+we have accomplished.
  4.1458+
  4.1459+All around us the ancient strongholds of broken systems are falling. In 
  4.1460+Iceland, where I live, our government just crumbled and a new one has taken its
  4.1461+place, a left wing liberal environmentalist government headed by a lesbian
  4.1462+socialist, and it looks like a few months down the road we may start drafting a
  4.1463+new constitution, where direct democracy might be the result.
  4.1464+
  4.1465+In Belgium, yet another government has failed; in the United States a liberal
  4.1466+black progressive president just took of\hbox{}f\hbox{}ice in the middle of a
  4.1467+f\hbox{}inancial crisis that may dwarf the Great Depression. In Thailand people
  4.1468+have taken matters into their own hands, in India there are calls for general
  4.1469+strikes. In Sweden, youth movements are squatting empty buildings in the middle
  4.1470+of a housing crisis. In Afghanistan people are fabricating equipment to mesh
  4.1471+together wireless networks, unleashing the power of the Internet. In Zimbabwe
  4.1472+the currency has become so devalued that all currencies have been made equally
  4.1473+valid, in neighbouring Malawi the government has decided to ignore the World
  4.1474+Bank's demand that agriculture not be subsidized, and have surplus yield for 
  4.1475+the f\hbox{}irst time in decades.
  4.1476+
  4.1477+Throughout the world the story is the same: our capacity for self-governance is
  4.1478+being uncovered, in part due to lessons learned from the Internet and the 
  4.1479+social movement that runs it. Hackerdom and its particular kind of meritocratic
  4.1480+anarchism, having birthed the free software movement, the free hardware
  4.1481+movement, and the free culture movement, having liberated technologies, built
  4.1482+the largest encyclopaedia ever seen, and revolutionized communications and
  4.1483+computation in every way – having done all that, our movement is now moving 
  4.1484+into wider pastures and tackling the broken foundations of our society itself.
  4.1485+And it's about time.
  4.1486+
  4.1487+We're here to change the world, nothing more. This is how it starts. Good luck.

     5.1--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     5.2+++ b/chapters/consumer_to_creator.tex	Tue May 18 13:47:58 2010 +0200
     5.3@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
     5.4+\begin{savequote}
     5.5+    \qauthor{\LARGE{Nikolaj Hald Nielsen}}
     5.6+\end{savequote}
     5.7+\chapter[From Consumer to Creator]{From Consumer to Creator\\ \Large{The Lego Generation in the Digital Age}}
     5.8+\label{c:consumer_to_creator}
     5.9+
    5.10+\section{Intro}
    5.11+\label{s:consumer_to_creator:intro}
    5.12+
    5.13+I spent much of my childhood playing with Lego. My parents were never at a loss
    5.14+for what to get me for my birthday. While soft packages were scorned, the hard,
    5.15+box-shaped packages with that very special sound when you shake them were always
    5.16+a hit. I quickly outgrew building f\hbox{}ixed models based on other people's
    5.17+ideas and started exploring the boundaries of what could be achieved with my
    5.18+imagination and my, unfortunately not as large as I would have wanted,
    5.19+collection of bricks. I would spend long afternoons building a spaceship that
    5.20+could transform itself into a moon base once it had landed, castles
    5.21+f\hbox{}illed with secret rooms and traps, or weird machines that did a whole
    5.22+lot of nothing, but looked very cool doing it. Once built, I quickly lost
    5.23+interest though. For me, the fun part was not so much in playing with the things
    5.24+I built, as the creative process of actually building them. I know I was far
    5.25+from the only one.
    5.26+
    5.27+Today I have replaced the Lego bricks with something else. Instead of small
    5.28+pieces of plastic, I am piecing together virtual building blocks of code on a
    5.29+computer screen. The basic desire to create, to use my mind and my hands to
    5.30+build something that no one else has done before is the same, however, the
    5.31+satisfaction when my ideas slowly become real no less exhilarating. There are
    5.32+important dif\hbox{}ferences though. Whereas in my childhood, building my Lego
    5.33+contraptions was mostly a solitary activity, today I am working with like-minded
    5.34+creators, accomplishing together what we could never hope to achieve on our own.
    5.35+And we are doing this in a spirit of openness and freedom, sharing the results
    5.36+of our labour, our software, freely with each other and the rest of the world. 
    5.37+
    5.38+Thanks to the ideas that were f\hbox{}irst formalized with Stallman's definition
    5.39+of Free Software\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6q5}},
    5.40+which have long since spread into other areas, such as Free Culture, we now have
    5.41+a conceptual and legal framework in place to foster this kind of collaboration
    5.42+and creative process, and the results are starting to show in a very big way. 
    5.43+
    5.44+For people who, like me, have grown up spending a great deal of time dreaming up
    5.45+crazy new ideas and trying to make them real with their hands and a
    5.46+f\hbox{}inite number of bricks, the role as a consumer is not a natural
    5.47+f\hbox{}it. The notion of always receiving the creative works of others, only
    5.48+being allowed to play with the toys that others have built, feels strange. Yet
    5.49+this is how, for a large part, modern society works. A relatively small number
    5.50+of creators of software and culture try to convince us that their latest
    5.51+of\hbox{}fering is what will make us happy, at least until the next big thing
    5.52+comes along. To make matters worse, the companies whose business is dependent on
    5.53+people constantly ``consuming'' their virtual goods have seen it in their best
    5.54+interest to start locking down their content by ever more sophisticated
    5.55+technical and legal means designed to make tinkering impossible. This is the
    5.56+digital equivalent of buying a Lego set that is not only pre-built, but where
    5.57+the pieces have been glued together.
    5.58+
    5.59+The reasons why companies claim a need to lock down their contents are many,
    5.60+piracy being not the least. This discussion, and whether the countermeasures
    5.61+actually make economic sense, is a very large discussion all by itself that is
    5.62+better left for others with more knowledge of the area. One big issue I do see
    5.63+is that the companies value a creative work dif\hbox{}ferently from society as a
    5.64+whole.  For a record company or book publisher, value is proportionally related
    5.65+to the ability to monetize a given work. For society at large, the value of a
    5.66+creative work is something else completely, and something that is much harder to
    5.67+quantify. How do you determine the cultural value of a creative work? It would
    5.68+seem logical that cultural value is related to how many people come into contact
    5.69+with the work and how many new ideas it contains. But perhaps more importantly,
    5.70+a great indicator of a work's cultural value is how much it is referenced,
    5.71+quoted and perhaps even remixed\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/fcu2}} (to
    5.72+borrow a term from Lessig) into derivative works, thus becoming a part of
    5.73+Culture in general. Based on this, it is my strong belief that the more
    5.74+controlled a creative work is, the less its cultural value will be as it becomes
    5.75+harder (or the barrier of entry becomes greater) to remix the work and integrate
    5.76+it with other works and other ideas in our shared cultural heritage.
    5.77+
    5.78+
    5.79+\section{Making the bricks play sound}
    5.80+\label{s:consumer_to_creator:play_sound}
    5.81+
    5.82+My current involvement in Free Software is centred around the popular *nix (and
    5.83+slowly moving on to other platforms as well) audio player and manager, Amarok
    5.84+2\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/fcu4}}. This is something I am quite passionate
    5.85+about as it is not only an outlet for my own creativity and that of the other
    5.86+authors and contributors, but it also strives to be a hub that can help bring
    5.87+other forms of freely licensed creative content to a greater audience.
    5.88+
    5.89+Much of my understanding of, and appreciation for, the areas of Free Software,
    5.90+Free Culture and indeed the greater issues of Free Society comes from my work on
    5.91+this project, so it is only natural for me to explore these issues through this
    5.92+lens.
    5.93+
    5.94+One of the basic premises behind Amarok 2 is that there is really no lack of
    5.95+high quality free content out there on the web (or in ``The Cloud'' as the
    5.96+fashionable term seems to be these days). The main challenge is making people
    5.97+aware of its existence. Whether you are an ``up an coming'' band, radio station,
    5.98+record label or indeed producer of nearly any kind of cultural content not
    5.99+inside the ``mainstream media'', one of your worst enemies is obscurity. With
   5.100+the vastness of the Internet, how do you get people to pay attention to you? You
   5.101+have to make yourself discoverable.
   5.102+
   5.103+Amarok tries to accomplish this by making it easy to tie content from nearly any
   5.104+source into the core desktop application experience. Many of these sources will
   5.105+have content licensed under Creative Commons or similar licences, but this is
   5.106+not a strict requirement for inclusion of a service into Amarok. By making
   5.107+content available in a consistent way, and possibly tying content from multiple
   5.108+dif\hbox{}ferent sources together, the entire experience of discovering new
   5.109+content is greatly simplif\hbox{}ied. With the enormous potential audience, even
   5.110+the more obscure or experimental content, as long as the quality is high, is
   5.111+likely to f\hbox{}ind a signif\hbox{}icant audience.
   5.112+
   5.113+An example of a source that is now integrated, and the one that actually got
   5.114+this idea started, is Magnatune.com\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/fcu5}}.
   5.115+Magnatune.com is a record label that tries to do ``fair trade'' music, treating
   5.116+both artist and customers with respect. One of the things this means is that
   5.117+customers should be able to listen, in full, to any album before deciding
   5.118+whether to purchase it or not. Magnatune.com not only provides these preview
   5.119+streams for all their content, but also a structured way of getting access to it
   5.120+from third-party applications. So within Amarok, it is possible not only to
   5.121+browse and listen to each and every album from Magnatune.com freely, as much as
   5.122+you like, but also make purchases directly from within the application. Many
   5.123+other Free Software applications have now included the Magnatune.com content as
   5.124+well, making it a classic case of ``if you free it, they will come''.
   5.125+
   5.126+Amarok 2 includes many other sources of content already, such as
   5.127+Jamendo.com\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/fcu6}},
   5.128+LibriVox.org\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/fcu7}} and others. So as soon as a new
   5.129+user launches Amarok, these are immediately available. Perhaps much more
   5.130+powerful than this however, Amarok 2 provides the ability for people to add
   5.131+their own content in a relatively simple way.
   5.132+
   5.133+One of the key issues to adoption of a scheme like the Amarok 2 service
   5.134+framework is the barrier to entry. In order to spur adoption, this should
   5.135+naturally be as low as possible. In an attempt to overcome this, Amarok 2 makes
   5.136+it possible for third parties to add services using simple scripts. This means
   5.137+that with very little knowledge of code, it is possible to add content to
   5.138+Amarok. Coupled with Amarok's integrated system for downloading new ``service
   5.139+scripts'', this is a potentially very powerful feature.
   5.140+
   5.141+
   5.142+\section{Celebrating Diversity}
   5.143+\label{s:consumer_to_creator:diversity}
   5.144+
   5.145+To be completely honest, the possibility of adding services to Amarok using
   5.146+scripts did not start out as a grand vision of empowerment. Few such things do.
   5.147+But as the work progressed and interested people started contributing scripts,
   5.148+even before Amarok 2 was ever of\hbox{}f\hbox{}icially released, it started to
   5.149+become clear that it had great potential.
   5.150+
   5.151+A concept that has become quite clear to me lately is that though some content
   5.152+might be limited in its scope of appeal, due to language, topic, genre or a host
   5.153+of other reasons, this does not make it collectively less important. In fact,
   5.154+the sum of people interested in content like this might well exceed the number
   5.155+of people interested in some of the services with more broad appeal that are
   5.156+already integrated. This is in essence the idea of the ``long
   5.157+tail''\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/fcub}}.
   5.158+
   5.159+There are however two main issues with ``narrow'' content of this kind.
   5.160+F\hbox{}irst of all, it is unlikely that any of the regular contributors to a
   5.161+project like Amarok will be motivated in adding sources of content far outside
   5.162+their own areas of interest. Secondly, including content that is too narrow in
   5.163+the default installation is not desired. 99\% of the users are not likely to
   5.164+care much about Danish radio stations, and having too large a list of services
   5.165+installed by default is likely to cause confusion. Also, everything that is
   5.166+included in the default install will have to be maintained by the Amarok
   5.167+developers, taking time away from other development work. This is where the
   5.168+scripted services really show their worth.
   5.169+
   5.170+Using the scripted service framework, people have already created a host of
   5.171+services for national radio stations, access to the BBC's and NPR's archives of
   5.172+freely available (but unfortunately not always freely licensed) materials, a
   5.173+service for a site running a monthly vote of the best Free music, and the
   5.174+aforementioned LibriVox service (which is included in the default distribution
   5.175+as an example of what is possible using scripts). All of these services can be
   5.176+browsed and installed from within Amarok and the content becomes instantly
   5.177+available.
   5.178+
   5.179+Having localized or niche content easily available in an integrated form is
   5.180+interesting in a number of ways. Generally, in the Free Software and Free
   5.181+Culture movements, we have a tendency to be very Anglocentric. That is, most
   5.182+development work takes place in English, and this spills over into the kinds of
   5.183+content that we generally include in the standard distribution of an application
   5.184+like Amarok. For many people though, who speak poor or no English (or simply
   5.185+have no interest in English language content) this makes the application less
   5.186+appealing. The availability of third party scripted services providing easy
   5.187+access to local content, such as local or regional radio stations, can
   5.188+potentially do much to overcome this issue, making Amarok feel more ``native''
   5.189+to non-English users. For instance, having the service providing a comprehensive
   5.190+list of Danish radio stations would be a great selling point for my parents,
   5.191+who, even though they speak perfectly f\hbox{}ine English, generally only listen
   5.192+to Danish radio. And getting Amarok into the hands of more users expands the
   5.193+potential audience for the other integrated services, not the least of which is
   5.194+the Free Culture based ones. This example is based solely on my own work with
   5.195+Amarok and the integrated services, but the underlying mechanics apply far
   5.196+beyond this limited scope.
