This essay will asses the relationship between free software and the capitalist mode of accumulation, namely that of the extraction of various forms of capital to produce profit. I will perform an analysis through the lens of the Marxist concept of extracting surplus from workers, utilise Bourdieu’s theory of capital, and the ideas of Hardt and Negri as they discuss the various economic paradigms, and the progression through these.
The free software movement is one which states that computer software should not have owners (Stallman, 2010, chap. 5), and that proprietary software is fundamentally unethical (Stallman, 2010, p. 5). This idea is realised through “the four freedoms” and a range of licenses, which permit anyone to: use for any purpose; modify; examine and redistribute modified copies, of the software so licensed (Free Software Foundation, 2010). These freedoms are posited as a contrast to the traditional model of software development, which rests all ownership and control of the product in its creators. As free software is not under private control, it would appear at first to escape the capitalist mode of production, and the problems which ensue from that, such as alienation, commodity fetishism and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few.
For a definition of the commons, Bollier states:
commons comprises a wide range of shared assets and forms of community governance. Some are tangible, while others are more abstract, political, and cultural. The tangible assets of the commons include the vast quantities of oil, minerals, timber, grasslands, and other natural resources on public lands, as well as the broadcast airwaves and such public facilities as parks, stadiums, and civic institutions. … The commons also consists of intangible assets that are not as readily identified as belonging to the public. Such commons include the creative works and public knowledge not privatized under copyright law. … A last category of threatened commons is that of so-called ‘gift economies’. These are communities of shared values in which participants freely contribute time, energy, or property and over time receive benefits from membership in the community. The global corps of GNU/Linux software programmers is a prime example: enthusiasts volunteer their talents and in return receive useful rewards and group esteem. (2002)
Thus, free software would appear to offer an escape from the system of capitalist dominance based upon private property, as the products of free software contribute to the commons, resist attempts at monopoly control and encourage contributors to act socially.
Marx described how through the employment of workers, investors in capitalist businesses were able to amass wealth and thus power. The employer invests an amount of money into a business, to employ labour, and he labourer creates some good, be it tangible or intangible. The labourer is then paid for this work, and the company owner takes the good and sells it at some higher price, to cover other costs and to provide a profit. The money the labourer is paid is for the “necessary labour” (Marx, 1976a, p. 325), i.e. the amount the person requires to reproduce labour, that is the smallest amount possible to ensure the worker can live, eat, house themself, work fruitfully and produce offspring who will do similar. The difference between this amount and the amount the good sells for, minus other costs, which are based upon the labour of other workers, is the “surplus value”, and equals the profit to the employer (Marx, 1976a, p. 325). The good is then sold to a customer, who thus enters into a social relationship with the worker that made it. However, the customer has no knowledge of the worker, does not know the conditions they work under, their wage, their name or any other information about them, their relationship is mediated entirely through the commodity which passes from producer to consumer. Thus, despite the social relationship between the two, they are alienated from each other, and the relationship is represented through a commodity object, which is thus fetishised over the actual social relationship (Marx, 1976a, chap. 1). The worker is further alienated, from the product of their labour, for which they are not fully recompensed, as they are not paid the full exchange amount which the capitalist company obtains, and do not have control over any further part in the commodity than the work they employed to put in.
If we study the reasons participants have for contributing to free software projects, coders fall into one or more of the following three categories: firstly, coders who contribute to create something of utility to themselves, secondly, those who are paid by a company which employs them to write code in a traditional employment relationship, and finally those who write software without economic compensation, to benefit the commons (Hars & Ou, 2001). The first category does not enter into a relationship with others, so the system of capitalist exchange does not need to be considered. The second category, that of a worker being paid to contribute to a project, might seem unusual, as the company appears to be giving away the result of capital investment, thus benefiting competitors. Although this is indeed the case, the value gained in other contributors viewing, commenting on and fixing the code is perceived to outweigh any disadvantages. In the case of a traditional employee of a capitalist company, the work, be it production of knowledge, carrying out of a service or making a tangible good, will be appropriated by the company the person works for, and credited as its own. The work is then sold at some increased cost, the difference between the cost to make it and the cost it is sold for being surplus labour, which reveals itself as profit.
The employed software coder working on a free software performs necessary labour (Marx, 1976a, p. 325), as any other employee does, and this is rewarded with a wage. However, the surplus value, which nominally is used to create profit for the employer by them appropriating the work of the employee, is not solely controlled by the capitalist. Due to the nature of the license, the product of the necessary and surplus labour can be taken, used and modified by any other person, including the worker. Thus, the traditional relationship of the commons to the capitalist is changed. The use of paid workers to create surplus value is an example of the capitalist taking the commons and re-appropriating it for their own gain. However, as the work is given back to the commons, there is an argument that the employer has instead contributed to the wider sphere of human knowledge, without retaining monopoly control as the traditional copyright model does. Further, the worker is not alienated by their employer from the product of their labour, it is available for them to use as they see fit.
