Wednesday Nov 18, 2009

Detained in Heathrow

Sipping a coffee in Heathrow, after having - finally - picked up my computer and bicycle that just arrived back from the US, following my recent adventure in San Francisco. Thanks to a very friendly Ernesto Smith from British Airways, who very kindly dealt with the paper work at the police lost and found at SFO, and forwarded my belongings to London.

As I was catching up on my last 2 weeks of e-mail Mischa Tuffield kindly sent me a few links to the following PHD Comics cartoon. :-)

Click on the image for the following episodes.

He had it easy. In the UK, they even let him go out to seek a hotel! Perhaps what I need is a Phd...

Legalise marijuana

I was watching Newsnight yesterday evening, which is running a show on "recipes for a good and palatable tax".

Britain is facing its biggest deficit for 40 years. The question is not whether taxes should go up, but how.

A number of people came up to propose some good ways of generating new taxes. It occurred to me that legalizing cannabis/marijuana should provide quite a nice windfall in taxes. I have not read the recent book "Economics and Marijuana: Consumption, Pricing and Legislation" which is bound to have a detailed analysis of how much one could expect in taxes from legalization, but going from the sentence in the introduction

...expenditure on marijuana in Australia is estimated to be three quarters of that of beer and twice that of wine.
and putting that together with the figure I found in "Alcohol: Tax, Price and Public Health" that £6 billion were collected in taxes on beer, would make me think that one could collect at least £4.5 billion on cannabis if the tax rate for cannabis were the same as that for beer - but it could be more as people have gotten used to paying for the risk to the dealers. In Keneth Clements and Mert Daryal's online paper "The Economics of Marijuana Consumption" (p 18) they estimate that in 1995 the Australians spent 5 billion dollars on Marijuana. Since there are three times more people in the UK, and counting the fall in value of currencies over a period of 10 years, we have 15 billion 1995 Australian dollars that might now be worth $22 billion, which converted into pound sterling is £12 billion. It seems quite reasonable then that out of a spending of that size it should be easy for the state to recuperate at least 1/3 of that if not more.

One could furthermore save a huge amount of money on reductions in police surveillance, legal cases and prison sentences. This should be even more true in the USA, which has a huge prison population (10\* larger than most European countries). has an interesting article on the subject "Should Governments Legalize and Tax Marijuana?". See also "A Budget Cure: Marijuana Taxes?". This idea is clearly making its way: Governor Schwarzenegger recently proposed opening the debate on this issue.

In the Newsnight program the proposal that won approval was the proposal to tax the rich a lot more on their pension funds. So my guess is that a lot of rich people should be very keen to legalize marijuana in the very near future.

It would be quite ironic in the end if a mind altering drug were to pull the state out of a hole created by mathematically deluded stock analysts on a huge ego trip.

Monday Sep 14, 2009

Freiheit statt Angst - Freedom, not fear

Freiheit statt Angst photos

This weekend in Berlin, 20 thousand people, from most political backgrounds, came to protest against increasingly intrusive and worrying surveillance measures of all kinds, made possible by modern information technology, under the banner Freiheit statt Angst. As governments and businesses automate the collection of information about individuals, worries are starting to grow about how that information could be used. In Germany for example the request by the government that the ISPs keep records of the mail headers of all the communications between people for 6 months, was among one of the major motivators bringing people out. The growing use of video surveillance cameras - not as bad as in the UK here, though they were clearly lining the street along the road of the demonstration - is another vector of resentment. Electronic RFID enabled passports containing personal information readable at a distance and being put into operation soon, generate a lot of worries, quite understandable, especially after listening to Chris Paget's RFID cloning presentation. The German Chaos Computer Club has further pages undermining the use of these technologies, such as the article "How to fake fingerprints" where you can learn how to capture fingerprints left over on a glass, make a copy of it, and duplicate it anywhere you choose. Others are worried about the creation of centralised medical data banks, citing the cases where massive amounts of data have been lost by companies directly involved in telecommunication infrastructure, such as when the information of 17 million T-mobile customers was stolen. If telecoms companies can't secure their data, who will be able to do it? These and many other cases bringing issues of privacy, security and data ownership are fueling a debate that is strong enough to move 20 thousand people to the street: quite a feat, considering the abstract nature of the debate.