   5.197+
   5.198+Which neatly brings me back to the Lego bricks.
   5.199+
   5.200+
   5.201+\section{Empowerment}
   5.202+\label{s:creator_to_consumer:empowerment}
   5.203+
   5.204+One of the truly great things I see in the advent of Free Software and Free
   5.205+Culture is that it is getting a nearly unlimited amount of interesting bricks
   5.206+into the hands of creative people to build even more interesting stuf\hbox{}f.
   5.207+This overcomes many of the f\hbox{}inancial and social barriers of entry that
   5.208+have traditionally made it dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}icult or impossible for
   5.209+``ordinary'' people to create and disseminate high quality cultural works,
   5.210+software and so on, without the backing of a large corporate entity. The
   5.211+f\hbox{}low of culture, traditionally one way from the few to the many, is
   5.212+becoming much more many to many, peer to peer.  While this new wave of
   5.213+peer-generated content might not supplant the traditional media industry any
   5.214+time soon, the amount and quality of Free Culture and Software available has
   5.215+long since reached the tipping point of becoming a viable alternative to many
   5.216+people in many cases. You can now run your computer using only Free Software and
   5.217+have a very functional setup, and you can have a life f\hbox{}illed with great
   5.218+music from one of the many online sources of freely licensed music.
   5.219+
   5.220+For most, this creation of new culture will be unpaid, but the instinct to
   5.221+tinker and the gratif\hbox{}ication of being a creator and not merely a consumer
   5.222+is a great motivation for many. And of course, as with all other things, the
   5.223+people who are most skilled will f\hbox{}ind ways to make money from their
   5.224+works, even if they are freely licensed.
   5.225+
   5.226+I don't know what it will take to create a truly free society, but I have no
   5.227+doubt that a large amount of Free Culture and Free software ``bricks'' will go a
   5.228+very long way!
   5.229+

     6.1--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     6.2+++ b/chapters/creating_debian_packages_from_cpan.tex	Tue May 18 13:47:58 2010 +0200
     6.3@@ -0,0 +1,607 @@
     6.4+\begin{savequote}
     6.5+    \qauthor{\LARGE{Jeremiah Foster}}
     6.6+\end{savequote}
     6.7+\chapter{Creating Debian packages from CPAN}
     6.8+\label{c:debs_cpan}
     6.9+
    6.10+CPAN is a well-known and useful archive of Perl modules, a pearl in the Perl
    6.11+world. While it serves many Perl developers and users, it cannot by its very
    6.12+nature cater for further distribution because it does not know what form that
    6.13+distribution has to take. In other words, how is cpan supposed to know if it
    6.14+needs to morph into a specif\hbox{}ic format to allow a module to be installed on a
    6.15+specif\hbox{}ic platform? It cannot and should not, it should provide instead a stable
    6.16+API and a distributed database allowing for easy packaging ``downstream'', which
    6.17+is what it does. One can install from source if one prefers, or with the cpan
    6.18+and cpanp tools, but sometimes you need or want a more complete and f\hbox{}lexible
    6.19+system for installing software.
    6.20+
    6.21+As we move downstream, we get closer to the user and the user's system. Hic sunt
    6.22+dracones, you need to be pretty careful about how and what you install lest you
    6.23+create instability and bugs. Cpan tries to handle installation elegantly by
    6.24+installing dependencies with whatever module you are installing. This is a
    6.25+``Good Thing\texttrademark'', it helps the end-user immeasurably and helps to
    6.26+avoid ``dependency hell''; a painful state which describes the situation of
    6.27+having some of your needed software installed, but not all of it.
    6.28+
    6.29+Since a cpan module is agnostic to its f\hbox{}inal destination and tries to be as
    6.30+cross-platform as possible, it will not know about the specif\hbox{}ic peculiarities of
    6.31+the operating system upon which it is to reside. In fact, one might argue a good
    6.32+deal of cpants is directed at this problem, determining the quirks of the OS.
    6.33+Workarounds include the inclusion of multiple operating-system-specif\hbox{}ic tools
    6.34+and functions, yuck. 
    6.35+
    6.36+A better solution might be ``package management'' which allows for a cpan module
    6.37+to be wrapped in a way that allows for simpler installation. This is of course
    6.38+operating system specif\hbox{}ic and rightly so, the OS needs to  determine how to
    6.39+install, where to install, and what. So cpan can just do its thing while the OS
    6.40+communicates directly with cpan, gets the required module(s), any Perl
    6.41+dependencies, and does the installation work. The OS then checks to see if there
    6.42+are operating system required dependencies above and beyond the Perl
    6.43+dependencies, satisf\hbox{}ies those dependencies, resulting in a single call to the
    6.44+package manager to install software without having to search the internet for
    6.45+some arbitrary .so f\hbox{}ile.
    6.46+
    6.47+This article aims to explain this packaging process for Debian and Debian
    6.48+derived operating systems such as Ubuntu, allowing for Perl modules to be
    6.49+installed as debs and even submitted to Debian itself. The Debian system has
    6.50+many users, receives security notif\hbox{}ications, is known for its stability, and
    6.51+gets regular updates. These are things your Perl modules will automatically get
    6.52+as well when you submit them to Debian.
    6.53+
    6.54+There is a dedicated group of Debian hackers, both ``Debian Developers'' and
    6.55+non-developers, who maintain Perl modules in Debian. I am one of those who works
    6.56+on the Debian-Perl team\cite{debs_cpan-debian_perl_team} and would like to
    6.57+describe the development of debs from cpan, including some of its gory details,
    6.58+so that others can be familiar with ``best practices'' of packaging software for
    6.59+Debian. 
    6.60+
    6.61+Let us begin with a tool called dh-make-perl, shall we? Dh-make-perl (the dh
    6.62+stands for Debian helper) is a wrapper around the cpan tool, plus a whole lot
    6.63+more. We call it the same way as we would call cpan, with a module name. It then
    6.64+goes to cpan for the source of our deb because the goal of a deb is to have the
    6.65+source code separate and pristine. Debian makes no changes to the upstream
    6.66+source for packaging. Occasionally someone in Debian might patch the source to
    6.67+f\hbox{}ix a bug, but in Debian-Perl we try to use patch to patch things and always try
    6.68+to pass our patch upstream at least into RT, Perl's bug tracker. 
    6.69+
    6.70+Choosing something to package is actually quite important. I will choose
    6.71+Test::F\hbox{}ile because I f\hbox{}ind it useful and have some familiarity with it - two
    6.72+things one needs to generate the interest and motivation when there are bug
    6.73+reports or new features. Packaging is actually considerable work over time, a
    6.74+stale package is both a potential security risk and quickly forgotten.
    6.75+
    6.76+Now we use our f\hbox{}irst tool, the powerful dh-make-perl. I will show the call to
    6.77+dh-make-perl and then go through it a bit since I am going to pass a lot of
    6.78+arguments just to show some features.
    6.79+
    6.80+\lstset{
    6.81+    basicstyle=\footnotesize\ttfamily,
    6.82+    commentstyle=\textit,
    6.83+    %numbers=left,
    6.84+    %numberstyle=\tiny,
    6.85+    %stepnumber=1,
    6.86+    %numbersep=5pt,
    6.87+    breaklines=true,
    6.88+    tabsize=4,
    6.89+    keywordstyle=\color{red},
    6.90+    frame=single,
    6.91+    showspaces=false,
    6.92+    showtabs=false,
    6.93+    xleftmargin=15pt,
    6.94+    framexleftmargin=9pt,
    6.95+    framexrightmargin=9pt,
    6.96+    %backgroundcolor=\color{lightgray},
    6.97+    showstringspaces=false
    6.98+}
    6.99+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:dh-make-perl,caption=dh-make-perl command]{}
   6.100+dh-make-perl --cpan Test::File --desc "Test file attributes with perl." --arch all --version 1.25 -e jeremiah@jeremiahfoster.com --dh 7 --requiredeps --build
   6.101+\end{lstlisting}
   6.102+
   6.103+We call dh-make-perl with a bunch of parameters.  This of course is not
   6.104+necessary, you can make your call much smaller, but I want to show some of these
   6.105+parameters because they make life a little easier and you may want to use them.
   6.106+Of course the canonical source of dh-make-perl parameters and functions is in
   6.107+the man page for dh-make-perl, this is good to check on occasion since it has
   6.108+been getting updated recently\cite{debs_cpan-git_dh_make_perl}.
   6.109+
   6.110+The f\hbox{}irst parameter, or really argument to dh-make-perl, is the {-}{-}cpan f\hbox{}lag
   6.111+which tells dh-make-perl to go and get the module from cpan as opposed to
   6.112+f\hbox{}inding it locally. From the man page: ``If neither {-}{-}cpan nor a directory
   6.113+is given as argument, dh-make-perl tries to create a Perl package from the data
   6.114+in .'' i.e. the current directory.  So if you have a module you want to install
   6.115+locally or for some reason do not want to push up to Debian, you can create
   6.116+local debs for your own local machines or mirror, no need to push them
   6.117+downstream as it were.
   6.118+
   6.119+Next we give the name of our module in the same way we would if we were using
   6.120+cpan, i.e. Foo::Bar. The {-}{-}desc switch tells dh-make-perl what to use for
   6.121+Debian's short description and the {-}{-}arch f\hbox{}lag is for the architecture. Here
   6.122+we are using all because perl works on all the architectures that Debian
   6.123+of\hbox{}f\hbox{}icially (and unof\hbox{}f\hbox{}icially) supports. 
   6.124+
   6.125+Shockingly enough the {-}{-}version f\hbox{}lag provides a way to inform dh-make-perl
   6.126+about the version of the package we are packaging, so this is the  current
   6.127+version of Test::F\hbox{}ile; -e is the email address f\hbox{}lag, it wants an email address
   6.128+after it; {-}{-}dh is a call to debhelper itself and after {-}{-}dh you have to
   6.129+specify the version of debhelper you want to use. This is a little tricky
   6.130+because dif\hbox{}ferent versions of debhelper create dif\hbox{}ferent artefacts, specif\hbox{}ically
   6.131+dif\hbox{}ferent debian/rules f\hbox{}iles. So you want most likely to use version 7 for
   6.132+debhelper. To paraphrase the dh-make-perl man page, {-}{-}dh will set desired
   6.133+the debhelper version. If ``ver'' is 7, the generated debian/rules f\hbox{}ile is
   6.134+minimalist, using the auto-mode of debhelper. This minimalist version is what
   6.135+you want, unless you are going to package an XS module or need to do some crazy
   6.136+stuf\hbox{}f at build time.
   6.137+
   6.138+Fortunately we do not have to mess about with our debian/rules f\hbox{}ile, so I am
   6.139+going to continue discussing the rest of the arguments to dh-make-perl, but I
   6.140+want to say that there is a great deal to discuss regarding debian/rules and you
   6.141+would do well to consider reading about it in the Debian developers'
   6.142+documentation in places like the New Maintainer's
   6.143+Guide\cite{debs_cpan-new_maint_guide-rules}. If you are reading this in front of
   6.144+a Debian command line, you can simply do an ``aptitude install maint-guide'' to
   6.145+get the documentation.
   6.146+
   6.147+The {-}{-}requiredeps f\hbox{}lag tells dh-make-perl to require Perl dependencies, that
   6.148+is to say, if we do not f\hbox{}ind all the modules needed to build, we should fail to
   6.149+build our deb. This is really good because it makes your deb package more
   6.150+portable and all the Perl module dependencies will get installed when you
   6.151+install your package on another machine, very convenient. For this call to work
   6.152+you need to have apt-f\hbox{}ile installed on the machine on which you are building the
   6.153+package. Apt-f\hbox{}ile is an excellent tool, written in Perl (of course!). It allows
   6.154+you to search for f\hbox{}iles in Debian packages, even packages that are not installed
   6.155+on your system. This means that apt-f\hbox{}ile is really the canonical tool to f\hbox{}ind
   6.156+things in Debian or Ubuntu packages. A quick example: say we wanted to install
   6.157+libtest-more-perl and we called aptitude to install it thusly, ``aptitude
   6.158+install libtest-more-perl''. Aptitude says:
   6.159+
   6.160+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:apt-install,caption=aptitude install libtest-more-perl output]{}
   6.161+E: Unable to locate package libtest-more-perl
   6.162+\end{lstlisting}
   6.163+
   6.164+But we are certain that this fundamental perl module is in Debian! Haven't we
   6.165+seen Test::More output in fact? Indeed we have, but this module does not exist
   6.166+on its own. Debian has included it with the package perl-modules because it is
   6.167+such a fundamental tool, and so much else in Debian requires it. So looking for
   6.168+it with ``dpkg -L libtest-more-perl'' will produce these rather unhelpful
   6.169+results:
   6.170+
   6.171+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:dpkg-search,caption=dpkg -L libtest-more-perl output]{}
   6.172+Package ``libtest-more-perl'' is not installed.
   6.173+\end{lstlisting}
   6.174+
   6.175+But in fact, when we search with ``apt-f\hbox{}ile search Test/More.pm'' (which is the
   6.176+format we need to specify since we are looking at the f\hbox{}ile system) we will f\hbox{}ind
   6.177+that apt-f\hbox{}ile f\hbox{}inds it for us:
   6.178+
   6.179+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:apt-file,caption=apt-file search Test/More.pm output]{}
   6.180+perl-modules: /usr/share/perl/5.10.0/Test/More.pm
   6.181+\end{lstlisting}
   6.182+
   6.183+This output tells us that the f\hbox{}ile Test/More.pm is under /usr/share/perl/5.10.0
   6.184+and it is in the Debian package perl-modules. This is a handy and reliable way
   6.185+to f\hbox{}ind if the Perl module you are looking for is already packaged in Debian.
