Legal Tinkering, Expertise, and Protest among Free and Open Source Software Developers

35 Pages·2009·2.28 MB·English

CA
CODE IS SPEECH: Legal Tinkering, Expertise,
and Protest among Free and Open Source
Software Developers
GABRIELLACOLEMAN
DepartmentofMedia,Culture,andCommunication,NYU
We do not act because we know. We know because we are called upon to
act.
—JohannGottliebFichte
THEPOETICSOFLAW,TECHNOLOGY,ANDPROTEST
Likemanycomputeraficionadostoday,SethSchoenwritesallofhissoftware
as“FreeandOpenSourceSoftware”(F/OSS)toensurethatthesourcecode—the
underlying directions of computer programs—will remain accessible for other
developerstouse,modify,andredistribute.Insodoing,aFreeSoftwaredeveloper
likeSchoennotonlymakestechnologybutalsoparticipatesinanemergingeffort
thatredefinesthemeaningofliberalfreedom,property,andsoftwarebyasserting
innewwaysthatcodeisspeech.
Forexample,atinyportionofa456stanzahaikuwrittenbySchoeninFebruary
2001makesjustthisclaim:
Programmers’artas
thatofnaturalscientists
istobeprecise,
completeinevery
detailofdescription,not
leavingthingstochance.
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY,Vol.24,Issue3,pp.420–454.ISSN0886-7356,onlineISSN1548-1360.(cid:2)C 2009by
theAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.Allrightsreserved.DOI:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2009.01036.x
CODEISSPEECH
Reader,seehowyet
technicalcommunicants
deservefreespeechrights;
seehownumbers,rules,
patterns,languagesyoudon’t
yourselfspeakyet,
stillshouldinlawbe
protectedfromsuppression,
calledvaluablespeech!
Schoen’s protest poem not only argued that source code is speech but also
demonstratedit:theextensivehaikuwasinfactatranscodingofashortpieceof
Free Software called DeCSS, which could be used to decrypt access controls on
DVDs in violation of current copyright laws. Schoen wrote this poem not only
tobecleverbutalsoaspartofaworldwidewaveofprotestsfollowingthearrest
ofDeCSS’scoauthor,JonLechJohansen,andthelawsuitslaunchedagainstthose
whopublishedDeCSS.
Twenty years ago there was no general understanding connecting code and
speech.TodaySchoenandhundredsofotherdevelopersroutinelymakejustthis
assertion and the resulting association between free speech and source code is
nowoneofthemostfrequentlyusedfixturesamongF/OSSdevelopers,whohave
become extremely well versed in law, politically aware, and committed to free
speechissues,aswellastechnicallyadeptatpromotingtheircause.Howdidthese
surprisingtransformationscomeabout?
Inthisessay,IexaminethewaysinwhichF/OSSdeveloperslikeSchoenare
reconfiguringwhatsourcecodeandspeechmeanethically,legally,andculturally,
andthebroaderpoliticalconsequencesoftheseredefinitions.Idemonstratehow
developersrefashionliberalpreceptsintwodistinctcultural“locations”(Guptaand
Ferguson 1997), the F/OSS project and broader legal battles, resulting in what
legaltheoristRobertCovercalls“jurisgenesis”:thecollectiveconstructionofnew
legalmeaningsandartifactsthatdivergefromstatistordominantinterpretationsof
thelaw(1992).Developersconstructnewlegalmeaningsbychallengingtheidea
ofsoftwareaspropertyandbycraftingnewfreespeechtheoriestodefendtheidea
ofsoftwareasspeech.
Using a framework of jurisgenesis, this essay does three things. First, it
demonstrates how F/OSS developers explore, contest, and specify the meaning
of liberal freedom—especially free speech—via the development of new legal
421
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 24:3
tools and discourses within the context of the F/OSS project. In particular, I
highlight how developers concurrently tinker with technology and the law using
similarskills,whichtransformandconsolidateethicalpreceptsamongdevelopers.