The following video covers the issues from a German perspective very well (an english version will be available here soon)

If these issues sound remarkably like those arising in France, the UK, and other European Countries, it is that the movement for internet rights is a global phenomenon, reacting to technological problems that span borders as the July/August issue of Internationale Politik argues. Clearly these topics need to be debated in much more depth and with much more seriousness, by involving much larger sections of the community. One just cannot magically solve complex problems with misguided laws, however comforting it may seem at first to be. Bad solutions introduced in a climate of fear, can only grow the insecurity and mistrust between citizens, governments and business. With Germany's historical proximity to both fascist and communist surveillance regimes, these issues of trust are alive and healthy here. Hopefully other countries won't be misled by their distance to such horrors into thinking that it cannot happen to them. The only solution is active participation in the debate.

Here are some photos I took from the roof of the Green bus which gives a good idea of the size of the protest. You can clearly see the large Pirate Party bus at the back, with their Orange banner, the Red Left convoy, the CCC bus covered with video surveillance cameras, and their Federal Trojan Horse, with the sign "watch the watchmen!"

Schauble-Freie Zone Start of "Freiheit Statt Angst" demo CCC camera truck Pirate Party Pirate Party

IMG_0413 Noch kein terrorist "überwacht die überwacher" on the Federal Trojan horse green drum beat

The Green party was escorted by some of the top Green politicians

Ströbele and Claudia Roth at "Freiheit Statt Angst" IMG_0419 stasi 2.0: Vollbeschaftigung durch vollüberwachung

The large Anti-Fascist convoy was ironically the most escorted by the police. Perhaps the use of face covering masks, illegal in Germany for citizens, though not it seems for the police, was what attracted the security forces. Their presence certainly formed a good symbol of the problem between privacy, public statement, anonymity, and surveillance.

Break out of Control

Add to that the fact that there were close to a thousand police officers for a demonstration the police claimed had attracted only 10 thousand individuals, and we have a police to demonstrator ration of 1/10, which goes only to increase the surveillance message. As the following photos show quite clearly the demonstration was peaceful. Put 20 000 geeks on the road on a sunny day, and you get something like this:

Nur Diktatur braucht Zensur you will wish we were apolical potentially troublemaking citizen IMG_0428 Sammel album 2.0
IMG_0430 IMG_0431 IMG_0432 My info belongs to me todo list IMG_0436
Löschen statt sperren who watches the watchmen freiheit statt angst It is your feat, but it is our freedom Freiheit Statt Angste - Die Linke Fretiheit Statt Angst
The data tentacles Big Boss is watching you Against the state of surveillance

The result in the press was quite positive. Here are some of the articles I gathered from following Twitter #fsa09 tag for a few minutes:

One story that made the round of Twitter, the blogosphere and the news was the following incident of police brutality captured by a demonstrator on video:

[Update Tuesday 15 September: It seems this incident was provoked by a demonstrator asking the police for their Identification number, which they are obliged to give, but which they don't like handing out, preferring to treat those who ask for it as troublemakers. This is a long standing issue as the following article "Anonymität schützt Polizisten" - Anonymity protects the police explains. So in short the police themselves and the state by extension are very keen on anonymity, but refuse the same for the demonstrators and the public which is being placed every day under increasing surveillance measures. Luckily the attack was caught on High Definition video by a member of the Chaos Computer Club, helping identify the police who committed the excess. This resulted in the CCC publishing the following press release "Chaos Computer Club fordert bundeseinheitliche Nummernschilder für Polizisten": CCC calls for nationwide number plates for Police.]

Clearly then the same tools that can be used to create a surveillance society, can also be used when distributed to the citizenry as a means of watching the watchmen. Perhaps that is the lesson of the demonstration: the need to reduce the asymmetry of surveillance technology. It should be understood that Kant's Categorical Imperative - "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" - applies especially to legislation. If you want to watch others don't be surprised if they then watch back. If you want anonymity, don't refuse it to others.