   6.186+All of these commands were issued on a Debian testing system.
   6.187+
   6.188+F\hbox{}inally we pass {-}{-}build which ``builds only a binary package (by calling
   6.189+`fakeroot debian/rules binary') and does not sign the package. It is meant for a
   6.190+quick local install of a package, not for creating a package ready for
   6.191+submission to the Debian archive.'' So says the man page for dh-make-perl. I
   6.192+like to build the package with dh-make-perl because then certain build problems
   6.193+come to the fore sooner. It is not a requirement to build the package with
   6.194+dh-make-perl however.
   6.195+
   6.196+Once we have run dh-make-perl, we watch all sorts of interesting output f\hbox{}ly by,
   6.197+like output from cpan, the test suite of our module, etc. The debhelper build
   6.198+process takes over after cpan has worked its magic and we get a f\hbox{}inished two
   6.199+f\hbox{}iles and a directory when we are done. They are:
   6.200+
   6.201+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:dh-make-perl-output,caption=dh-make-perl output]{}
   6.202+File: libtest-file-perl_1.25_all.deb
   6.203+File: libtest-file-perl_1.25.orig.tar.gz
   6.204+Dir: Test-File-1.25
   6.205+\end{lstlisting}
   6.206+
   6.207+
   6.208+
   6.209+\section{The anatomy of a package}
   6.210+\label{s:debs_cpan:anatomy}
   6.211+
   6.212+You would be tempted to say ``Well I have built my deb, I'm done!'' Doing a dpkg
   6.213+{-}{-}contents libtest-f\hbox{}ile-perl\_1.25\_all.deb ought to show this output on our new
   6.214+deb:
   6.215+
   6.216+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:dpkg-contents,caption=dpkg {-}{-}contents libtest-file-perl output]{}
   6.217+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./
   6.218+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/
   6.219+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/
   6.220+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/man/
   6.221+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/man/man3/
   6.222+-rw-r--r-- root/root      4142 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/man/man3/Test::File.3.gz
   6.223+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/perl5/
   6.224+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/perl5/Test/
   6.225+-rw-r--r-- root/root     27027 2008-06-10 19:59 ./usr/share/perl5/Test/File.pm
   6.226+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/doc/
   6.227+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/doc/libtest-file-perl/
   6.228+-rw-r--r-- root/root        69 2007-02-09 02:30 ./usr/share/doc/libtest-file-perl/README
   6.229+-rw-r--r-- root/root      1476 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/doc/libtest-file-perl/copyright
   6.230+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/doc/libtest-file-perl/examples/
   6.231+-rw-r--r-- root/root        69 2007-02-09 02:30 ./usr/share/doc/libtest-file-perl/examples/README
   6.232+-rw-r--r-- root/root       164 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/share/doc/libtest-file-perl/changelog.gz
   6.233+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/lib/
   6.234+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/lib/perl5/
   6.235+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/lib/perl5/auto/
   6.236+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/lib/perl5/auto/Test/
   6.237+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/lib/perl5/auto/Test/File/
   6.238+-rw-r--r-- root/root       195 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/lib/perl5/auto/Test/File/.packlist
   6.239+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/lib/perl/
   6.240+drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/lib/perl/5.10/
   6.241+-rw-r--r-- root/root       214 2009-02-09 15:39 ./usr/lib/perl/5.10/perllocal.pod
   6.242+\end{lstlisting}
   6.243+
   6.244+But in fact we are not done, we need to build the deb with dpkg-buildpackage and
   6.245+we need to modify some of the f\hbox{}iles in the Debian directory. F\hbox{}irst we will start
   6.246+by modifying the f\hbox{}iles in the Debian directory to make sure we have a proper
   6.247+package. The f\hbox{}irst thing we need to do is to change the name of our directory.
   6.248+Debian has  a requirement that says the package name has to be lowercase which
   6.249+means that our directory has to be lower case. So we move Test-F\hbox{}ile to
   6.250+libtest-f\hbox{}ile-perl-1.25. This format is the standard format for Debian Perl
   6.251+packages. While one might say it is not the most beautiful format, it has its
   6.252+strengths. Those strengths are that the format informs the user it is a library
   6.253+package, part of a larger system which might require dependencies. It has the
   6.254+suf\hbox{}f\hbox{}ix -perl which indicates that it is a Perl library. There are a few modules
   6.255+in Debian which are not labelled this way, and there is no absolute law saying
   6.256+you have to call your module this way, but if you do not you are in fact doing
   6.257+the user a grave disservice, because anyone who is used to Debian or Debian
   6.258+derivatives will search for a module as libfoo-bar-perl and they will not f\hbox{}ind
   6.259+your module if it is not so labelled. 
   6.260+
   6.261+So once we have moved Test-F\hbox{}ile-1.25 to libtest-f\hbox{}ile-perl-1.25 we will change
   6.262+into that directory and take a look around. We f\hbox{}ind that it is just like the
   6.263+untarred module from CPAN only with the addition of a Debian directory. We will
   6.264+take a closer look at the Debian directory now which is at the heart of
   6.265+packaging. According to the New Maintainer's
   6.266+guide\cite{debs_cpan-new_maint_guide} ``The most important of them are
   6.267+`control', `changelog', `copyright' and `rules', which are required for all
   6.268+packages.'' Let us start by taking a look at the control f\hbox{}ile: 
   6.269+
   6.270+\lstset{
   6.271+    basicstyle=\footnotesize\ttfamily,
   6.272+    commentstyle=\textit,
   6.273+    numbers=left,
   6.274+    numberstyle=\tiny,
   6.275+    stepnumber=1,
   6.276+    numbersep=5pt,
   6.277+    breaklines=true,
   6.278+    tabsize=4,
   6.279+    keywordstyle=\color{red},
   6.280+    frame=single,
   6.281+    showspaces=false,
   6.282+    showtabs=false,
   6.283+    xleftmargin=15pt,
   6.284+    framexleftmargin=9pt,
   6.285+    framexrightmargin=9pt,
   6.286+    %backgroundcolor=\color{lightgray},
   6.287+    showstringspaces=false
   6.288+}
   6.289+
   6.290+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:control-file,caption=control]{}
   6.291+Source: libtest-file-perl
   6.292+Section: perl
   6.293+Priority: optional
   6.294+Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7)
   6.295+Build-Depends-Indep: perl (>= 5.6.0-12), libtest-manifest-perl (>= 1.14)
   6.296+Maintainer: Debian Perl Group <pkg-perl-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
   6.297+Uploaders: Jeremiah C. Foster <jeremiah@jeremiahfoster.com>
   6.298+Standards-Version: 3.8.0
   6.299+Homepage: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-File/
   6.300+Vcs-Svn: svn://svn.debian.org/pkg-perl/trunk/libtest-file-perl/
   6.301+Vcs-Browser: http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-perl/trunk/libtest-file-perl/
   6.302+
   6.303+Package: libtest-file-perl
   6.304+Architecture: all
   6.305+Depends: ${perl:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, libtest-manifest-perl (>= 1.14)
   6.306+Description: Test file attributes with Perl.
   6.307+ Test::Files provides a collection of test utilities for file attributes.
   6.308+ .
   6.309+ Some file attributes depend on the owner of the process testing the file in
   6.310+ the same way the file test operators do. For instance, root (or super-user or
   6.311+ Administrator) may always be able to read files no matter the permissions.
   6.312+ .
   6.313+ Some attributes don't make sense outside of Unix, either, so some tests
   6.314+ automatically skip if they think they won't work on the platform. If you have
   6.315+ a way to make these functions work on Windows, for instance, please send me a
   6.316+ patch. :)
   6.317+ .
   6.318+ This description was "automagically" extracted from the module by dh-make-perl.
   6.319+\end{lstlisting}
   6.320+
   6.321+I will move quickly through the f\hbox{}irst lines of the control f\hbox{}ile but I would like
   6.322+to point out lines 4 and 5 where Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep are
   6.323+def\hbox{}ined. This is where the magic at the core of aptitude lies, and why the apt
   6.324+system is so powerful. Here we def\hbox{}ine the relationships between packages in the
   6.325+operating system and within Perl which will be satisf\hbox{}ied at build time. These
   6.326+dependencies were calculated by dh-make-perl but there are other mechanisms to
   6.327+do this as well and sometimes we will even need to do this by hand. Looking in
   6.328+the source directory for the package and even the META.yml and Makef\hbox{}ile.PL can
   6.329+reveal dependencies that might otherwise be missed. Usually dh-make-perl gets it
   6.330+right however and this is not necessary.
   6.331+
   6.332+In our Build-Depends line we are saying we depend on debhelper and we will not
   6.333+be able to build our package unless this dependency is satisf\hbox{}ied, it is an
   6.334+absolute dependency. The apt system will check automatically for dependencies on
   6.335+your dependencies, so you only specify the dependencies you need for your
   6.336+package, you do not have to rummage around to f\hbox{}ind out what they depend on.
   6.337+Build-Depends is only for dependencies required to build a binary package on
   6.338+your architecture, it is not a complete selection of build-time relationships.
   6.339+In our package, we also need Build-Depends-Indep which def\hbox{}ines other packages
   6.340+that our package will need to run, not just to build. 
   6.341+
   6.342+This is fairly esoteric stuf\hbox{}f, and Perl largely abstracts the ``building'' of
   6.343+binaries away from the Perl programmer in the interest of simplicity and ease of
   6.344+use. You can dig into this stuf\hbox{}f if you want, there is much more to learn about
   6.345+building Perl both on the Perl side and on the Debian side, but since it is a
   6.346+rather large subject area I am going to gloss over the really hairy details and
   6.347+refer you to the Debian policy\cite{debs_cpan-debian_policy} and your own Google
   6.348+prowess to get more info than that I have presented here.
   6.349+
   6.350+Most of the other stuf\hbox{}f in the debian/control f\hbox{}ile is pretty self-explanatory;
   6.351+resources for the source code, who was responsible for the package uploading,
   6.352+etc. I would like to direct you to the last line where we see some packaging
   6.353+boilerplate which ought to be removed, i.e. line 28.
   6.354+
   6.355+If we now turn our attention to debian/copyright we can see the power of Free
   6.356+Software and copyright. The Debian Free Software Guidelines require that a
   6.357+copyright be assigned so that a licence can be enforced. Perl is under the
   6.358+Artistic licence, a licence that has won important legal victories in the United
   6.359+States, and also under the GPL. This dual licensing is ef\hbox{}fective but only when
   6.360+there is a copyright specif\hbox{}ied and many Perl hackers forget to do this. I would
   6.361+like to encourage you to document your copyright, even if you received the
   6.362+copyright by default when you authored new code, this makes it easier to package
   6.363+your software. Here is what our copyright f\hbox{}ile looks like:
   6.364+
   6.365+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:copyright-file,caption=copyright]{}
   6.366+Format-Specification:
   6.367+    http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=196
   6.368+Upstream-Maintainer: brian d foy <bdfoy@cpan.org>
   6.369+Upstream-Source: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-File/
   6.370+Upstream-Name: Test-File
   6.371+Disclaimer: This copyright info was automatically extracted 
   6.372+    from the Perl module. It may not be accurate, so you better 
   6.373+    check the module sources in order to ensure the module for its 
   6.374+    inclusion in Debian or for general legal information. Please, 
   6.375+    if licensing information is incorrectly generated, file a bug 
   6.376+    on dh-make-perl.
   6.377+
   6.378+Files: *
   6.379+Copyright: brian d foy <bdfoy@cpan.org>
   6.380+License-Alias: Perl
   6.381+License: Artistic | GPL-1+
   6.382+
   6.383+Filend: debian/*
   6.384+Copyright: 2009, Jeremiah C. Foster <jeremiah@jeremiahfoster.com>
   6.385+Licence: Artistic | GPL-1+
   6.386+
   6.387+Licence: Artistic
   6.388+    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
   6.389+    it under the terms of the Artistic Licence, which comes with Perl.
   6.390+    On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the Artistic Licence
   6.391+    can be found in `/usr/share/common-licences/Artistic'
   6.392+
   6.393+Licence: GPL-1+
   6.394+    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
   6.395+    it under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence as published by
   6.396+    the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option)
   6.397+    any later version.
   6.398+    On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General
   6.399+    Public Licence can be found in `/usr/share/common-licences/GPL'
   6.400+\end{lstlisting}
   6.401+
   6.402+This f\hbox{}ile is pretty straight-forward. We will remove the boilerplate from lines
   6.403+6 through 11 and then f\hbox{}ill in the exact date of the copyright for the software,
   6.404+in this case we'll have to go to cpan and f\hbox{}ind out that it is 2008, but after
   6.405+that we are done with the copyright f\hbox{}ile.
   6.406+
   6.407+The compat and watch f\hbox{}iles play minor roles in our package building drama. The
   6.408+watch f\hbox{}ile is a tool to check to see if there have been any new releases, it
   6.409+gets used by a tool called uscan which allows one to update a new cpan module
   6.410+into an existing Debian package quickly. The compat f\hbox{}ile is merely a
   6.411+``compatibility'' number for some of the other Debian tools, I will leave that
   6.412+to you to explore. 
   6.413+
   6.414+
   6.415+
   6.416+
   6.417+\section{Building the package with dpkg-buildpackage}
   6.418+\label{s:debs_cpan:building}
   6.419+
   6.420+Now it is time to look at the main build tool for building Perl debs,
   6.421+dpkg-buildpackage. There are plenty of build tools in Debian and there seems to
   6.422+be a new one every month. For example there is now one called git-buildpackage
   6.423+and for all I know it may be great. I like dpkg-buildpackage so that is what I
   6.424+am going to tell you about.