Using Debian, the largest Free Software project in the world, as my primary
ethnographic example, I suggest that these F/OSS projects have served like an
informal law education, transforming technologists into informal legal scholars
who are experts in the legal technicalities of F/OSS as well as proficient in the
currentworkingsofintellectualpropertylaw.1
Second, I examine how these developers marshal and bolster this legal ex-
pertise during broader legal battles to engage in what Tilly and Tarrow describe
as“contentiouspolitics”(2006).Iconcentrateontheseparatearrestsoftwopro-
grammers,JonJohansenandDmitrySklyarov,andontheprotests,whichunfolded
between1999and2003,thattheyprovoked.Thesecriticaleventsledtoahistori-
callyunprecedentedproliferationofclaimsconnectingsourcecodetospeech,with
Schoen’s 456-stanza poem providing one of many well-known examples. These
eventsarehistoricallynotablebecausetheydramatizedwhatnormallyexistsmore
tacitly and brought visibility to two important social processes. They publicized
thedirectchallengethatF/OSSrepresentstothedominantregimeofintellectual
property (and thus clarified the democratic stakes involved) and also made more
visible,andthusstabilized,arivalliberallegalregimeintimatelyconnectingsource
codetospeech.
Third, the story I relate here helps deepen our understanding of why, and
especiallywhenF/OSS,atechnologybasedmovement,emergedinsuchpoliticized
ways and historicize what Kelty (2008) calls a recursive public—a public consti-
tutedbyparticipantswhodefendtherighttomakeandaltertechnologythrough
argument and by tinkering with the technologies (notably the Internet) through
which they collectively associate. It was during this period, between 1999 and
2003,whenhackerswerearrestedandnewintellectualpropertyinstrumentsomi-
nouslyloomed,thatparticipantsofthispublicworkedout,specified,andclarified
thepoliticalsignificanceoftheirtechnicalwork.
In what follows, I begin by introducing the basic history of Free Software
and presenting some general attributes concerning legal tinkering that cut across
anumberofF/OSSprojects.Ithenexaminelegalproductionwithinonespecific
project: Debian. The final section covers the historical moment when F/OSS’s
particular public stance for free speech was rearticulated anew for wider public
consumption.Iconcludebybrieflyconsideringtheimportanceoflegalexpertise
amongactivistsparticipatinginglobalpoliticstoday.
422
CODEISSPEECH
THEBIRTHOFTHELEGALHACKER
F/OSSisproducedbytensofthousandsoftechnologistslocatedaroundthe
globe who work together on projects, such as the Web browser Firefox, over
theInternet.Inthespanofadecadetheseprojects,whichwerelooselyorganized
anddecentralizedmuchlikeavirtual“bazaar”(Raymond1999),havegrowninto
largesemiformalinstitutionswithcomplexgovernancestructures.Althoughmany
projectsstilldeployinformalandadhocdecisionmakingfordevelopment,mostmid
to large sized now rely on formal mechanisms—voting protocols, constitutions,
codes of conduct, legal exams, and detailed policy requirements—to coordinate
technical production (Kelty 2008; O’Mahony and Ferraro 2007; Weber 2004).
Manyoftheparticipants—somevolunteers,somepaid—alsorefertothemselves
with pride as hackers, that is, as computer aficionados driven by an inquisitive
passionfortinkeringandcommittedtoanethicalversionofinformationfreedom
(Castells 2001; Coleman and Golub 2008; Himanen 2001; Thomas 2002; Wark
2004).Increasingly,hackers’ethicalstances,Isuggest,areexpressedthroughlegal
idioms, which are now pervasive in the arena of F/OSS. However, the law was
initiallynotonlyabsentamonghackersbutalsopatentsandcopyrightsseemedto
betheprimaryobstacle,funnelingsoftwareintoaproprietarymodel.
It is now well known that Free Software first emerged as the brainchild of
MIThackerRichardStallman,whoin1985foundedtheFreeSoftwareFoundation
andbeganwritingwhathecalledFreeSoftware—softwarethat,unlikeproprietary
software,couldbecopied,shared,circulated,andmodified.Whatislessknownis
thatwheninitiatingthisfight,StallmandidnotconceptualizeFreeSoftwareinlegal
terms.Hisgoalwasnottotinkerwiththelaw,whichheknewverylittleabout,
buttowriteasuiteofFreeSoftwareapplicationstoreplaceproprietarysoftware,
thuscircumventingtheproblemofthelaw.