The second category of contributors to a project, volunteers are generally also highly-skilled, well-paid, and materially comfortable in life. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943), as individuals attain the material comforts in life, so they are likely to turn their aspirations towards less tangible but more fulfilling achievements, such as creative pursuits. Some will start free software projects of their own, as some people will start capitalist businesses: the Linux operating system kernel, The GNU operating system and the Diaspora* [sic] distributed social networking software are examples of this situation. If a project then appears successful to others, it will gain new coders, who will lend their assistance and improve the software. The person(s) who started the project are acknowledged as the leader(s), and often jokingly referred to as the “benevolent dictator for life” (Rivlin, 2003), although their power is contingent, because as Raymond put it, “the culture’s ‘big men’ and tribal elders are required to talk softly and humorously deprecate themselves at every turn in order to maintain their status.” (2002). As leaders, they will make the final decision of what code goes into the ‘official’ releases, and be recognised as the leader in the wider free software community.
Although there may be hundreds of coders working on a project, as there is an easily identifiable leader, he or she will generally receive the majority of the credit for the project. Each coder will carry out enough work to produce the piece of code they wish to work on, thus producing a useful addition to the software. As suggested above by Maslow, the coder will gain symbolic capital, defined by Bourdieu as “the acquisition of a reputation for competence and and image of respectability” (1984, p. 291) and as “predisposition to function as symbolic capital, i.e., to be unrecognized as capital and recognized as legitimate competence, as authority exerting an effect of (mis)recognition … the specifically symbolic logic of distinction” (Bourdieu, 1986). This capital will be attained through working on the project, and being recognised by: other coders involved in the project and else where; the readers of their blog; their friends and colleagues, and they may occasionally be featured in articles on technology web news sites (KernelTrap, 2002; Mills, 2007). Each coder adds their piece of effort to the project, gaining enough small acknowledgements for their work along the way to feel they should continue coding, which could be looked at as necessary labour (Marx, 1976a, p. 325). Contemporaneously, the project leader gains a smaller acknowledgement for the improvements to the project as a whole, which in the case of a large project can be significant over time. In the terms expressed by Marx, although the coder carries out a certain amount of work, it is then handed over to the project, represented in the eyes of the public by the leader who accrues similar small amounts of capital from all coders on the project. This profit is surplus value (Marx, 1976a, p. 325). Similarly to the employed coder, the economic value of the project does not belong to the leaders, there is no surplus extracted there, as all can use it.
To take a concrete example, Linus Torvalds, originator and head of the Linux kernel is known for his work throughout the free software world, and feted as one of its most important contributors (Veltman, 2006, p. 92). The perhaps surprising part of this, is that Torvalds does not write code for the project any more, he merely manages others, and makes grand decisions as to which concepts, not actual code, will be allowed into the mainline, or official, release of the project (Stout, 2007). Drawing a parallel with a traditional capitalist company, Linus can be seen as the original investor who started the organisation, who manages the workers, and who takes a dividend each year, despite not carrying out any productive work. Linus’ original investment in 1991 was economic and cultural capital, in the form of time and a part-finished degree in computer science (Calore, 2009). While he was the only contributor, the project progressed slowly, and the originator gained symbolic, social and cultural capital solely through his own efforts, thus resembling a member of the petit bourgeois. As others saw the value in the project, they offered small pieces of code to solve small problems and progress the code. These were incorporated, thus rapidly improving the software, and the standing of Torvalds.
Like consumers of any other product, users of Linux will not have be aware of who had made the specific change unless they make an effort to read the list of changes for each release, thus resulting in the coder being alienated from the product of their labour and the users of the software (Marx, 1959, p. 29), who fetishise (Marx, 1976a, chap. 1) the software over the social relationship which should be prevalent. For each contribution, which results in a small gain in symbolic capital to the coder, Linus takes a smaller gain in those forms of capital, in a way analogous to a business investor extracting surplus economic capital from her employees, despite not having written the code in question. The capitalist investor possesses no particular values, other than to whom and where she was born, yet due to the capital she is able to invest, she can amass significant economic power from the work of others. Over 18 years, these small gains in capital have also added up for Linus Torvalds, and such is now the symbolic capital expropriated that he is able to continue extracting this capital fro Linux, while reinvesting capital in writing code for other projects, in this case ‘Git’ (Torvalds, 2005), which has attracted coders in part due to the fame of its principal architect. The surplus value of the coders on this project is also extracted and transferred to the nominal leader, and so the cycle continues, with the person at the top continuously and increasingly benefiting from the work of others, at their cost.