   6.425+
   6.426+As with every build tool there are ten thousand options, but I am just going to
   6.427+describe the juicy parts. I call dpkg-buildpackage like this:
   6.428+
   6.429+\lstset{
   6.430+    basicstyle=\footnotesize\ttfamily,
   6.431+    commentstyle=\textit,
   6.432+    numbers=none,
   6.433+    %numberstyle=\tiny,
   6.434+    %stepnumber=1,
   6.435+    %numbersep=5pt,
   6.436+    breaklines=true,
   6.437+    tabsize=4,
   6.438+    keywordstyle=\color{red},
   6.439+    frame=single,
   6.440+    showspaces=false,
   6.441+    showtabs=false,
   6.442+    xleftmargin=15pt,
   6.443+    framexleftmargin=9pt,
   6.444+    framexrightmargin=9pt,
   6.445+    %backgroundcolor=\color{lightgray},
   6.446+    showstringspaces=false
   6.447+}
   6.448+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:dpkg-buildpackage,caption=dpkg-buildpackage command]{}
   6.449+dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -kjeremiah@jeremiahfoster.com
   6.450+\end{lstlisting}
   6.451+
   6.452+What we have right after the call is the f\hbox{}lag -r with the word fakeroot right
   6.453+after it, that is the command used to gain root. The -D is for checking
   6.454+conf\hbox{}licts and dependencies which I highly recommend although you can do it
   6.455+without checking dependencies but that would most likely not be portable.
   6.456+F\hbox{}inally, -k and my email address is the key I use to sign the package.
   6.457+
   6.458+This tool is a Perl tool, of course, and if you look at the source you will see
   6.459+the name Ian Jackson in the copyright section. Ian Jackson is the guy who
   6.460+started Debian, he is in fact the Ian of Debian with his wife Debra being the
   6.461+deb part. You can also see that this f\hbox{}ile is not very well documented, no pod
   6.462+for example, which is a shame. There are other modules also being pulled into
   6.463+this one, modules like dpkg and dpkg::Version which is useful for checking
   6.464+version numbers of packages. Why won't you f\hbox{}ind these packages on cpan? Good
   6.465+question. It is one of my long term goals to expose all these tools to cpan and
   6.466+get the public to examine them and help with development and documentation. The
   6.467+developers in Debian seem to think these tools are only relatively interesting
   6.468+to a Debian developer, which may be true, but I suspect it is valuable to have
   6.469+tools that work on such a fundamental level with Debian packages since Debian is
   6.470+so widespread. Then people can either use them themselves or even devise tools
   6.471+on top of them that might be useful, like the cpan2dist tool in cpanplus. I can
   6.472+also see these tools as potentially being useful for a distribution agnostic
   6.473+linux packaging program. In any case, I think Debian should follow the best
   6.474+practices of the Perl community either way and make the tools available and I
   6.475+intend to do that work if someone does not beat me to it.
   6.476+
   6.477+In the meantime, what happened when we built our package? Since we passed -D to
   6.478+check dependencies, dpkg-buildpackage called dpkg-checkbuilddeps and found that
   6.479+we cannot build our package because we are missing a dependency; Test::Manifest.
   6.480+You can run dpkg-checkbuilddeps separately and this is the output:
   6.481+
   6.482+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:dpkg-checkbuilddeps,caption=dpkg-checkbuilddeps output]{}
   6.483+dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: libtest-manifest-perl (>= 1.14)
   6.484+\end{lstlisting}
   6.485+
   6.486+The above line tells us that the Perl module Test::Manifest needs to be included
   6.487+for and that it already exists in Debian as the package libtest-manifest-perl.
   6.488+Marvel at the power of the apt system! It saved us a journey to dependency hell.
   6.489+We simply install libtest-manifest-perl and try to build again\ldots
   6.490+
   6.491+This time, success! Dpkg-buildpackage will ask me for my key passphrase, which I
   6.492+give it, and it signs the package for me. Now if we look in our dir we have:
   6.493+
   6.494+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:post-dpkg-checkbuilddeps,caption=Directory after successful dpkg-checkbuilddeps run]{}
   6.495+libtest-file-perl-1.25  
   6.496+libtest-file-perl_1.25-1_all.deb 
   6.497+libtest-file-perl_1.25-1.dsc  
   6.498+libtest-file-perl_1.25-1_i386.changes  
   6.499+libtest-file-perl_1.25-1.tar.gz
   6.500+\end{lstlisting}
   6.501+
   6.502+Hooray! We have our deb, signed and sealed. You can install it now with dpkg -i
   6.503+libtest-f\hbox{}ile-perl\_1.25-1\_all.deb but before we pass it out far and wide, let
   6.504+us take one f\hbox{}inal step and build it in a ``clean room'' or a minimal Debian
   6.505+install. This we can use as a baseline and assume that if it builds and installs
   6.506+here it can build and install anywhere. To do this we are going to use pbuilder
   6.507+which is a ``personal package builder''. It creates a chroot, downloads a
   6.508+minimal Debian install, adds your package and any dependencies and builds a deb
   6.509+for you. If that works, you can be reasonably sure it will work out in the
   6.510+greater wide world of the Debian installed base.
   6.511+
   6.512+Here is the call: 
   6.513+
   6.514+
   6.515+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:pbuilder-1,caption=pbuilder command]{}
   6.516+sudo pbuilder build libtest-file-perl_1.25-1.dsc
   6.517+\end{lstlisting}
   6.518+
   6.519+I will go through an arbitrary selection of pbuilder's output:
   6.520+
   6.521+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:pbuilder-1,caption=pbuilder output]{}
   6.522+I: using fakeroot in build.
   6.523+Current time: Wed Feb 11 16:22:37 CET 2009
   6.524+pbuilder-time-stamp: 1234365757
   6.525+Building the build Environment
   6.526+ -> extracting base tarball [/var/cache/pbuilder/base.tgz]
   6.527+\end{lstlisting}
   6.528+
   6.529+The base tarball gets unpackaged to create the build environment (f\hbox{}igure
   6.530+\ref{cl:debs_cpan:pbuilder-1}).
   6.531+
   6.532+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:pbuilder-2,caption=pbuilder process continued]{}
   6.533+Get:1 http://ftp.debian.org sid Release.gpg [189B]
   6.534+Get:2 http://ftp.debian.org sid Release [80.6kB]
   6.535+Get:3 http://ftp.debian.org sid/main Packages/DiffIndex [2038B]
   6.536+Get:4 http://ftp.debian.org sid/main 2009-02-10-2012.30.pdiff [5047B]
   6.537+\end{lstlisting}
   6.538+
   6.539+Here (f\hbox{}igure \ref{cl:debs_cpan:pbuilder-2}) pbuilder updates the base Debian
   6.540+install with the latest dif\hbox{}fs of packages so your clean room is up-to-date. You
   6.541+can update it manually as well and change the distribution you want to use, I
   6.542+prefer to use testing but you might want to use stable.
   6.543+
   6.544+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:pbuilder-3,caption=pbuilder process continued]{}
   6.545+Copying source file
   6.546+    -> copying [libtest-file-perl_1.25-1.dsc]
   6.547+    -> copying [./libtest-file-perl_1.25-1.tar.gz]
   6.548+Extracting source
   6.549+\end{lstlisting}
   6.550+
   6.551+pbuilder pulls in our source for the package (f\hbox{}igure
   6.552+\ref{cl:debs_cpan:pbuilder-3}).
   6.553+
   6.554+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:pbuilder-4,caption=dpkg-buildpackage takes over]{}
   6.555+dpkg-buildpackage: source package libtest-file-perl
   6.556+dpkg-buildpackage: source version 1.25-1
   6.557+dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by Jeremiah C. Foster <jeremiah@jeremiahfoster.com>
   6.558+dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture i386
   6.559+\end{lstlisting}
   6.560+
   6.561+dpkg-buildpackage takes over and does its stuf\hbox{}f.
   6.562+
   6.563+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:pbuilder-5,caption=Test failure!]{}
   6.564+Test::Manifest::test_harness found [t/load.t t/pod.t t/pod_coverage.t t/normalize.t t/test_files.t t/owner.t t/rt/30346.t]
   6.565+t/load............ok                                                         
   6.566+t/pod.............skipped
   6.567+        all skipped: Test::Pod 1.00 required for testing POD
   6.568+\end{lstlisting}
   6.569+
   6.570+Aha! I missed a useful tool. Since Test::Pod gets called while running tests, I
   6.571+should add it to Build-Depends-Indep in the debian/control f\hbox{}ile to get these
   6.572+tests to run. Of course it builds without it, but it is better to run all our
   6.573+tests as the original developer envisioned. Once I add that module and the
   6.574+module Test::Pod::Coverage which is also used in tests to the debian/control
   6.575+f\hbox{}ile, all the tests pass and the package gets built. This is a pretty good
   6.576+indication that this package will build on someone else's machine.
   6.577+
   6.578+To conf\hbox{}irm that we are in accordance with policy we ought to run the package
   6.579+through lintian, the Debian policy checker. I run it with the -i and -I f\hbox{}lags
   6.580+which provides much more verbose output, it has a {-}{-}pedantic switch as well.
   6.581+We might run it against our deb like this:
   6.582+
   6.583+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:lintian-command,caption=lintian command]{}
   6.584+lintian -i -I libtest-file-perl_1.25-1_all.deb 
   6.585+\end{lstlisting}
   6.586+
   6.587+And get output like this:
   6.588+
   6.589+\begin{lstlisting}[frame=trbl,label=cl:debs_cpan:lintian-output,caption=lintian output]{}
   6.590+E: libtest-file-perl: perl-module-in-core-directory usr/lib/perl/5.10/
   6.591+N: 
   6.592+N:    Packaged modules must not be installed into the core Perl directories as
   6.593+N:    those directories change with each upstream Perl revision. The vendor
   6.594+N:    directories are provided for this purpose.
   6.595+N:    
   6.596+N:    Refer to Debian Perl Policy section 3.1 (Site Directories) for details.
   6.597+N:    
   6.598+N:    Severity: important, Certainty: certain
   6.599+\end{lstlisting}\cite{debs_cpan-debian_perl_policy}
   6.600+
   6.601+These warnings are good to have, were you to submit your package for inclusion
   6.602+in Debian the expectation is that your package is ``lintian clean'' which means
   6.603+without warnings from lintian. Now we can submit this to Debian or put it in our
   6.604+own personal deb repo with conf\hbox{}idence.
   6.605+
   6.606+The package goes through some automatic building on a variety of architectures,
   6.607+sits in a queue for about ten days, then gets put into the Debian ``testing''
   6.608+distro. Anyone who has Debian testing sources in the /etc/apt/sources.list will
   6.609+now be able to install it just by calling aptitude. Now your package or software
   6.610+is available to millions of users. Congratulations.