Asitturnedout,thelawwasnotentirelyafoe(intheformofcopyrightand
patents);itbecameindeedafriend,atleastonceStallmanreconfigureditproperly.
Because of a fairly complicated controversy (whose details need not concern us
herebutinwhichStallmanwasaccusedofillegallycopyingsourcecode)thelegal
issuesconcerningpatents,copyrights,andpublicdomainfirstandpalpablybecame
clear to software developers (for the detailed history, see Kelty 2008:ch. 6). By
1989, Stallman had crafted a legal framework for Free Software to prevent the
type of controversy that had erupted over his first Free Software program from
recurring,andtoaddalayeroftransparency,control,andaccountabilityforFree
Software.
423
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 24:3
Stallman’s legal solution, the General Public License (GPL), commonly re-
ferred to as the copyleft, uses copyright law, a Constitutional mandate, to un-
dermine the logic of copyright law. The GPL is built on copyright, but disables
the restrictions of copyright to allow for modification, distribution, and access;
it is also self-perpetuating because it requires others to adopt the same license
if they modifycopyleftedsoftware. Byinventingthecopyleft,Stallman provided
therudimentsofarivalliberallegalvocabularyoffreedom,whichhackerswould
eventually appropriate and transform to include a more specific language of free
speech.
ThefirstdevelopersandhackersassociatedwithFreeSoftwarewereforthe
mostpartusers,notproducers,andpossessedonlyarudimentaryunderstanding
oflegalissues.SomewereevenrepelledbyStallman’svisionofsoftwarefreedom,
whichhehadoutlinedin1985inhisGNUManifesto—apublicdeclarationofthe
ethicalprinciplesandintentionsbehindFreeSoftware.Onedeveloperexplainedhis
ambivalenceduringaninterviewin2002asfollows:“Iwasalittleconfused.Tome
it[theGNUManifesto]soundedsocialisticandideological,abitlike[the]Jehovah’s
Witness,somethingwhichwillnevercometopass.AtthetimeIdisregardeditas
amadman’sdream.ButIdidcontinuetouse[theGNUFreeSoftware]Emacsand
GCC.”Thisdeveloper,aswellasmanydevelopersIhaveinterviewed,isnowfirmly
committedtosomeoftheethicalandpragmaticprinciplesofFreeSoftware,and
hasexpertcommandnotonlyofthetechnologybutalsoofitslegalunderpinnings.
ItwouldtaketheLinuxkernelprojecttotransformFreeSoftwarefroma“mad
man’sdream”intoalarge-scalemovementwiththousandsofcontributors,many
ofwhomwouldeventuallycommitto—andalter—thelegalandethicalprinciples
of Free Software. Linus Torvalds, who wanted to rewrite the proprietary UNIX
operatingsystemforthepersonalcomputer,initiatedtheLinuxkernelprojectin
1991asahobbyistpursuitandeventuallyusedanelectronicmailinglisttorequest
feedback. Within the year, volunteer programmers were turning Linux into a
high-quality PC operating system. Because coordination was organized virtually
andinformally,programmersgreetedLinuxwithbewilderment—butwithopen
arms.Theexperienceofdiscoveringthatthereexistedan(almost)fullyworking
UNIX system for a PC, with available source code was, as put by one developer
during an interview, “jaw dropping.” It was surprising how hackers, working
informallyovertheInternet,couldproduceareliablepieceofsoftware.Thiswas
aperiodwhenFreeSoftwaredevelopmentresembleda“greatbabblingbazaarof
differingagendasandapproachesoutofwhichacoherentandstablesystemcould
seeminglyemergeonlybyasuccessionofmiracles”(Raymond1999).
424
CODEISSPEECH
Mostdevelopersdidnotwaxphilosophicalinsearchofthesuccessofthisnew
wayofworking.Insteadtheycontinueditssuccessbyinitiatingsimilarefforts.For
example,in1993IanMurdock,acomputersciencestudent,combinedTorvald’s
kernel with some of the GNU/FSF software tools to create a fully functional
operating system distribution of Linux called Debian. Scores of other projects,
such as the Apache Web server and the graphical user interface GNOME, were
alsoinitiatedatthistime.