Wednesday May 20, 2009

You are a Terrorist!

Every country in Europe seems to be on the verge of introducing extremely powerful legislation for state monitoring of the internet, bringing us a lot closer to the dystopia described in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty Four. Under the guise of laws to help combat terrorism or pedophilia - emotional subjects that immediately get everybody's unthinking assent - massive powers are to be given to the state, which could very easily be misused. As internauts we all need to make it our duty to follow very closely these debates, and participate actively in them, if we do not want to find ourselves waking up one morning in a world that is the exact opposite of what we have been dreaming of.


In Germany a new Data Retention law passed already it seems in 2008, allows the state (quote)

to trace who has contacted whom via telephone, mobile phone or e-mail for a period of six months. In the case of mobile calls or text messages via mobile phone, the user's location is also logged. Anonymising services will be prohibited as of 2009.

To increase awareness of this law Alexander Lehmann put together this excellent presentation, with English subtitles, Du bist Terrorist!:

Du bist Terrorist (You are a Terrorist) english subtitles from lexela on Vimeo.


The passage of the hadopi law in France, will create a strong incentive for citizens to place state built snooper software on each their computers in order to make it possible to defend themselves against accusations of copyright infringement. But that is nothing compared to the incredibly broad powers the state wishes to give itself with Loppsi 2 law (detailed article in Le Monde, and Ars Technica) which would give the president the power to insert spyware onto users computers (which could record anything being done of course), create a very large database of people's activities, help link information from various databases, and much more... The recent case of the sacking of the web site director of the once national, now private, TF1 television channel for having communicated his doubts on Hadopi privately to his Member of Parliament - as reported on Slashdot recently - does not give one much faith in the way privacy is being handled currently by the government.

The United Kingdom

In the UK the Home Secretary Jaqui Smith had proposed to create a database dubbed Big Brother to log every single activity of every one of it's citizens - in order of course to root out the very 21 century crimes of pedophilia and terrorism (did the IRA not operate before the internet? Are pedophile rings something that only emerged with the internet, or is it that they just became more visible?). She had to pull back somewhat from the initial proposal, and now wishes all that information still to be tracked, but only to be kept on the service provider's databases as reported by the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Independent...


So are we now all suspected terrorists, pornographers, pedophiles, murderers, subversives, ... that the governments must know all about us? We may have voted for the current government and have complete faith in their use of these tools. But what when the opposition comes in, and takes hold of those same powers? Will we be as comfortable then? The excellent 2006 film The Lives of Others shows just how intrusive the East German state was on its own citizens during the cold war - and that with the very limited tools they had available. With modern computing tools, that type of spy operation could be done at much much lower cost and so perhaps even be viable for the state.

If you feel things just can't go this wrong, then I would also recommend watching Julie Taymor's adaptation of Shakespear's Titus Andronicus. It really is important to realize that things can go badly, very very badly wrong. Ignoring a problem, not taking responsibilities in fighting them will lead to disaster, as the current economic crisis - predicted years before it occurred, but without any action being taken - should have amply proven by now. Sadly for people who predict danger, if people do act on the danger and avoid it, nobody may even notice how close to danger they really were. So our actions may remain unsung. But at least we may put some chances on our side not to wake up in a new form of dictatorship, worse than any ever dreamed of by our those who helped forge our democracies.

Thursday Apr 30, 2009


Pour que les députes Francais entendent les voix des internautes il faut se faire entendre. Je suggere ici une facon trés simple de le faire, qui utilise l'internet a son avantage, et qui de plus est tres distribuée. Simplement ecrivez un blog (ou un tweet) contenant la chaine de characteres "JVoteContreHadopi". Vous pouvez aussi expliquer vos raison pour votre vote en détail. (Moi je l'ai fait ici). Nous pourrons aprés utiliser Google pour compter les votes en utilisant cette requete. Ca peut prendre un peut de temps pour que Google index votre blog - si vous avez des trucs pour que ca ce fasse plus vite, ajoutez les dans les commentaires en bas. Vous aurez une partie des réponses, mais vous les aurez plus rapidement en cherchant sur twitter search.