     7.1--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     7.2+++ b/chapters/free_beer.tex	Tue May 18 13:47:58 2010 +0200
     7.3@@ -0,0 +1,271 @@
     7.4+\begin{savequote}
     7.5+    \qauthor{\LARGE{Henrik Moltke}}
     7.6+\end{savequote}
     7.7+\chapter[RMS on FREE BEER]{RMS on FREE BEER\\ \Large{Transcribed by Gunhild Andersen}}
     7.8+\label{c:rms_free_beer}
     7.9+
    7.10+\paragraph{HM:}{Hello, my name is Henrik. I'm calling on behalf of
    7.11+Superf\hbox{}lex \dots}
    7.12+
    7.13+\paragraph{RMS:}{Sorry, you said super-what?}
    7.14+
    7.15+\paragraph{HM:}{Superf\hbox{}lex.}
    7.16+
    7.17+\paragraph{RMS:}{I don't recall that name.}
    7.18+
    7.19+\paragraph{HM:}{Do you remember the Free Beer?}
    7.20+
    7.21+\paragraph{RMS:}{Yes!}
    7.22+
    7.23+\paragraph{HM:}{What we hoped to do with you was to ask you to taste and review
    7.24+the beer, which is \ldots}
    7.25+
    7.26+\paragraph{RMS:}{It wouldn't work, because I don't like beer. I also don't like
    7.27+the emphasis that most people put on getting drunk. I have only got drunk once
    7.28+in my life, on a transatlantic f\hbox{}light. I had made the mistake of putting
    7.29+my sleeping pills into my suitcase which I'd checked. I tried using whiskey to
    7.30+achieve the same ef\hbox{}fect. It didn't work very well, partly because it was
    7.31+so disgusting I could hardly swallow it.}
    7.32+
    7.33+\paragraph{HM:}{Did you manage to sleep in the end?}
    7.34+
    7.35+\paragraph{RMS:}{I slept a little bit.}
    7.36+
    7.37+\paragraph{HM:}{But I was thinking that maybe we could try and do something
    7.38+remotely similar to a review, just without actually talking about the taste and
    7.39+the hue and the \dots}
    7.40+
    7.41+\paragraph{RMS:}{OK!}
    7.42+
    7.43+\paragraph{HM:}{So if you could pretend that you were reviewing this idea of a
    7.44+free beer \dots}
    7.45+
    7.46+\paragraph{RMS:}{Oh, I love the idea as long as I don't have to drink it!}
    7.47+
    7.48+\paragraph{HM:}{I was wondering about the name, because most people will think
    7.49+about this only as free beer in the free beer sense \dots}
    7.50+
    7.51+\paragraph{RMS:}{\dots Well,}
    7.52+
    7.53+\paragraph{HM:}{\dots but there is another \dots}
    7.54+
    7.55+\paragraph{RMS:}{\dots are you selling samples of it?}
    7.56+
    7.57+\paragraph{HM:}{Well, actually we do sell free beer in a shop, but we also
    7.58+\dots}
    7.59+
    7.60+\paragraph{RMS:}{Yeah, I hope so! It probably costs you money to produce a
    7.61+batch.}
    7.62+
    7.63+\paragraph{HM:}{Exactly.}
    7.64+
    7.65+\paragraph{RMS:}{So it makes sense to sell bottles of it, or glasses of it. And
    7.66+so that will make people think: they'll see this is free in the sense of
    7.67+freedom, but it's not gratis.}
    7.68+
    7.69+\paragraph{HM:}{Exactly, that was the concept from day one \dots}
    7.70+
    7.71+\paragraph{RMS:}{Mmm?}
    7.72+
    7.73+\paragraph{HM:}{So, do you have anything against or for naming a beer Free
    7.74+Beer?}
    7.75+
    7.76+\paragraph{RMS:}{I like the idea, because it's a cute way of making a point.}
    7.77+
    7.78+\paragraph{HM:}{And could it be called a hack in the sense of \dots}
    7.79+
    7.80+\paragraph{RMS:}{Yes! Yes, it is a hack. Playful cleverness is hacking, so this
    7.81+is hacking.}
    7.82+
    7.83+\paragraph{HM:}{I remember that we received an email with some very constructive
    7.84+comments about intellectual property and the way we use \dots}
    7.85+
    7.86+\paragraph{RMS:}{Well, actually, my comments may have been about quote
    7.87+``intellectual property'' \dots}
    7.88+
    7.89+\paragraph{HM:}{Exactly.}
    7.90+
    7.91+\paragraph{RMS:}{\dots unquote, because I never talk about - I never use that
    7.92+term \dots}
    7.93+
    7.94+\paragraph{HM:}{And that's what you were telling us.}
    7.95+
    7.96+\paragraph{RMS:}{\dots to describe anything, and it's a mistake to do so because
    7.97+that term mixes together various dif\hbox{}ferent laws with totally
    7.98+dif\hbox{}ferent ef\hbox{}fects as if they were a single thing. So anyone who
    7.99+tries to think about the supposed quote ``issue of intellectual property''
   7.100+unquote is already so badly confused that he can't think clearly about it.}
   7.101+
   7.102+\paragraph{HM:}{Now, in the same email you also suggested that we call the beer
   7.103+a free software beer instead of an open source beer.}
   7.104+
   7.105+\paragraph{RMS:}{Yes. I founded the Free Software movement, and ``open source''
   7.106+is a term used to co-opt our work; to separate our work from our ideals that
   7.107+motivated it. See, we developed software that users are free to run and share
   7.108+and change as they wish, for the sake of freedom. Because those freedoms, we
   7.109+believe, are essential. Then there were millions of people who appreciated the
   7.110+software and appreciated being able to share and change it, and found that it
   7.111+was very good software too. But they didn't want to present this as an ethical
   7.112+issue. So they started using a dif\hbox{}ferent term, open source, as a way to
   7.113+describe the same software without ever bringing it up as an ethical issue: as a
   7.114+matter of freedoms that people are entitled to. Well, they're entitled to their
   7.115+opinions. But I don't share their opinions, and I hope you don't either. So to
   7.116+support awareness of the ethical issues of free software the most basic thing to
   7.117+do is talk about free software.}
   7.118+
   7.119+\paragraph{HM:}{Do you think this will come about by discussing for example a
   7.120+beer that actually isn't software?}
   7.121+
   7.122+\paragraph{RMS:}{It's a similar kind of issue arising here. A beer doesn't
   7.123+actually have source code either. A recipe is not like source code, you can't
   7.124+just compile it. There's no program that turns the recipe into food.}
   7.125+
   7.126+\paragraph{HM:}{What if we speak about the general idea of taking ideas from the
   7.127+free software movement, and from the open source movement even, and transferring
   7.128+those values onto something which is not software?}
   7.129+
   7.130+\paragraph{RMS:}{I'm all in favour of it. Whenever they're applicable. When
   7.131+these ideas make sense in one context they may make sense in another context,
   7.132+but that's not guaranteed. They're not applicable to everything in life, they're
   7.133+applicable to certain things. Specif\hbox{}ically, they're applicable when there
   7.134+are works made of information that are useful.}
   7.135+
   7.136+\paragraph{HM:}{So where do you draw the line? Does an open source cook book
   7.137+make more sense than an open source car?}
   7.138+
   7.139+\paragraph{RMS:}{I'd rather not use the term open source. I'm not a supporter of
   7.140+the open source movement.}
   7.141+
   7.142+\paragraph{HM:}{I'm sorry. That's the problem: if \dots}
   7.143+
   7.144+\paragraph{RMS:}{Recipes should be free.}
   7.145+
   7.146+\paragraph{HM:}{But I was thinking, is there a way that we could use this word
   7.147+in a better way than speaking about an open source beer? Because a free software
   7.148+beer also sounds strange.}
   7.149+
   7.150+\paragraph{RMS:}{Yes, they both are strange. Neither one really f\hbox{}its
   7.151+because a beer is not software and has no source. So if you're going to strain
   7.152+things to refer to a movement, you might as well pick the movement you support.}
   7.153+
   7.154+\paragraph{HM:}{Because we've taken a bit from one and a bit from the other.}
   7.155+
   7.156+\paragraph{RMS:}{Anyway.}
   7.157+
   7.158+\paragraph{HM:}{We tried to recount the whole story of what happened in the
   7.159+early seventies up till now to sort of explain what the idea of the beer was,
   7.160+and I f\hbox{}ind this quite complex.}
   7.161+
   7.162+\paragraph{RMS:}{It is!}
   7.163+
   7.164+\paragraph{HM:}{Is there any way that these kinds of ideas could travel to the
   7.165+minds of people in an easier way?}
   7.166+
   7.167+\paragraph{RMS:}{Well, I f\hbox{}ind that recipes make a good analogy for
   7.168+explaining the ideas of free software to people. Because people who cook
   7.169+commonly share recipes and commonly change recipes, and they take for granted
   7.170+that they're free to cook recipes when they wish. So imagine if the Government
   7.171+took away those freedoms; if they said ``starting today, if you copy and share,
   7.172+or if you change a recipe, we'll call you a pirate.'' Imagine how angry they
   7.173+would be. Well that anger, that exact anger, is what I felt when they said I
   7.174+couldn't change and share software any more. And I said ``No way, I refuse to
   7.175+accept that.''}
   7.176+
   7.177+\paragraph{HM:}{Why do you think this had to happen within software and
   7.178+computers, why haven't people demanded the same kind of freedoms before?}
   7.179+
   7.180+\paragraph{RMS:}{Well, there weren't enough people using computers, and in the
   7.181+early days software was free, actually.}
   7.182+
   7.183+\paragraph{HM:}{Yeah. When you started \dots}
   7.184+
   7.185+\paragraph{RMS:}{It was in the seventies that software became proprietary. And
   7.186+that change for the worse was complete by the early eighties. But I had had the
   7.187+experience of participating in a community of programmers where sharing software
   7.188+was normal. And when it disappeared and died, and I saw a morally ugly way of
   7.189+life as my probable future I rejected that.}
   7.190+
   7.191+\paragraph{HM:}{That was back in the beginning of the eighties?}
   7.192+
   7.193+\paragraph{RMS:}{That was in 1983. I formed the Free Software Movement and
   7.194+launched a plan to develop a free software operating system so that we could use
   7.195+computers and have this freedom.}
   7.196+
   7.197+\paragraph{HM:}{Do you think that the way that things are now and the way that
   7.198+you have a GNU/Linux option or you can do many things with dif\hbox{}ferent
   7.199+kinds of open source software \dots}
   7.200+
   7.201+\paragraph{RMS:}{Please?}
   7.202+
   7.203+\paragraph{HM:}{I'm sorry, I'm sorry.}
   7.204+
   7.205+\paragraph{RMS:}{I don't want you to use the term open source.}
   7.206+
   7.207+\paragraph{HM:}{I'm very sorry.}
   7.208+
   7.209+\paragraph{RMS:}{It's not what I stand for. You're putting me in a very bad
   7.210+position by talking with me about my work and using the term, the name of a
   7.211+party that was formed to reject my views.}
   7.212+
   7.213+\paragraph{HM:}{This is something very dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}icult for someone like
   7.214+me to actually - because I am not a computer programmer. I am not somebody who
   7.215+has lived this for 20 years. So for me it is dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}icult although
   7.216+I'm trying to \dots}
   7.217+
   7.218+\paragraph{RMS:}{Think of open source and free software as the name of two
   7.219+dif\hbox{}ferent political parties \dots}
   7.220+
   7.221+\paragraph{HM:}{I fully understand that.}
   7.222+
   7.223+\paragraph{RMS:}{\dots with dif\hbox{}ferent programmes. If you invited the
   7.224+leader from the Green party - which, by the way, I more or less support - and
   7.225+you started talking to him about his work in the Conservative party, and you did
   7.226+that several times, he'd probably get mad at you.}
   7.227+
   7.228+\paragraph{HM:}{And I could imagine that this is something that happens often
   7.229+with the political press and journalists and \dots}
   7.230+
   7.231+\paragraph{RMS:}{Yes. Yes it does, and in fact before I give an interview I
   7.232+raise this issue and I make sure that they've agreed not to do this. Because it
   7.233+would be pointless to do an interview if I'd be misreported as a supporter of
   7.234+open source.}
   7.235+
   7.236+\paragraph{HM:}{Well, you know, I actually did my homework, and this is
   7.237+something that I f\hbox{}ind must be as dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}icult for ordinary
   7.238+people \dots}
   7.239+
   7.240+\paragraph{RMS:}{It's not that dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}icult. You're talking about
   7.241+changing a habit.  It takes a little bit of work and you make mistakes a few
   7.242+times but don't exaggerate it. You can change a habit.}
   7.243+
   7.244+\paragraph{HM:}{When you started the Free Software Movement and the GNU project,
   7.245+would you ever have imagined that this kind of idea would turn into something
   7.246+outside of the computer world, something like a beer or \dots}
   7.247+
   7.248+\paragraph{RMS:}{No, I didn't think for a minute about that.}
   7.249+
   7.250+\paragraph{HM:}{When did that start happening, when did you start seeing those
   7.251+possibilities?}
   7.252+
   7.253+\paragraph{RMS:}{About f\hbox{}ive years ago.}
   7.254+
   7.255+\paragraph{HM:}{Is that what you hope will happen in the future from now on?}
   7.256+
   7.257+\paragraph{RMS:}{Well, I hope so. But mainly what I'm hoping for and working for
   7.258+is that software should be free.}
   7.259+
   7.260+\paragraph{HM:}{And do you think a project like this will help?}
   7.261+
   7.262+\paragraph{RMS:}{Yes. It'll help. It will bring the ideas home to people who
   7.263+wouldn't have thought about them otherwise. And that's useful.}
   7.264+
   7.265+\paragraph{HM:}{I hope this will get some repercussions and that we may use this
   7.266+\dots}
   7.267+
   7.268+\paragraph{RMS:}{Happy hacking!}
   7.269+
   7.270+\paragraph{HM:}{And thanks very much for your time!}
   7.271+
   7.272+\paragraph{RMS:}{Bye.}
   7.273+
   7.274+\paragraph{HM:}{OK, bye bye.}

     8.1--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     8.2+++ b/chapters/free_culture_in_relation_to_software_freedom.tex	Tue May 18 13:47:58 2010 +0200
     8.3@@ -0,0 +1,699 @@
     8.4+\begin{savequote}
     8.5+    \qauthor{\LARGE{Mike Linksvayer}}
     8.6+\end{savequote}
     8.7+\chapter{Free Culture in Relation to Software Freedom}
     8.8+\label{c:free_culture_software_freedom}
     8.9+
    8.10+Richard Stallman announced the GNU project (GNU's Not Unix) to create a free
    8.11+operating system in 1983, making the free software movement at least 25 years
    8.12+old\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6pj} for my perspective on the 25th
    8.13+anniversary of GNU.}. In a number of ways, free culture is harder to pin down
    8.14+than free software. No single event marks the obvious beginning of the free
    8.15+culture movement. Candidates might include the launches of the f\hbox{}irst Open
    8.16+Content licences (1998\footnote{See ``10 Years of Open Content'' at
    8.17+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6pm} by David Wiley, creator of the f\hbox{}irst open
    8.18+content licence.}), Wikipedia (2001), and Creative Commons (2002).  One reason
    8.19+may be that there is no free culture equivalent of a free operating system - an
    8.20+objective that is clearly necessary, and for at least some people,
    8.21+suf\hbox{}f\hbox{}icient to fully achieve software freedom.
    8.22+
    8.23+This chapter compares and contrasts software and culture and the free software
    8.24+and free culture movements. The ideas herein formed, with my observations as a
    8.25+free software advocate working at Creative Commons for f\hbox{}ive years, then
    8.26+took the form of f\hbox{}ive presentations on the topic during 2008\footnote{See
    8.27+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6pp}, \url{http://ur1.ca/f6pr}, \url{http://ur1.ca/f6ps},
    8.28+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6pv} and \url{http://ur1.ca/f6pw}.}. I gave the second to
    8.29+last of those presentations at FSCONS (not coincidentally, a conference
    8.30+dedicated to free software \textit{and} free culture), the book version of which
    8.31+this chapter is being written for.
    8.32+
    8.33+I start by examining dif\hbox{}ferences between software and culture \textit{as
    8.34+they relate to the need for and ability to collaborate across individual and
    8.35+organizational boundaries}, then move on to the implications of those
    8.36+dif\hbox{}ferences for free software and free culture. Next I look at the
    8.37+history of each movement and indicators of what each has achieved - mostly by
    8.38+loosely analogizing free culture indicators to free software, the latter taken
    8.39+as a given. F\hbox{}inally, I attempt to draw some lessons, again mostly for
    8.40+free culture, and point out some useful ways for the free software and free
    8.41+culture movements to collaborate.