As these virtual organizations got off the ground in the mid- to late 1990s,
EricRaymond,alibertarian-leaninghacker,soughttorefashionthepublicpersona–
presentationofFreeSoftwaretoattractbusinessinvestors(Raymond1999).Todo
so,hereplacedtheterm“FreeSoftware”withtheostensiblynonideologicaltermi-
nologyof“OpenSourceSoftware.”AlthoughFreeSoftwareforemostemphasizes
therighttolearnandtoaccessknowledge,“OpenSource”flagspracticalbenefitsof
whatarethesamecollaborativemethods,licenses,andvirtualorganizations(Kelty
2008). Despite these differences, it is difficult to identify many purists on either
side; participants often appeal to both moral and utilitarian logics, although they
mightemphasizeonelogicovertheother.
Moreimportantforourstoryofthelawwasthefactthatduringthisperiod
F/OSSprojectsmaturedintosemiformalinstitutions.Largelytomanagetheinflux
ofvolunteers,mostmidsizedtolargeprojectssupplemented,althoughtheydidnot
displace,thebazaarstyleofworkwithmoreformalmechanisms(votingprotocols,
membershipandpolicyprocedures,codesofconduct)toaidinsocialandtechnical
coordination.Itiscrucialtonoteherethattheseinstitutionsalsobecamedefacto
traininggrounds,wheredevelopersacquirednewethicalandlegalskills,idioms,
andviewpoints.
The growing presence of the law in F/OSS projects was an outgrowth of
three circumstances. First, to participate effectively in technological production,
developers have had to acquire basic legal knowledge to make certain informed
decisions.Forexample,whenlicensingtheirownsoftware,theymustchooseone
of over five dozen F/OSS licenses, or ascertain whether the software license on
thesoftwarepackagetheymaintainiscompliantwithexistinglicensestandardsand
guidelines.Second,developersproducetheirownlegalartifacts,suchaslicenses,
charters,andlegaltests,andasaresultthereisatremendousbodyoflegalexegesis
intheeverydaylifeoftheirF/OSSproject.Third,manydeveloperscloselytrack
news about Free Software–related legal battles, especially those seen to impinge
on their productive freedom: Has the patent directive passed in the European
UnionParliament?HowhasDiebold,thevotingmachinecompany,usedtheDigital
425
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 24:3
MillenniumCopyrightAct,tosuppressthecirculationofinformationincriminating
thecompany?Informationregardingtheseandotherrelevantdevelopmentsisnot
onlypostedwidelyontheInternetbutalsomanydevelopersgetdirectlyinvolved
inthesecases,asthereaderwillseeinthenextsection.
Tobesure,therearesomedevelopersandhackerswhoexpressdistastefor
discussions of legal policy and actively distance themselves from this domain of
“pollutingpolitics.”Buteventhoughhackerswillassertthesuperiorityoftechnical
tolegallanguage,oreventechnicaltolegallabor(somehackersclaimthatthelaw
is a waste of time; or as stated a bit more cynically by one developer, “writing
...
an algorithm in legalese should be punished with death a horrible one, by
preference”),technologistscanveryquicklyacquirelegalfluencyandliteracy.
Onereasonforthisfacility,Isuggest,isthattheskills,mentaldispositions,and
formsofreasoningnecessarytoreadandanalyzeaformal,rule-basedsystemlike
thelawparalleltheoperationsnecessarytocodesoftware.Both,forexample,are
logic-oriented, internally consistent textual practices that require great attention
todetail.Smallmistakesinbothlawandsoftware—amissingcommainacontract
or a missing semicolon in code—can jeopardize the integrity of the system and
compromisetheintentionoftheauthorofthetext.Bothlawyersandprogrammers
developmentalhabitsformaking,reading,andparsingwhatareprimarilyutilitarian
texts. As noted by two lawyers who work on software and law, “Coders are
peoplewhowriteinsubtle,rule-oriented,specialized,andremarkablycomplicated
dialects,”which,theyargue,pertainsalsotohowlawyersmakeandinterpretthe
law(CohnandGrimmelmann2003).2
This helps us understand why it’s been so easy for developers to integrate
the law into everyday technical practice and advocacies, and avoid some of the
frustrationthatafflictslayadvocatestryingtoacquirelegalfluencytomakelarger
political claims. Kim Fortun, for example, describing the activists who worked
onbehalfofthevictimsoftheBhopaldisaster,perceptivelyshowshowacquiring
legal fluency and developing the correct legal strategy is frustrating and can lead
tocynicism(2001:ch.1).Manyhackersaresimilarlyopenlycynicalaboutthelaw
becauseitisseenaseasilysubjecttopoliticalmanipulation.Despitethiscynicism,I
neverencounteredanyexpressionoffrustrationabouttheactualprocessoflearning
thelaw.AnumberofdevelopersIworkedwithclearlyenjoylearningandarguing
about a pragmatic subset of law (such as a particular legal doctrinal framework),
just as they do technology. Many developers apply the same skills required for
hackingtothelawand,aswewillsee,technologyandthelawattimesseamlessly
blendintoeachother.