The different forms of capital can readily be exchanged for one another. As such, Linus has been offered book contracts (Torvalds, 2001), is regularly interviewed for a range of publications (Calore, 2009; Rivlin, 2003), has gained jobs at high prestige technology companies (Martin Burns, 2002), and been invited to various conferences as guest speaker. The other coders on the Linux project have also gained, through skills learned, social connections and prestige for being part of what is a key project in free software, although none in the same way as Linus.
Free software is constructed in such a way as to allow a range of choices to address most needs, for instance in the field of desktop operating systems there are hundreds to choose from, with around six distributions, or collections of software, covering the majority of users, through being recognised as well-supported, stable and aimed at the average user (Distrowatch.com, 2011). In order for the leaders of each of these projects to increase their symbolic capital, they must continuously attract new users, be regularly mentioned in the relevant media outlets and generally be seen as adding to the field of free software, contributing in some meaningful way. Doing so requires a point-of-difference between their software and the other distributions. However, this has become increasingly difficult, as the components used in each project have become increasingly stable and settled, so the current versions of each operating system will contain virtually identical lists of packages. In attempting to gain users, some projects have chosen to make increasingly radical changes, such as including versions of software with new features even though they are untested and unstable (Canonical Ltd., 2008), and changing the entire user experience, often negatively as far as users are concerned (Collins, 2011). Although this keeps the projects in the headlines on technology news sites, and thus attracts new users, it turns off experienced users, who are increasingly moving to more stable systems (Parfeni, 2011).
This proliferation of systems, declining opportunities to attract new users, and increasingly risky attempts to do so, demonstrates the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and the efforts capitalist companies go to in seeking new consumers (Marx, 1976b, chap. 3), so they can continue extracting increased surplus value as profit Each project must put in more and more effort, in increasingly risky areas, thus requiring increased maintenance and bug-fixing, to attract users and be appreciated in the eyes of others.
According to Hardt and Negri, since the Middle Ages, there have been three economic paradigms, identified by the three forms from which profit is extracted. These are: land, which can be rented out to others or mined for minerals; tangible, movable products, which are manufactured by exploited workers and sold at a profit; and services, which involve the creation and manipulation of knowledge and affect, and the care of other humans, again by exploited workers (2000, p. 280). Looking more closely at these phases, we can see a procession. The first phase relied mainly upon the extraction of profit from raw materials, such as the earth itself, coal and crops, with little if any processing by humans. The second phase still required raw materials, such as iron ore, bauxite, rubber and oil, but also required a significant amount of technical processing by humans to turn these materials into commodities which were then sold, with profit extracted from the surplus labour of workers. Thus the products of the first phase were important in a supporting role to the production of the commodities, in the form of land for the factory, food for workers, fuel for smelters and machinery, and materials to fashion, but the majority of the value of the commodity was generated by activities resting on these resources, the working of those raw materials into useful items by humans. The latter of the phases listed above, the knowledge, affect and care industry, entails workers collecting and manipulating data and information, or performing some sort of service work, which can then be rented to others. Again, this phase relies on the other phases: from the first phase, land for offices, data centres, laboratories, hospitals, financial institutes, and research centres; food for workers, fuel for power; plus from the second phase: commodities including computers, medical equipment, office supplies, and laboratory and testing equipment, to carry out the work. Similarly to the previous phase, these materials and items are not directly the source of the creation of profit, but are required, the generation of profit relies and rests on their existence.
In the context of IT, this change in the dominant paradigm was most aptly demonstrated by the handover of power from the mighty IBM to new upstart Microsoft in 1979, when the latter retained control over their operating system software MS-DOS, despite the former agreeing to install it on their new desktop computer range. The significance of this apparent triviality was illustrated in the film ‘Pirates of Silicon Valley’, during a scene depicting the negotiations between the two companies, in which everyone but Bill Gates’ character froze as he broke the ‘fourth wall’, turning to the camera and explaining the consequences of the mistake IBM had made (Burke, 1999). IBM, the dominant power in computing of the time, were convinced high profit continued to lie in physical commodities, the computer hardware they manufactured, and were unconcerned by lack of ownership of the software. Microsoft recognised the value of immaterial labour, and soon eclipsed IBM in value and influence of the industry, a position which they held for around 20 years.