Certains internautes utilisent le service twitition. Mais je n'aime pas l'idée qu'il faille leur donner mon password.

Nous avons fait quelque chose de similaire pour un vote beaucoup moins important portant sur Java 6 et OSX leopard.

The anti-privacy/liberty law named Hadopi

The Hadopi law(en) being voted now in France, constitutes an incredible attack on Freedom of expression and Privacy. It is fascinating to see how a law that gives the state an easy route to invade people's every digital thought is being pushed through, and will very likely be accepted by the French parliament on Monday May 4, 2009.

Parliamentary Maneuverings

The maneuvers of the French parliament here take some work to understand. A few weeks ago Hadopi was rejected in the Assembly by 21 votes against, 15 for. For an Assembly containing well over 300 deputies, and for a law of such importance, it may seem odd that so few people were part of the discussion. The best understanding I have of this is that President Sarkozy, has made this a very personal issue, having promised to a lot of big media friends, with which he is very close, to put in place a system to break the problem of "piracy" on the internet. Anyone in the majority who may have been tepidly against the law, may not have wished making such a powerful enemy. Others may have thought the law was a done deal given the backing. And sadly I think most of the deputies don't really understand the issue at all, as reveled by this video asking deputies what p2p is.

The Anti-Piracy law

Having lost the first vote, Sarkozi ordered his troops together to make his majority in parliament felt by having them massively vote for the law. The problem is that the majority voting now have very little understanding of the technical issues in front of them. Their view of the issue is the one a large part of the French population have: this is simply an issue of being for or against the Pirates; being for or against the artists. "Piracy is theft" is the simplifying drumbeat which organises their thoughts.

Coming to the defence of artists is of course a very noble thing to do. I myself try to stay as clean as possible in that regard, favoring works that are clearly licensed openly. Most work I publish under very free licences, that make it close to impossible to pirate my work. This article for example is published under a Creativce Commons attribution licence. In any case I find it much easier to buy or rent DVDs than to search for content that may be broken on some other p2p network.

What the best way to defend artists is, and how to find ways of rewarding their work is a complex issue. For the past 50 years people have mostly accepted electronic work to be freely available via the radio or the television -- if interspersed with advertising. I don't want to look into this problem here. For some good ideas one should read and listen to Lawrence Lessig speak on the issue of copyright and the future of the network, or the French economist Jaques Attali write about 10 steps to solve this problem.

The Anti-Privacy/Liberty Law

However noble the issue of saving artists is, the real problem is how this law intends to go about doing what it set out to do. And if one looks at it this way, one soon gets a bad feeling of having entered a Orwellian 1984 like world! (See the public letter "Sci-Fi Against Hadopi") The law is not just anti-piracy, it is also anti-privacy, anti-freedom of expression, anti-freedom of all sorts. It is like a super DDT, a chemical that gets rid of all insects, but is so powerful that it also starts killing humans too.

The Hadopi law (pdf) will enable a newly established administrative higher authority to receive ip addresses from content owners, and ask telecommunication companies to reveal the owners of that ip address, to whom they will send 2 warning e-mails, telling them that something illegal is being downloaded or uploaded from their network, and asking them to secure this network. It seems that this warning will not even mention the work that is thought to have been illegally transmitted. After the third postal warning the internet connection will be cut off. At that point the citizen whose connection will be cut off, will be placed on a black list, making it impossible for him to seek any other telephone connection. As it will be extremly difficult for him to defend himself, he will then have to accept putting a yet undefined piece of software on his network that will snoop everything he is doing. One motion required this software to also sniff the email communications [ I am not absolutely clear this went through though.]

So in short, private companies will be able to anonymously denounce French citizens, leading their internet connection to be cut off, and then forcing them to install snooping software on their network to prove their innocence! If this is not an extreem invasion of privacy I do not know what is.