    8.42+
    8.43+In this chapter I take ``cultural works'' to mean ``non-software works of a type
    8.44+often restricted by copyright''. Admittedly this is not perfect - software is
    8.45+culture (as is everything of human construction in some sense), some
    8.46+recognizably ``cultural'' works include software, and many non-software works
    8.47+are not usually thought of as ``cultural''.
    8.48+
    8.49+While plenty may be said about the relative properties of cultural and software
    8.50+works usually recognized as such without creating precise def\hbox{}initions for
    8.51+each set, it is worth noting that Stallman, at least since 2000, has delineated
    8.52+three categories of works - functional (software, recipes, dictionaries,
    8.53+textbooks), representative (essays, memoirs, scientif\hbox{}ic papers), and
    8.54+aesthetic (music, novels, f\hbox{}ilms)\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6px}
    8.55+(speech transcription, 2000) and \url{http://ur1.ca/f6py} (interview, 2002).}.
    8.56+Although Stallman’s evaluation of the freedoms required for representative works
    8.57+has had some unfortunate ef\hbox{}fects\footnote{Verbatim-only permissions for
    8.58+GNU essays on which I comment in another GNU 25th anniversary post at
    8.59+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6q0} leading directly to an over-complicated Free
    8.60+Documentation Licence with non-free options, discussed brief\hbox{}ly on The
    8.61+Software Freedom Law Show: Episode 0x16 concerning documentation licensing; see
    8.62+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6q1}.}, these categories are very insightful and have some
    8.63+correspondence with my claims below that some cultural works more than others
    8.64+share similarities with software.
    8.65+
    8.66+
    8.67+\section{Obvious Software, Ubiquitous Culture}
    8.68+\label{s:free_culture_software_freedom:obvious_software}
    8.69+
    8.70+
    8.71+\subsection{Reuse}
    8.72+\label{ss:free_culture_software_freedom:obvious_software:reuse}
    8.73+
    8.74+The case for reusing software code is obvious, compelling, and pragmatic. If one
    8.75+can use or improve existing code, it often makes sense to do so rather than
    8.76+writing new code from scratch. For example, if one needed a HTML renderer, it
    8.77+would be very dif\hbox{}f\hbox{}icult to justify starting over rather than using
    8.78+Gecko or WebKit, the renderers used most notably by the F\hbox{}irefox and
    8.79+Safari web browsers respectively, and also many other projects. On the other
    8.80+hand, the case for reusing software code is very narrow. If one is writing a
    8.81+device driver, code from an HTML renderer is useless, as is nearly all other
    8.82+software code.
    8.83+
    8.84+Any particular cultural reuse does not seem necessary. If one needs music for a
    8.85+f\hbox{}ilm soundtrack, any number of existing pieces might work, and one would
    8.86+hardly question a decision to create a new piece just for the f\hbox{}ilm in
    8.87+question.  However, no particular cultural reuse is absurd, excepting when
    8.88+absurdity is a cultural feature. Cat photos and heavy metal music can make a
    8.89+music video. I challenge you to think of \textit{any} combination of artefacts
    8.90+that some artist could not incorporate together in a new work.
    8.91+
    8.92+Software is usually fairly clearly used in some part of a ``stack'' and an
    8.93+entire stack forms a self-contained nearly universally multi-purpose whole -
    8.94+usually an operating system with applications. Cultural works can of course be
    8.95+layered, but don't sort naturally into a ``stack'' - a f\hbox{}ilm may need a
    8.96+soundtrack in roughly the same way a song needs a video, while a video player
    8.97+needs an audio codec, but not \textit{vice versa}. There is no cultural
    8.98+equivalent of a shippable operating system.
    8.99+
   8.100+
   8.101+\subsection{Maintenance}
   8.102+\label{ss:free_culture_software_freedom:obvious_software:maintenance}
   8.103+
   8.104+Maintenance of software is almost necessary. Unmaintained software eventually is
   8.105+surpassed in features, becomes incompatible with new formats, has security holes
   8.106+discovered, is not included in current distributions, is only runnable on
   8.107+emulators, and if it is still useful, may be rewritten by a new generation of
   8.108+programmers who can't understand or even can't f\hbox{}ind the code.
   8.109+Non-maintained software is dead, or at least moribund.
   8.110+
   8.111+A ``maintained'' cultural work is pretty special. Most are consumed verbatim,
   8.112+unchanged from the artefact originally published, \textit{modulo} technical
   8.113+medium shifts. This may be a primarily 20th century phenomenon - beginning
   8.114+earlier for text, which could be mechanically reproduced on an industrial scale
   8.115+earlier.  Arguably culture before mass reproduction required maintenance of a
   8.116+sort to survive just as much as software does - manual copying since the dawn of
   8.117+writing and repeated performance before that. It is possible to imagine a future
   8.118+in which a lack of truly mass media and tremendously powerful and accessible
   8.119+modif\hbox{}ication tools mean that in order to survive, a cultural work must be
   8.120+continually modif\hbox{}ied to remain relevant. However, it is clear that at
   8.121+least now and in the recent past, an old verbatim cultural work is at least
   8.122+potentially useful, while old verbatim software work seldom is useful.
   8.123+
   8.124+
   8.125+\subsection{Modifiable Form and Construction}
   8.126+\label{ss:free_culture_software_freedom:obvious_software:modifiable_form}
   8.127+
   8.128+Software's modif\hbox{}iable form is roughly all or nothing - you have the
   8.129+source code or not. Some reverse engineering and decompilation is possible, but
   8.130+clearly source code is hugely more useful than binaries for modifying -
   8.131+including maintaining - software.
   8.132+
   8.133+The modif\hbox{}iable forms of cultural works are varied and degradable. For
   8.134+example, text with mark-up is more useful than a PDF, which is more useful than
   8.135+a bitmap scan. Audio multi-tracks are better than a lossless mixdown, which is
   8.136+better than a high bitrate mixdown, which is better than a low bitrate mixdown,
   8.137+which is better than a cassette recording of an AM radio broadcast during a
   8.138+storm. At the extremes, the most preferred form is much better than the most
   8.139+degraded, but the degradation is fairly steady and all forms have potential for
   8.140+cultural reuse.
   8.141+
   8.142+The closest to such steady degradation for software source code might be that
   8.143+commented code is better than uncommented code, which is better than obfuscated
   8.144+code, which is better than binaries, which are better than obfuscated binaries -
   8.145+but most of these forms are fairly unnatural - while it is hard to avoid
   8.146+encountering most of the continuum of modif\hbox{}iable form degradation for
   8.147+cultural works - except that the most preferred form is often unavailable.
   8.148+
   8.149+Relatedly, there's a gulf in the construction of software and cultural works.
   8.150+Creating software is identical to creating its modif\hbox{}iable form. Creating
   8.151+cultural works often involves iteratively leaving materials on the cutting room
   8.152+f\hbox{}loor or the digital equivalent.
   8.153+
   8.154+It makes intuitive sense that that which does not degrade gracefully requires
   8.155+maintenance and that which does not degrade gracefully does not require
   8.156+maintenance, though it is unclear there is any causality in either direction.
   8.157+
   8.158+
   8.159+\subsection{Distributed Collaboration}
   8.160+\label{ss:free_culture_software_freedom:obvious_software:distributed_collaboration}
   8.161+
   8.162+The compelling case to reuse specif\hbox{}ic software and the need to maintain
   8.163+software means that individuals and organizations with similar needs are likely
   8.164+to benef\hbox{}it from using the same software - and for some of them to work
   8.165+together (closely or loosely) to maintain and improve the software.
   8.166+
   8.167+Given lack of a compelling case for reusing specif\hbox{}ic cultural works and
   8.168+the lack of need to maintain cultural works means the need to collaborate across
   8.169+entity boundaries around \textit{a specif\hbox{}ic work} is much lower - though
   8.170+there remains a strong desire to collaborate across entities around any number
   8.171+of cultural works, and once a project that cannot be completed by a single
   8.172+entity is under way or a work gains cultural signif\hbox{}icance, there can be a
   8.173+very strong need or desire for distributed collaboration around that
   8.174+specif\hbox{}ic project or work.
   8.175+
   8.176+
   8.177+\subsection{Wikis}
   8.178+\label{ss:free_culture_software_freedom:obvious_software:wikis}
   8.179+
   8.180+Note that typical Wikis are somewhat like software in many of these respects.
   8.181+They require maintenance so as not to become stale and overrun with spam. Reuse
   8.182+may be more pragmatic and modif\hbox{}iable form more singular than most
   8.183+cultural works. Wikipedia is much more like a self-contained nearly universally
   8.184+multi-purpose whole than most cultural works.
   8.185+
   8.186+
   8.187+\section{Freedom}
   8.188+\label{s:free_culture_software_freedom:freedom}
   8.189+
   8.190+What do these dif\hbox{}ferences in reuse, maintenance, and modif\hbox{}iable
   8.191+form mean for free software and free culture, in particular the latter relative
   8.192+to the former?  Much has been written about software freedom, and there is wide
   8.193+agreement about what it entails. Distillations such as the Debian Free Software
   8.194+Guidelines\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6q2}}, the Open Source
   8.195+Def\hbox{}inition\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6q4}}, and the Free Software
   8.196+Def\hbox{}inition\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6q5}} almost completely agree
   8.197+with each other about which software is free (or open) and which is
   8.198+not\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6q6} for a rare exception.}.
   8.199+
   8.200+Why software freedom? The Free Software Def\hbox{}inition's four freedoms state
   8.201+(somewhat redundantly) things we want to be able to do with software - use, read
   8.202+and adapt, share, and improve and share improvements. More abstractly, free
   8.203+software grants users some autonomy (and the ability to get more), promotes a
   8.204+sharing ethic, facilitates collaboration, unlocks value, reduces transaction
   8.205+costs, makes distributed maintenance tenable, and arguably is congruent with and
   8.206+facilitation of broader social goals such as access, participation, democracy,
   8.207+innovation, security, and freedom\footnote{F\hbox{}ind a broad discussion of how
   8.208+free software and similar phenomena further these liberal goals in The Wealth of
   8.209+Networks by Yochai Benkler, available from \url{http://ur1.ca/f6q7}. I
   8.210+highlighted the positive impact of free software and free culture on freedom and
   8.211+security in particular in another FSCONS 2008 presentation, see
   8.212+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6q8}.}.
   8.213+
   8.214+
   8.215+\subsection{Software Services and Fee Software and Free Culture}
   8.216+\label{ss:free_culture_software_freedom:freedom:software_services}
   8.217+
   8.218+Software services delivered over a network have reignited the debate over what
   8.219+constitutes necessary software freedom. No doubt the rise of software services
   8.220+has aided and been helped by free software - the applications themselves are
   8.221+often not free software, but are usually built of and on top of many layers of
   8.222+free software, while the move of the most important applications to the web
   8.223+means that free software users only really need a web browser to be on a par
   8.224+with non-free users (there are important caveats, in particular the dominance of
   8.225+patent-encumbered media codecs, but the web is fairly clearly an equalizer).
   8.226+However, some see software services as a gigantic threat to software freedom.
   8.227+Not only is the source to most popular applications unavailable and not freely
   8.228+licensed, operations of software services are completely opaque, they have your
   8.229+data, and could shut down or deny you access at any time!
   8.230+
   8.231+Among the vanguard that sees a problem in software services and an answer in
   8.232+more software freedom, there is broad agreement in outline, e.g., the Franklin
   8.233+Street Statement\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6qa}; see \url{http://ur1.ca/f6qe}
   8.234+for my perspective.} and Open Software Services
   8.235+Def\hbox{}inition\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6qi}} probably would agree most
   8.236+of the time on which services are free, but many details and a huge amount of
   8.237+practise remains to be worked out\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6qj} for
   8.238+ongoing discussion of ``free network services.''}.
   8.239+
   8.240+The Franklin Street Statement and Open Software Services Def\hbox{}inition each
   8.241+recognize the need for content freedom. Private content makes things
   8.242+interesting, but both broadly agree on what constitutes free cultural works.
   8.243+Indeed, both build on def\hbox{}initions of freedom (or openness) for
   8.244+non-software works that plainly map software freedom to cultural works, the
   8.245+Def\hbox{}inition of Free Cultural Works\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6qm}} and
   8.246+the Open Knowledge Def\hbox{}inition\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6qo}}
   8.247+respectively.
   8.248+
   8.249+
   8.250+\subsection{Definitions of Freedom for Culture}
   8.251+\label{ss:free_culture_software_freedom:freedom:def_freedom_culture}
   8.252+
   8.253+These def\hbox{}initions have gained considerable traction - the former is used
   8.254+as Wikipedia's def\hbox{}inition of acceptable content licensing and is
   8.255+recognized (reciprocally) with an ``Approved for Free Cultural Works'' seal on
   8.256+qualifying Creative Commons instruments (public domain, Attribution,
   8.257+Attribution-ShareAlike)\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6qp}}. In debates about
   8.258+free culture licensing, it is regularly assumed and asserted that licences that
   8.259+do not meet the translated standards of free software are non-free.