Microsoft’s method of generating profit was to dominate the field of software, their products enabling users to create, publish and manipulate data, while ignoring the hardware, which was seen as a commodity platform upon which to build (Paulson, 2010). Further, the company wasn’t particularly interested what its customers were doing with their computers, so long as they were using Windows, Office and other technologies, to work with that data, as demonstrated by a lack of effort to control the creation or distribution of information. As Microsoft were increasing their dominance, the free software GNU Project was developing a free alternative, to firstly the Unix operating system (Stallman, 2010, p. 9), and later to Microsoft products. Fuelled by the rise in highly capable, cost-free software which competed with and undercut Microsoft, so commoditising the market, the dominance of that company faded in the early 2000s (Ahmad, 2009), to be replaced by a range of companies which built on the products of the free software movement, by relying on the use value, but no longer having any interest in the exchange value of the software (Marx, 1976a, p. 126). The power Microsoft retains today through its desktop software products is due in significant part to ‘vendor lock-in’ (Duke, n.d.), the process of using closed standards, only allowing their software to interact with data in ways prescribed by the vendor. Google, Apple and Facebook, the dominant powers in computing today, would not have existed in their current form were it not for various pieces of free software (Rooney, 2011). Notably, the prime method of profit making of these companies is through content, rather than via a software or hardware platform. Apple and Google both provide platforms, such as the iPhone and Gmail, although neither companies makes large profit directly from these platforms, sometimes to the point of giving them away, subsidised heavily via their profit-making content divisions (Chen, 2008).
Returning to the economic paradigms discussed by Hardt and Negri, we have a series of sub-phases, each building on the sub-phase before. Within the third, knowledge, phase, the first sub-phase of IT, computer software, such as operating systems, web servers and email servers, was a potential source of high profits through the 1980s and 1990s, but due to high competition, predominantly from the free software movement, the rate of profit has dropped considerably, with for instance the free software ‘Apache’ web server being used to host over 60% of all web sites (Netcraft Ltd., 2011). Conversely, the capitalist companies from the next sub-phase were returning high profits and growth, through extensive use of these free products to sell other services. This sub-phase is noticeable for its reliance on creating and manipulating data, rather than producing the tools to do so, although both still come under the umbrella of knowledge production. This trend was mirrored in the free software world, as the field of software stabilised, thus realising fewer opportunities for increasing one’s capital through the extraction of surplus in this area.
As the falling rate of profit reduced the potential to gain symbolic capital through free software, so open data projects, which produce large sets of data under open licences, became more prevalent, providing further areas for open content contributors to invest their capital. These initially included Wikipedia, the web-based encyclopedia which anyone can edit, in 2001 (“Wikipedia:About,” n.d.). Growth of this project was high for several years, with a large number of new editors joining, but has since become so small as to find attracting new users very difficult (Chi, 2009; Moeller & Zachte, 2009). Similarly, OpenStreetMap, which aims to map the world, was begun in 2004, and grew at a very high rate once it became known in the mainstream technology press. However, now that the majority of streets and significant geographical data in western countries are mapped, the project is finding it difficult to attract new users, unless they are willing to work on adding increasingly esoteric minutiae, which has little obvious effect on the map, and thus provides a less obvious gain in symbolic capital attained by the user (Fairhurst, 2011). For the leaders of the project, this represents higher and higher effort to be put in, for comparatively smaller returns, again the rate of profit is falling. Rather than the previous, relatively passive method of attracting new users and expanding into other areas, the project founders and leading lights are now aggressively pushing the project to map less well-covered areas, such as a recent effort in a slum in Africa (Map Kibera, 2011); starting a sub-group to create maps in areas such as Haiti, to help out after natural disasters (Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, 2011); and providing economic grants for those who will map in less-developed countries (Black, 2008). This closely follows the capitalist need to seek out new markets and territories, once all existing ones are saturated, to continuously push for more growth, to arrest the falling rate of profit.