To help citizens who want to stay legal find their way around the internet, the Hadopi institution will distribute special labels for clean content. Good citizens will be safe if they don't stray too far from officially approved sites. If this is not an attack on freedom of information I don't know what is!

Where is the resistance?

So over the past few weeks as my concern grew I tried discussing this with a number of people. My initial thought was that an issue such as this would not get through in a country that demonstrates on nearly every issue that comes up. What stunned me was the silence, or the lack of interest in these issues by most people. It is instructive in my view to look at various types of responses I got.

The law cannot be implemented view

A lot of people are convinced that this law cannot be implemented. It is too crazy to be workable. Let us hope and pray that it is! The previous DADVSI law wich had set punishments of €300 000 and 3 years in prison, was so extreemly overwhelmingly powerful, that it indeed was not useable.

But that argument is very dangerous. The DADVSI may not yet have been used, but it may one day be. It is certainly what is spurring the current law, Hadopi, which comparatively seems innocuously kind. It only will ask you to install snooping software on your network. And since it is big brother the State asking this, and most people have no idea of what this implies, a lot of people may very well be frightened into accepting this. In any case it does not matter if it is not immediately applicable. It need only slowly with time work itself into people's lives. If enough people have this working, even if it is widely bypassed, then you can bet that in 10 years time, a movement will start where people who do have this installed will complain that some of their fellow citizens don't have it, and so push for harsher laws, perhaps going so far as to install this automatically on all networks.

We can bypass it

A lot of technically savvy people have convinced themselves they can bypass this easily.

So what if they do? The law need only frighten the majority into behaving a certain way. With time, and with the majority on their side, they can add other laws to make the undesirable behavior a lot more difficult. For example for those who think that anonymising software is going to be an easy way out, then they should look at the next law on the table: Llopsi which will give the State the power to block any IP address they need to. Now perhaps a good use case for Llopsi will be large anonymiser services.

Not fighting a law because one decides one will not follow it, is a very selfish and short term way of thinking. Sadly it seems to have grown in a large portion of the population that allowed itself to be tagged as Pirates. And for that selfishness we will all pay (yes, this is not just a French phenomenon, it seems to be a globally orchestrated movement - see for example blackout europe.)

It will be blocked by the constitution

It may be. But then it may not be. In any case it is extreemly worrying that a law should have to go so far as to require blocking by the constitution. Remember how Lawrence Lessig's attempt to get the Supreme court to change the provisions on copyright? It failed.

It will be blocked by the European Union

The EU is a Union of States, where the states have an overwhelming power. The EU does not have an army and cannot enforce much. France has the "cultural exception" it can use quite easily, and it may also be that similar problems are brewing in the rest of europe. Don't count on the EU. The parliament have done a great job there, but they don't have the final say, and they can be pressured. They have just watered down the telecom bill for example. The EU is not the USA.

The people will rise

This is unlikely given what I have seen. Many people don't yet really feel the power of the internet. They work with the internet via the expensive and limited cell phone networks, if at all. For them the Internet is cool, but not essential. Furthermore traditional media are still extremely powerful, and they can direct the message the way they wish. If they were not so powerful, laws such as this would not ever be able to go so far. I don't watch enough television to be able to tell if both sides of the debate here have been aired equally. My guess is not. [ Update: the major French television channel TF1 - the first french TV channel to be created, now privatised - was found to have sacked the head of their innovation center, for having sent privately a critical message on Hadopi to his Member of Parliament as reported by Libération. Thereby confirming the suspicion that other sides of this debate are not getting equal airing time]

But in the long term the people may very well rise. If the law were applied equally and without discrimination then businesses may very well be the first to rise up -- and leave. Later as the internet does become more and more part of every day life, the people themselves may rise. Most likely the younger generation will feel most strongly the difference between what is being asked and what is reasonable. They may feel these new chains most forcefully. Mass movements though are worrying, because when masses move, they can end up being very difficult to control, and can easily go the wrong direction.