426
CODEISSPEECH
Togiveatasteofthisinformallegalscholarship—oftherelationshipbetween
technicalexpertiseandlegalunderstanding,andofthewaysinwhichlegalquestions
areoftentiedtomoralissues—inoneFreeSoftwareproject,Iwilldescribesomeof
Debian’slegalmicropractices:itsroutinelegaltraining,advocacy,andexegetical
legal commentary. These legal micropractices allow for what Robert Cover, in
his description of jurisgenesis, calls a “commitment in living out legal meaning”
(Cover1992:103).Fornewlegalpreceptstobecomemeaningful,Coverinsists,
they must be incorporated into the practice of everyday life through a process
thatstretchesfrominformalnarrativetoformalexegesisofexistingprecepts.This
occursinmanyF/OSSprojects,buttheprocessisespeciallysalientinDebian.To
deepenthispictureofhowdevelopersliveinandthroughthelaw,Iproceedtoa
broader struggle, one where similar legal processes are underway, but are more
visiblebecauseofthewaytheyhavecirculatedbeyondtheboundariesofprojects
proper.
“LIVINGOUTLEGALMEANING”WITHINAFREESOFTWARE
PROJECT
Just over a thousand volunteers are participating in the Debian project at
this time (early 2009), writing and distributing a Linux-based operating system
composed over 20 thousand individual software applications. In its nascence,
Debianwasrunentirelyinformally;ithadfewerthantwodozenvolunteerswho
communicated primarily through a single e-mail list. To accommodate growth,
however,significantchangesinpolicy,procedures,andstructureoccurredbetween
1997and1999.NowDebianboastsacomplexhybridpoliticalsystem;adeveloper
Internetrelaychat(IRC)channel;aformalizedmembershipentryprocedurecalled
NewMaintainer(NM);andasetofchartersthatincludesaConstitution,aSocial
Contract,andtheDebianFreeSoftwareGuidelines(DFSG).
AfewDebiandevelopersarepaidbytheiremployerstoworkonDebian,but
theprojectitselfpaysnoone,noteventhereleasemanagers,someofwhomspend
40 hours or more a week for two to three months on the final release of a new
version of Debian. Generally, developers attain positions of authority through a
meritocratic system that rewards those who perform exceptional work and who
wish to occupy a position of responsibility (although there are exceptions). Each
developer decides where and how to contribute, with no formal mandates from
thosewithorganizationalauthoritytodirectdeveloperlabor.
Despite this hands-off, self-directed approach all developers go through an
initial vetting process—the New Maintainer (NM) process. It is an obligatory
427
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 24:3
point of passage (Latour 1988) through which prospective developers apply for
membership. Fulfilling the mandates of the NM can take months, even years, of
hardwork:aprospectivedeveloperhastofindasponsorandadvocate;learnthe
inandoutsofDebianpolicy,FreeSoftwarelicensing,andtechnicalinfrastructure;
successfullypackagesoftwarethatsatisfiesasetoftechnicalstandards;meetatleast
oneotherDebiandeveloperinpersonforidentityverification;andpassaseriesof
written tests on technical, philosophical, and legal matters. Thus do prospective
developersbecomefamiliarwiththeactivelegalcultureofDebian.