   8.260+
   8.261+However, there is some explicit disagreement about whether freedom can be
   8.262+def\hbox{}ined singularly across all cultural works or that non-software
   8.263+communities have not arrived at their own def\hbox{}initions (Lawrence
   8.264+Lessig\footnote{Discussed at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6qq}; also see Lessig
   8.265+presentation at 23C3 available at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6qr} starting at 41
   8.266+minutes.}) or that many cultural works require less freedom
   8.267+(Stallman\footnote{Ibid. 4.}), to say nothing of graduated and multiple
   8.268+def\hbox{}initions in related movements such as those for Open
   8.269+Access\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6qu} for an overview that unfortunately
   8.270+uses ``libre'' to indicate that at least some permission barriers have been
   8.271+removed, a much looser indicator than the standard of Free, Libre, and Open
   8.272+Source Software, which requires that all permission barriers be removed, with
   8.273+exceptions only for notice, attribution, and copyleft.} and Open Educational
   8.274+Resources\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6qv} for one conversation
   8.275+demonstrating lack of consensus on freedoms required for Open Educational
   8.276+Resources.}. More importantly, approximately two thirds of cultural works
   8.277+released under public copyright licences use such licences that do not qualify
   8.278+as free as in (software) freedom - those including prohibitions of derivative
   8.279+works and commercial use\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6re}}.
   8.280+
   8.281+Does culture need freedom? As in free software? I take this as a given until
   8.282+proven otherwise, but the case for has not been adequately captured. The
   8.283+Def\hbox{}inition of Free Cultural Works says ``The easier it is to re-use and
   8.284+derive works, the richer our cultures become. \ldots These freedoms should be
   8.285+available to anyone, anywhere, any time. They should not be restricted by the
   8.286+context in which the work is used. Creativity is the act of using an existing
   8.287+resource in a way that had not been envisioned before.''\footnote{Ibid. 14.} So
   8.288+free as in software freedom culture is asserted to result in richer cultures.
   8.289+
   8.290+The Def\hbox{}inition of Free Cultural Works maps the Free Software
   8.291+Def\hbox{}inition's four freedoms for works of authorship to (1) the freedom to
   8.292+use the work and enjoy the benef\hbox{}its of using it, (2) the freedom to study
   8.293+the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it, (3) the freedom to make and
   8.294+redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression, and
   8.295+(4) the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative
   8.296+works\footnote{Ibid. 14.}.
   8.297+
   8.298+It is easy to argue that free culture of\hbox{}fers many of the benef\hbox{}its
   8.299+free software does, as enumerated above: grants users some autonomy (and the
   8.300+ability to get more), promotes a sharing ethic, facilitates collaboration,
   8.301+unlocks value, reduces transaction costs, makes distributed maintenance tenable,
   8.302+and arguably is congruent with and facilitating of broader social goals such as
   8.303+access, participation, democracy, innovation, security, and freedom. And could
   8.304+lead to richer cultures.
   8.305+
   8.306+
   8.307+\subsection{Why Semi-Free Culture?}
   8.308+\label{ss:free_culture_software_freedom:freedom:semi-free}
   8.309+
   8.310+So why the semi-freedom (relative to free as in software freedom) granted by
   8.311+cultural licences that include terms prohibiting derivative works or commercial
   8.312+use? Are such terms helpful or harmful to the free culture movement? I don't
   8.313+know of any empirical work on why people use semi-free licences, but anecdotally
   8.314+reasons include not wanting others to change the meaning of a work (derivatives
   8.315+prohibition) and having a business model that depends on restricting commercial
   8.316+uses or having feelings that are sensitive to anyone prof\hbox{}iting without
   8.317+you being part of the deal (commercial use prohibition).
   8.318+
   8.319+Prohibition of derivative works seems particularly misguided and
   8.320+non-benef\hbox{}icial.  Misguided because free licences do have limited
   8.321+mechanisms to restrict disagreeable uses - the licensee distributing a
   8.322+derivative work must describe changes made and must not imply endorsement of the
   8.323+licensor, while the licensor can mandate that credit be removed so they are not
   8.324+associated with the derivative and (unfortunately) retains ``moral rights''
   8.325+against derogatory uses (these vary in strength around the world). Furthermore,
   8.326+given the diminution of fair use, fair dealing, and other copyright exceptions
   8.327+(which tend to be weakest where moral rights are strongest), lack of explicit
   8.328+permission to create derivative works is a free speech issue.
   8.329+
   8.330+Most of the problems with prohibition of commercial use from a free culture
   8.331+perspective are comparatively well
   8.332+documented\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6qy}}.
   8.333+
   8.334+While the problems of semi-free licences should not be underestimated, there are
   8.335+some reasons for their existence, some reasons to think they are less
   8.336+problematic for culture than they are for software (where they have been roundly
   8.337+rejected) and some possibility that their impact is net positive.
   8.338+
   8.339+Battles over f\hbox{}ile sharing are one reason. These may have reached their
   8.340+peak relevance around the time Creative Commons launched in December, 2002
   8.341+(since then the web has become the increasingly dominant platform for sharing -
   8.342+and for media, period). People were (and are) getting sued simply for making
   8.343+verbatim works available via f\hbox{}ile sharing at no charge and many
   8.344+innovative P2P startups were shut down. Many in the copyright industries hoped
   8.345+that DRM, a threat to computer users, civil liberties, and free software
   8.346+specif\hbox{}ically, would render f\hbox{}ile sharing useless. In this
   8.347+environment, merely allowing legal sharing of verbatim works would be a
   8.348+signif\hbox{}icant statement against shutting down innovation and mandating DRM.
   8.349+
   8.350+Because reuse of cultural works is non-pragmatic relative to reuse of software
   8.351+code, it is possible that a derivatives prohibition on some cultural works is
   8.352+less impactful than such a restriction would be on software. Lower requirements
   8.353+for maintenance also mean that the importance of allowing derivative works is
   8.354+lessened for culture.
   8.355+
   8.356+Restrictions on f\hbox{}ield of use (namely, commercial use) may also be less
   8.357+harmful for culture than they would be for software. Lack of interoperability is
   8.358+one of the problems created by non-commercial licensing. However, if prohibiting
   8.359+derivative works is less impactful in culture, so too are interoperability
   8.360+problems, which are triggered by the inability to use derivatives created from
   8.361+works under incompatible licences.
   8.362+
   8.363+When distributed maintenance is important, non-commercial licensing is unusable
   8.364+for business - a commercial anti-commons is created - no commercial use can be
   8.365+made as there are too many parties with copyright claims who have not cleared
   8.366+commercial use. This is perhaps one explanation of why free software $\cong$
   8.367+open source - although the latter is seen by some as business-friendly, to the
   8.368+detriment of freedom, businesses require full freedom, at least for software.
   8.369+
   8.370+Maybe some artists want a commercial anti-commons: nobody can be ``exploited''
   8.371+because commercial use is essentially impossible. If most of culture were
   8.372+encumbered by impossible to clear prohibitions against commercial use, the
   8.373+commercial sector disliked by Adbusters types would be disadvantaged. However, I
   8.374+suspect very few licensors of\hbox{}fering works under a non-commercial licence
   8.375+have thought so far ahead. Among those who have thought ahead, even those with
   8.376+far left sympathies, seem to appreciate forcing commercial interests to
   8.377+contribute to free culture \textit{via} copyleft rather than barring their
   8.378+participation.
   8.379+
   8.380+Many licensors do want to exploit commerce under fairly traditional models.
   8.381+There is a case to be made that copyleft (e.g., ShareAlike) licences have an
   8.382+under-appreciated and under-explored role in business models, but it certainly
   8.383+requires less imagination to see how traditional models map onto only permitting
   8.384+non-commercial use - the pre-cleared uses are promotional, while the copyright
   8.385+holder authorizes sales of copies and commercial licensing in the usual manner.
   8.386+While businesses based on selling copies of digital goods are cratering,
   8.387+commercial licensing of digital goods (e.g., for use in advertisements) is a
   8.388+huge business. I do not know what fraction of this business results in creating
   8.389+derivatives of the works licensed, but it is at least possible that a
   8.390+signif\hbox{}icant fraction does not, and hence ShareAlike may be a poor
   8.391+business model substitute for commercial use prohibition.
   8.392+
   8.393+By contrast, free commercial use is less impactful on the bulk of the software
   8.394+industry, which is mostly about maintenance and custom development. While impact
   8.395+on existing business models is not directly part of the calculus of how much
   8.396+freedom is necessary, high impact on existing business models may drastically
   8.397+limit willingness to use fully free licences. So while for software, semi-free
   8.398+licences may compete with free licences (fortunately the latter won), for
   8.399+culture semi-free licences may largely be used by licensors who would not have
   8.400+of\hbox{}fered a public licence if only fully free licences were available,
   8.401+meaning that semi-free licences produce a net gain. It is entirely possible that
   8.402+many licensors of\hbox{}fering works under semi-free licences would have used
   8.403+free licences if no prominent semi-free licences were available, producing a net
   8.404+loss or ambiguous result from semi-free licensing. I hope social scientists
   8.405+f\hbox{}ind a means of testing these conjectures with f\hbox{}ield data and lab
   8.406+experiments.
   8.407+
   8.408+Although the direct impact of prominent licence choices on the freedoms
   8.409+af\hbox{}forded to cultural works is important, so is the indirect impact on
   8.410+norms and movements. One complaint about semi-free licences is that they weaken
   8.411+the consensus meaning of free culture - licensors can feel like they're
   8.412+participating without of\hbox{}fering full freedom.
   8.413+
   8.414+There is another, older consensus around ``non-commercial'' that doesn't have
   8.415+much if anything directly to do with licences, that we could return to - that
   8.416+non-commercial use should not be restricted by copyright, as the default. We are
   8.417+a very long way from reaching such a consensus, but it would be a huge
   8.418+improvement over the current consensus, that nearly all uses are restricted by
   8.419+copyright. ``Huge'' is an understatement.
   8.420+
   8.421+It is at least possible to imagine widespread adoption of public licences with a
   8.422+non-commercial term as being an important component of a shift back to the
   8.423+second kind of non-commercial consensus. If non-commercial public licences were
   8.424+to have a positive role to play in this story, it seems two things would have to
   8.425+be true: (1) many more people use non-commercial public licences than would
   8.426+otherwise use public licences if only fully free public licences were available;
   8.427+and (2) use of non-commercial public licences sets a norm for the minimum
   8.428+freedom a responsible party would of\hbox{}fer rather than all the freedom
   8.429+people need.  In other words, the expectation should be that if you don't at
   8.430+least promise to not censor non-commercial uses, you're an evil jerk, but if you
   8.431+only promise to not censor non-commercial uses, you're merely not an evil jerk.
   8.432+
   8.433+As someone who strongly prefers fully free licences, I even more strongly prefer
   8.434+to see ef\hbox{}fort put into building and promoting free cultural works rather
   8.435+than bashing semi-free licences, for roughly three reasons: (1) use of semi-free
   8.436+licences could have a positive impact, to the extent they don't crowd out free
   8.437+licences (see above); (2) building is so much more interesting and fun than
   8.438+advocacy, especially negative advocacy - in the history of free software, the
   8.439+people who are remembered are those who built free software, not those who
   8.440+sniped at shareware authors (roughly equivalent to semi-free licensors); and (3)
   8.441+pure rationalization - as of this writing, I work for an organization that
   8.442+of\hbox{}fers both free and semi-free public copyright licences.
   8.443+
   8.444+It is unsurprising Stallman only supports cultural freedom necessary for free
   8.445+software, rather than that which is necessary for building equivalently free
   8.446+culture - software freedom is his overriding mission. Although he has not made
   8.447+such a claim, and has a coherent explanation for why works of opinion and
   8.448+entertainment do not require full freedom\footnote{Ibid. 4.}, there is a case to
   8.449+be made that semi-free cultural licences do everything necessary to facilitate
   8.450+free software, e.g., allowing format shifting (to non-patent encumbered formats)
   8.451+and presenting a counter-argument to mandating DRM.
   8.452+
   8.453+It should be noted that for some communities free as in free software is not
   8.454+free enough, for example the Science Commons Protocol for Implementing Open
   8.455+Access Data\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6r0}} claims that only the public
   8.456+domain (or its approximation through waiving all rights that are possible to
   8.457+waive) is free enough for scientif\hbox{}ic data.
   8.458+
   8.459+
   8.460+\subsection{Copyleft Scope}
   8.461+\label{ss:free_culture_software_freedom:freedom:copyleft}
   8.462+
   8.463+Copyleft scope or ``strength'' is another theme that cuts across free software
   8.464+and free culture, possibly dif\hbox{}ferently. In software, copyleft strength
   8.465+ranges from zero (permissive licences) to limited (LGPL) to what most expect
   8.466+(GPL) to including triggering by of\hbox{}fering an interface over a network
   8.467+(AGPL). It is possible to imagine taking copyleft strength to an absurd limit -
   8.468+a licence that only permits licensed code to run in a universe in which all
   8.469+software in that universe is under the same licence.
   8.470+
   8.471+For culture, copyleft strength depends on what constitutes an adaptation that
   8.472+triggers copyleft (ShareAlike). For example, version 2.0 of the Creative Commons
   8.473+licences explicitly declared that syncing video to audio creates a derivative
   8.474+work\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6r1} for a post announcing and explaining
   8.475+changes in version 2.0 of the Creative Commons licences.}, and thus triggers
   8.476+copyleft. There is debate concerning whether ``semantically linked'' images with
   8.477+text triggers copyleft\footnote{See part of the debate at
   8.478+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6r3}}.
   8.479+
   8.480+If the goal is to expand free universe, optimal copyleft is where the
   8.481+opportunity cost of under-use due to copyleft equals the benef\hbox{}it of
   8.482+additional works released under free terms due to copyleft at the margin. Again,
   8.483+there is an opportunity for social scientists to address this question, possibly
   8.484+with f\hbox{}ield data, certainly with lab experiments.