All in all I think it would be much better for people in France to call their deputies before the law passes and urge them to change their mind, than to wait and fight this out on the streets.


There are a number of ways people can get their voice heard. One is the twitition petition. But I don't like the way it requires your password. Better I think to add the string JVoteContreHadopi to a blog post or tweet of yours. After a little time the vote should appear on this Google query where the votes can be counted. (We did this for when voting for Java 6 on OSX leopard.)

Wednesday Apr 15, 2009

Hadopi, a serious danger to French competitiveness

The last minute provisional rejection of the HADOPI law in France last week (it will go back for a vote on the 29th April), has given a new life to the debate here. The law, which is perhaps best explained on the French Wikipedia page, will give if passed, the power to Copyright holders to point out infringing ip addresses to a new higher authority (HADOPI) which will have the power to cut off internet connections after 3 warnings.

There are a huge number of privacy issues here, perhaps best illustrated by the possibility of someone using a p2p network to send themselves a copy of their legally purchased content. Furthermore as it is extreemly easy to infringe copyright - as the Baby dancing to Prince video case illustrates - this law will create a background atmosphere of fear which will have serious consequences on the ability to create new services.

This fear will lead outfits - cafés, libraries, hotels - that provide public access points to the internet, to demand some white list of acceptable content providers which they can allow their users access to without the danger of being cut off. The creation of such a list is extreemly expensive: certainly a lot more expensive than the profits the copyright holders may have gained by selling content to penniless teenagers. (Those of us that do have money, are happy to pay for the quality guarantees provided by pay for services. I'd rather pay a few $1 than be interrupted in the middle of a pirated movie by missing scenes, badly recorded music, or porn...). So there will be no justification to pour a lot of money into very complete white lists. Getting added to such lists will be a time consuming political game.

As a result startups that come up with new innovative services, being low budget idea driven companies, these will of course not have the money to play these advanced political games. Starting up in France will therefore be difficult or impossible. With much larger markets abroad - in the USA for example - the path to growth there will be clear. When these startups have then turned into billion dollar US companies, they will find it relatively easy to pay for the HADOPI political game and return to France. A loss to french entrepreneurship nevertheless.

This is not the first time this happened. Something similar happened with cryptography in the 90ies. France by severely restricting the strength of its keys, handicapped all of its ecommerce industry in the competition with the US, whose citizens were allowed to use any strength they wanted to. These laws were repelled in 1999 after much damage to its industry. Freedom is not just a cultural issue of fundamental importance. It is also the life blood of a dynamic economy.


  1. The above are my own opinions, and not those of Sun Microsystems.
  2. This article is published CC attribution, as all other articles on this blog. Please feel free to copy and translate. I do in fact read, write and speak french fluently, but my french spelling and grammar is just too rusty from lack of use, that I did not want to impose this on my readers

Monday Jul 30, 2007

Cognitive Capitalism

After visiting the Louvre on Saturday, I wandered into a bookshop and picked up a book called "Le Capitalisme Cognitif, La Nouvelle Grande Transfromation", by Yann Moulier Boutang, which would translate in English into "Cognitive Capitalism, The Next Great Transformation". The book has a good section on the GNU/Linux free software movement, which must be unusual for a book on economics and so cought my interest. Better still it claimed to put forward a theory that would explain the emergence of such a phenonmenon. I was sold, and spent the rest of the weekend reading it, proving the point that the cognitive economy knows no 35 hour boundaries. When you find something interesting how can you let go?

According to this book we need nothing less than to postulate a third stage of capitalism, starting 1975, following the two previous stages which were the mercantilist stage which led to slave trade, followed by the industrial stage of which the car and Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times are the symbols. The transformation of the economy by the Just in Time production Techniques (The Machine that Changed the World), the advent of computers and then the internet, moved industrial capitalism to a position of having to value knownlege more and more heavily. Whereas the industrial revolution fed off the movements of illiterate peasants into towns, and so emphasized the simplicity of repetitive tasks (Ford was proud that it would take a week to at most a month and a half to teach someone the ways on the assembly lines), so the cognitive revolution spurred by diminishing returns of mass produced goods, the breaking up of markets into ever narrower micromarkets and pulled by the power of computing and the network, is requiring people more and more to make decisions depending on knowledge accumulated in networks.