Several questions in the NM application cover what is now one of the most
famous philosophical and legal distinctions in the world of Free Software: “free
beer”versus“freespeech.”Commonamongdeveloperstoday,thisdistinctionarose
onlyrecently,duringtheearlytomid-1990s.
A prospective Debian Developer (DD) describes the difference in an NM
application:
Freespeechisthepossibilityofsayingwhateveronewantwantsto.Software
[that is] free as in beer can be downloaded and used for free, but no more.
Software[thatis]freeasinspeechcanbefixed,improved,changed,beused
asbuildingblockforanother[sic]software.
Somedevelopersalsonotethattheirunderstandingof“freespeech”isnested
within a broader liberal meaning codified in the constitutions of most liberal
democracies:
Usedinthiscontextthedifferenceisthis:“freespeech”representsthefreedom
touse/modify/distributethesoftwareasifthesourcecodewereactualspeech
...
whichisprotectedbylawintheUSbytheFirstAmendment “freebeer”
representssomethingthatiswithoutmonetarycost.
Thisdifferentiationbetweenfreebeerandfreespeechistheclearestenunci-
ationofwhat,tothesedevelopers,arethecoremeaningsof“free”—expression,
learning,andmodification.Freedomisunderstoodforemosttobeaboutpersonal
controlandautonomousproductionanddecidedlynotaboutcommodityconsump-
tionor“possessiveindividualism”(Macpherson1962),amessagethatisconstantly
restatedbydevelopers:FreeSoftwareis“freeasinspeech,notbeer.”
This distinction may seem simple, however, the licensing implications of
“freedom”andfreespeecharecomplicatedenoughthattheNMprocesscontinues
with a series of very technically oriented questions whose answers start to enter
therealmoflegalinterpretation.ManyoftheseconcerntheDebianFreeSoftware
Guidelines(DFSG),asetoftenprovisionsbywhichtomeasurewhetheralicense
428
CODEISSPEECH
canbeconsidered“free.”Ofthesequestions,oneortwoarefairlystraightforward.
Forexample:
“Do you know what’s wrong with Pine’s current license in regard to the
DFSG?”
After looking at the license on the upstream site it is very clear why pine is
non-free.ItviolatesthefollowingclausesoftheDFSG:
1.) No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor—it has different require-
mentsfornon-profitvs.profitconcerns.
2.)LicenseMustNotContaminateOtherSoftware—itinsiststhatallother
programs on a CDROM must be “free-of-charge, shareware, or non-
proprietary”
3.)SourceCode—itpotentiallyrestrictsbinarydistribution[binaryrefersto
compiledsourcecode]
Thesamplelicenseforane-mailprogram,Pine,violatesanumberofDFSG
provisions.Withdifferentprovisionsfornonprofitandfor-profitendeavors,asan
example,itdiscriminatesaccordingtowhattheDFSGcalls“fieldsofendeavor.”
Developersarethenaskedahandfuloffarmoretechnicallicensingquestions,
amongthem:
∼
Athttp://people.debian.org/ joerg/bad.licenses.tar.bz2youcanfindatar-
ballofbadlicenses.Pleasecomparethegraphvizandthreeother(yourchoice)
licenseswiththefirstninepointsoftheDFSGandshowwhatchangeswould
beneededtomakethemDFSG-free.
The answer clearly demonstrates the depth of legal expertise required to
...
addressthesequestions:“Removethediscriminatoryclauses allowdistribution
...
of compiled versions of the original source code replace [sections] 4.3 with
...
4.3.aand4.3.bandtheoptiontochoose ”
AftersuccessfullyfinishingtheNMprocess,somedevelopersthinkonlyrarely
aboutthelawortheDFSG,perhapsonlytrackinglegaldevelopmentsofpersonal
interest. Even if a developer is not actively learning the law, however, legal
discourseisnearlyunavoidablebecauseofthefrequencywithwhichitappearson
Debianmailinglistsorchatchannels.Informallegalpedagogythuscontinueslong
aftertheNM.
As an example, I quote an excerpt from a discussion on IRC wherein a
developerproposedanewDebianpolicythatwouldclarifyhownon–FreeSoftware
packages(thosenoncompliantwiththeirlicenseguidelines)shouldbecategorized
429