   8.485+
   8.486+
   8.487+\section{Relative Progress of Free Software and Free Culture}
   8.488+\label{s:free_culture_software_freedom:relative_progress}
   8.489+
   8.490+Given dif\hbox{}ferences between software and culture, one may expect free
   8.491+software and free culture to progress dif\hbox{}ferently. One quick and dirty
   8.492+means to gauge their relative development is to list the years of milestones in
   8.493+each f\hbox{}ield, as I have done in the table below. These are certainly not
   8.494+the best milestones for comparison - particular licences are over-emphasized -
   8.495+the reader is urged to render this analysis obsolete by publishing better
   8.496+analysis.
   8.497+
   8.498+If crude analogies can be made between free software and free culture project
   8.499+timelines, what do they indicate?
   8.500+
   8.501+Perhaps the earliest massive community software project is Debian, started in
   8.502+1993. Wikipedia began 8 years later, in 2001. Wikipedia's success came faster,
   8.503+more visibly, and within the context of its f\hbox{}ield, far greater. Wikipedia
   8.504+exploded the encyclopaedia category - comparison to previous encyclopaedias is
   8.505+fairly ridiculous as Wikipedia is orders of magnitude bigger and excels for many
   8.506+uses completely out of scope for an encyclopaedia, perhaps most obviously as a
   8.507+database and current events tracker.
   8.508+
   8.509+Debian is a very successful GNU/Linux distribution and an even more interesting
   8.510+community, but has not remotely exploded the GNU/Linux distribution category,
   8.511+let alone the computer operating system category. Nor has Ubuntu (2004), a
   8.512+commercially supported distribution based on Debian, that has greatly increased
   8.513+the market share of Debian-based distributions. In contrast, there has been some
   8.514+commercial activity around Wikipedia content, it is uninteresting and
   8.515+unimpactful relative to the main project. Wikia, a commercial wiki hosting
   8.516+venture using the same MediaWiki software as Wikipedia, but not a substantial
   8.517+amount of Wikipedia content, could be very roughly analogized to Ubuntu. Wikia
   8.518+is successful, but not relative to Wikipedia.
   8.519+\newpage
   8.520+
   8.521+\begin{table}[h]
   8.522+\label{t:free_culture_software_freedom:relative_progress:milestones}
   8.523+\begin{tabular}{|p{7cm}|p{7cm}|}
   8.524+
   8.525+\hline
   8.526+\begin{center}\textbf{Free Software}\end{center} & \begin{center}\textbf{Free Culture}\end{center}\\
   8.527+\hline
   8.528+
   8.529+1983: Launch of GNU Project & 1998: Open Content Licence\\
   8.530+1989: GPLv1, Cygnus Solutions & 1999: Open Publication Licence\\
   8.531+1991: Linux kernel, GPLv2 & 2000: GFDL, Free Art Licence\\
   8.532+1993: Debian & 2001: EFF Open Audio Licence, launch of Wikipedia\\
   8.533+1996: Apache & Other early 2000s open content licences (some of them Free):
   8.534+Design Science Licence, Ethymonics Free Music Public Licence, Open Music
   8.535+Green/Yellow/Red/Rainbow Licences, Open Source Music Licence, No Type Licence,
   8.536+Public Library of Science Open Access Licence, Electrohippie Collective's
   8.537+Ethical Open Documentation Licence.\\
   8.538+1998: Mozilla, ``open source'' term coined, IBM embraces Linux, other open source
   8.539+software & 2002: OpenCourseWare, Creative Commons version 1.0 licences\\
   8.540+1999: Cygnus acquired by Red Hat & 2003: PLoS Biology, Magnatune\\
   8.541+2000: .com bubble peaks and pops, includes open source bubble & 2004: CC version 2.0 licences\\
   8.542+2002: OpenOf\hbox{}f\hbox{}ice.org 1.0 & 2005: CC version 2.5 licences\\
   8.543+2004: F\hbox{}irefox 1.0, Ubuntu & 2007: CC version 3.0 licences\\
   8.544+2007: [A]GPLv3 & 2009: Wikipedia migrates to CC BY-SA\\
   8.545+????: World Domination & ????: Free Culture\\
   8.546+
   8.547+\hline
   8.548+\end{tabular}
   8.549+\caption{Selected free software and free culture milestones.}
   8.550+\end{table}
   8.551+
   8.552+Many of the licences from this period are described at \cite{culture-licenses}.
   8.553+
   8.554+
   8.555+The canonical free software business is Cygnus Solutions (best known for work on
   8.556+the GNU Compiler Collection, perhaps the most ``core'' software in the free
   8.557+stack), started in 1989 and acquired by Red Hat in 1999. There is no canonical
   8.558+free culture business, but Magnatune (a record label) has often been held up as
   8.559+a leading example, started 14 years after Cygnus. Cygnus was acquired by Red Hat
   8.560+in 1999, while Magnatune's long term impact is unknown. Unlike Cygnus, Magnatune
   8.561+uses a semi-free licence (CC BY-NC-SA), so for some it may not even qualify as a
   8.562+free culture business.
   8.563+
   8.564+Wikitravel (collaboratively edited travel guides) is another early free culture
   8.565+business - both a business success, having been acquired by Internet
   8.566+Brands\footnote{See notice of the acquisition at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6r4} as
   8.567+well as my comments at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6r5}. I also highly recommend
   8.568+Wikitravel founder Evan Prodromou's advice for businesses involving community
   8.569+wikis or other tools with ``WikiNature'' - see \url{http://ur1.ca/f6r6} and my
   8.570+commentary at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6r8}.}, and using a fully free licence (CC
   8.571+BY-SA).
   8.572+
   8.573+Like Magnatune and unlike Cygnus, Wikitravel could not be said to be near the
   8.574+``core'' of the free stack - probably because there is no such thing for
   8.575+culture, excepting fundamentals such as human language and music notation that
   8.576+fortunately reside in the public domain.
   8.577+
   8.578+Another point of comparison is investment and resistance from major
   8.579+corporations. In 1998 IBM's beginning of major investments in free software was
   8.580+a business adoption landmark. No analogous major investments have been made in
   8.581+free culture. Most large computer companies have now made large investments in
   8.582+free/open source software. In 1998 Microsoft was a bitter opponent of free
   8.583+software - many would say they still are\footnote{See for example
   8.584+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6r9}.}. In 2009
   8.585+Microsoft's public messages and its activities, including release of some
   8.586+software under free licences, is considerably more nuanced than a decade ago. In
   8.587+2009, big media still largely has its head buried in the sand - and continues to
   8.588+randomly kick and punch its customers from this position. Could Microsoft's
   8.589+\textit{animus} towards openness a decade ago, be loosely analogous to big
   8.590+media's Neanderthalism today?
   8.591+
   8.592+
   8.593+\subsection{Licence Deproliferation}
   8.594+\label{s:free_culture_software_freedom:relative_progress:licence_deproliferation}
   8.595+
   8.596+One dif\hbox{}ference in the development of free software and free culture not
   8.597+fully revealed by the table above (because it only mentions versions of the GPL
   8.598+for software licences) is that free culture has not experienced licence
   8.599+proliferation as free software has - and has even experienced licence
   8.600+deproliferation. In 2003 the author of the Open Content and Open Publication
   8.601+licences recommended using a Creative Commons licence instead\footnote{David
   8.602+Wiley discusses the history of the Open Content License and Open Publication
   8.603+Licence at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6rb}.} and PLoS adopted the Creative Commons
   8.604+Attribution licence. In 2004 the EFF's Open Audio Licence 2.0 declared that its
   8.605+next version is CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0\footnote{See the Open Audio
   8.606+License v2 at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6rd}.}. There have been no signif\hbox{}icant
   8.607+new free culture licences since 2002. In June, 2009  Wikipedia and other
   8.608+Wikimedia Foundation projects migrated from the FDL to CC Attribution-ShareAlike
   8.609+3.0 as their main content licence\footnote{For my take on this migration see
   8.610+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6rf} and \url{http://ur1.ca/f6rg}.}.
   8.611+
   8.612+Presumably this dif\hbox{}ference is largely due to both free culture having had
   8.613+the benef\hbox{}it of over a decade of free software learning - including
   8.614+learning through making many new licences - and that a fairly well-resourced
   8.615+organization, Creative Commons, was able to establish its central role as a
   8.616+creator of free (and semi-free) culture licences relatively early in the history
   8.617+of free culture licences. It should be noted that Creative Commons was able to
   8.618+be relatively well-resourced early due to the pre-existing success of free
   8.619+software - both because such success made Creative Commons' plan credible and
   8.620+directly via donations from a fortune made in free software\footnote{Early
   8.621+Creative Commons funding came from a foundation started by Bob Young, the
   8.622+founder of Red Hat. See pp. 102-103 of Viral Spiral by David Bollier, available
   8.623+at \url{http://ur1.ca/f6ri}.}.
   8.624+
   8.625+However, some of the dif\hbox{}ference in proliferation may be due to the narrow
   8.626+case for reuse of specif\hbox{}ic software and broad case for reuse of
   8.627+specif\hbox{}ic culture.  Licence proliferation may actually be less harmful to
   8.628+software than culture, since most combinations of software in a way that would
   8.629+create a derivative work are absurd, while no such combinations of culture are -
   8.630+so most of the time it doesn't matter that any given pair of software packages
   8.631+have incompatible free licences. Still, licence incompatibility does especially
   8.632+hurt free software when it does happen to be material, and proliferation guarded
   8.633+against and compatibility strived for.
   8.634+
   8.635+
   8.636+\section{How Free Can We Be?}
   8.637+\label{s:free_culture_software_freedom:how_free}
   8.638+
   8.639+Generally culture is much more varied than software, and the success of free
   8.640+culture projects relative to free software projects may ref\hbox{}lect this. It
   8.641+seems that free culture is at least a decade behind free software, with at least
   8.642+one major exception - Wikipedia. Notably, Wikipedia to a much greater extent
   8.643+than most cultural works has requirements for mass collaboration and maintenance
   8.644+similar to those of software. Even more notably, Wikipedia has completely
   8.645+transformed a sector in a way that free software has not.
   8.646+
   8.647+One, perhaps the, key question for free culture advocates is how more cultural
   8.648+production can gain WikiNature\footnote{\url{http://ur1.ca/f6rj}} - made through
   8.649+wiki-like processes of community creation, or more broadly, peer
   8.650+production\footnote{See \url{http://ur1.ca/f6rk} for one discussion of relevant
   8.651+terminology.}. To the extent this can be done, free culture may ``win'' faster
   8.652+than free software - for consuming free culture does not require installing
   8.653+software with dependencies, in many cases replacing an entire operating system,
   8.654+and contributing often does not require as specialized skills as contributing to
   8.655+free software often does.
   8.656+
   8.657+A question for those interested specif\hbox{}ically in free software and free
   8.658+culture licences is what is the impact of dif\hbox{}ferent licensing approaches
   8.659+- in particular semi-free licences, copyleft scope, and incompatibility and
   8.660+proliferation. I don't think we have much theory or evidence on these impacts,
   8.661+rather we hold to some ``just so'' stories and have religious debates based on
   8.662+such stories. If we believe the use of dif\hbox{}ferent licences have
   8.663+signif\hbox{}icantly dif\hbox{}ferent impacts and we want free software and free
   8.664+culture to succeed, we should really want rigorous analysis of those impacts!
   8.665+
   8.666+One f\hbox{}inal point of comparison between free software and free culture -
   8.667+how free can an individual be? Now it is just possible to run only free software
   8.668+on an individual computer, down to the BIOS if one selects their computer very
   8.669+carefully. However, visit almost any web site and one is running non-free
   8.670+software, to say nothing of more ambient uses - consumer electronics, vehicles,
   8.671+electronic transactions, and much more. Similarly one could only have free
   8.672+cultural works on a computer\footnote{I don't know anyone who does this
   8.673+consciously, which perhaps indicates the hard-core free software movement also
   8.674+leads the hard-core free culture movement - there are many people who try very
   8.675+hard to only run free software on their computers. For the record on my computer
   8.676+I run Ubuntu, which is close to but not 100\% free and my cultural consumption
   8.677+consists of a higher proportion of free cultural works than does anyone's I
   8.678+know, though nowhere near 100\% - e.g., see \url{http://ur1.ca/f6rl} or
   8.679+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6rm} for data on my music consumption.} (not counting
   8.680+private data), though visiting almost any web site will result in experiencing
   8.681+non-free cultural works, which are also ambient to an even greater extent than
   8.682+is non-free software. My point is not to encourage living in a cave, but to
   8.683+elucidate further points of comparison between free software and free culture.
   8.684+
   8.685+One f\hbox{}inal question of broad interest to people interested in free
   8.686+software or free culture - how can these movements help each other? What are the
   8.687+shared battles and dependencies?\footnote{For example, see
   8.688+\url{http://ur1.ca/f6rn}.} Knowledge sharing and dissemination is an obvious
   8.689+starting point. To the extent processes or conceptions of freedom are similar,
   8.690+learnings and credibility gained from successes (and learnings from failures)
   8.691+are transferable.
   8.692+
   8.693+We should set high goals for free software and free culture. Freedom, yes. We
   8.694+should also constantly look for ways freedom can enable ``blowing up'' a
   8.695+category, as Wikipedia has done for encyclopaedias. The benef\hbox{}it to
   8.696+humanity from more freedom should not just be more freedom (or, per an
   8.697+uncharitable rendering of the open source story, only fewer bugs), it should
   8.698+include radically cool, disruptive, and participatory tools, projects, and
   8.699+works. \textit{King Kong}, sometimes shorthand for expensive Hollywood
   8.700+productions that free culture can supposedly never compete with - this is far
   8.701+too low a bar!
   8.702+