With a lot of very interesting references back to literature I am only superficially aware of, quoting the economic thinkers from Adam Smith, Marx, Keynes, Adorno, building on commentaries by Lawrence Lessig and Eric Raymond, there is no doubt that the authors are serious about their subject. Placing Open Source and the Free Software movement at the center of this revolution plays well to my prejudices. The French was at times hard to read for me, who am not used to the economics language, and the point of view definitively a bit local at times.

But there is something oddly missing in the book that reaches sometimes right up to some recent news (such as a couple of gaffes made by Sarcozy during the election campaign), and that is that there is absolutely no mention of Open Solaris or for that matter of Apple's open sourcing of their OS a few years ago (with some recent worries it is true) . The only thing that is taken from the Open Source movement is the free source movement, and the lesson taken from it is that open exchange of knowledge produces better goods than closed proprietary ones, and most of all that they are free. But detailed analysis of these ecosystems would be useful. How did they emerge? What is the interest in Standard Operating Systems (Unix), to start off with? How did the crowd of GNU/Linux developers finance their work? Why is there work at all in this space? These are real questions, and I have heard many interesting ideas and views on their answers. The answers will be complex, just as the explanation of why ants build their nests the way they do, and how that relates to the ecology of the forrest surrounding them. In the OpenSolaris case we know Jonathan Schwartz's answers: "There are two types of people, those that must pay and those that won't pay". Those that must pay are those that need liability coverage. They have other businesses to run, and they pay Sun for the guarantee that things will work well. It is just the continuation of the logic of outsourcing. Those that don't pay are researchers and other institutions that increase the value of the platform by using it, providing feedback and enthusiasm.

So the conclusion of the book which makes the jump from the power of free to the unsustainability of free without revolutionary government intervention, which certainly feels like a very French idea, is not at all convincing. The last chapters of the book are thus very dissapointing. As I read them I suddenly had the feeling that the whole previous thesis was built up later in order to defend the pre-established conclusion, increase and further the minimum salary to every branch of french society. An interesting idea, but that is a hell of a jump to make. Where did it go wrong?

Well for one I think it is clear that Open Source has found a way to sustain itself in a capitalistic economy, and it can only do this if those contributing are getting rewarded in some way for what they are doing. That one should find ways to improove the incentives of developers and contributors will clearly be in the interest of the firms that are building their reputation on top of them. So the question is how can firms develop on top of something free? Ask that to the bottled water salespeople. The amount of knowledge we can accumulate is it is true, as opposed to petrol for example, clearly limitless. But the amount of live knowledge and organisational knowledge humans can have is limited to the amount of brains in existence, complimented by computers of course. Now brains take time to grow, and thought take time to emerge. You cannot build a kernel engineer in a couple of weeks, a couple of months or even a couple of years. Neither is this a skill that comes as naturally as say going to the cinema, so there is not a large pool of such people around. Furthermore the world is constantly changing, and code is dead knowledge. There is always a need to adapt the kernel to some new device, add some improovemeents, or make some other changes. Finding the people that make the right changes is not going to be easy. Finally there are only 24 hours in a day, and even hackers can't be working all the time. The attention economy does no apply only to consumers. Developers themselves only have limited attentions. Paying them helps alleviate other problems they may have, such as finding food. In the end therefore demand for their services should create a sustainable ecological space for their work. And so for the rest of Open Source. If governments have a need for it, such as because they want the computers running their armies to be run by software understood by their own engineers, and that they can only get those if those courses are studied at Universities in a free and open way, then governements will and should contribute, as indeed they do. Indeed it could be argued that this is one of the largest forces behind the birth of Unix.

So it is not because software is free that nobody will pay for it, and so the argument in the last part of this book collapses pretty badly. But that we have entered a new world, very distinct from the Fordist era, that I am in no doubt.




« October 2015