According to Hardt and Negri,
You can think and form relationships not only on the job buy also in the street, at home, with your neighbors and friends. The capacities of biopolitical labor-power exceed work and spill over into life. We hesitate to use the word “excess” for this capacity because from the perspective of society as a whole it is never too much. It is excess only from the perspective of capital because it does not produce economic value that can be captured by the individual capitalist (2011)
The capitalist mode of production brings organisational structure to the production of value, but in doing so fetters the productivity of the commons, the productivity of the commons is higher when capital stays external to the production process. This hands-off approach to managing production can be seen extensively in free software, through the self-organising, decentralised model it utilises (Ingo, 2006, p. 38), eschewing traditional management forms with chains of responsibility. Economic forms of capital are prevalent in free software, as when technology companies including advertising provider Google, software support company Red Hat and software and services provider Novell employ coders to commit code to various projects such as the Linux kernel (The Linux Foundation, 2009). However, the final decision of whether the code is accepted, is left up to the project itself, which is usually free of corporate management. There are numerous, generally temporary exceptions to this rule, including OpenOffice.org, the free software office suite, which was recently acquired by software developer Oracle. Within a few months of the acquisition, the number of senior developers involved in the project dropped significantly, most of them citing interference from Oracle in the management of the software, and those who left set up their own fork of the project, based on the Oracle version (Clarke, 2010). Correspondingly, a number of software collections also stopped including the Oracle software, and instead used the version released by the new, again community-managed, offshoot (Sneddon, 2010). Due to the license which OpenOffice.org is released under, all of Oracle’s efforts to take direct control of the project were easily sidestepped. Oracle may possess the copyright to all of the original code, through purchasing the project, but this comes to naught once that code is released, it can be taken and modified by anyone who sees fit.
This increased productivity of the commons can be seen in the response to flaws with the software: as there is no hierarchical structure enforced by, for example, employment contract, problems reported by users can and are taken on by volunteer coders who will work on the flaw until it is fixed, without needing to consult line managers, and align with a corporate strategy. If the most recognised source for the software does not respond quickly, either due to financial or technical reasons, because of the nature of the licence, other coders are able to fix the problem, including those hired by customers. For those not paid, symbolic capital continues to play a part here: although the coders may appear to be unpaid volunteers, in reality there is kudos to be gained by solving a problem quickly, pushing coders to compete against each other, even while sharing their advances.
Despite this realisation that capital should not get too close to free software, the products of free software are still utilised by many corporates: free software forms the key infrastructure for a high proportion of web servers (Netcraft Ltd., 2011), and is extensively used in mobile phones (Germain, 2011) and financial trading (Jackson, 2011). The free software model thus forms a highly effective method for producing efficient software useful to capital. The decentralised, hard-to-control model disciplines capital into keeping its distance, forcing corporations to realise that if they get too close, try to control too much, they will lose out by wasting resources and appearing as bad citizens of the free software community, thus losing symbolic capital in the eyes of potential investors and customers.
The preceding analysis of free software and its relationship to capitalism demonstrates four areas in which the former is relevant to the latter.
Firstly, free software claims to form a part of the commons, and to a certain extent, this is true: the data and code in the projects are licensed in a way which allows all to take benefit from using them, they cannot be monopolised, owned and locked-down as capitalism has done with the tangible assets of the commons, and many parts of the intangible commons. Further, it appears that not only is free software not enclosable, but whenever any attempt to control it is exerted by an external entity, the project radically changes direction, sheds itself of regulation and begins where it left off, more wary of interference from capital.
Secondly, however, the paradigm of free software shows that ownership of the thing is not necessarily required to extract profit with it, there are still opportunities for the capitalist mode of accumulation despite this lack of close control of it. The high quality, efficient tools provided by free software are readily used by capitalist organisations to sell and promote other intangible products, and to manipulate various forms of data, particularly financial instruments, a growth industry in modern knowledge capitalism, at greater margins than had free software not existed. This high quality is due largely to the aforementioned ability of free software to keep capital from taking a part in its development, due to its apparent inefficiency at managing the commons.
Thirdly, although free software cannot be owned and controlled as physical objects can, thus apparently foiling the extraction of surplus value as economic profit from alienated employees, the nominal leaders of each free software project appear to take a significant part of the credit for the project they steer, thus extracting symbolic capital from other, less prominent coders of the project. This is despite not being involved in much, or in some cases any, of the actual code-writing, thus mirroring the extraction of profit through surplus labour adopted by capitalism.
Finally, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall seems to pervade free software in the same way as it affects capitalism. Certain free software projects have been shown to have difficulty extracting profit, in the form of surplus symbolic capital, and this in turn, has caused a turn to open data, which initially showed itself to be an area with potentiality for growth and profit, although it too has now suffered the same fate as free software.
Ahmad, A. (2009). Google beating the evil empire | Malay Mail Online. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://www.mmail.com.my/content/google-beating-evil-empire
Black, N. (2008). CloudMade?» OpenStreetMap Grants. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://blog.cloudmade.com/2008/03/17/openstreetmap-grants/
Bollier, D. (2002). Reclaiming the Commons. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/bollier.html
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm
Burke, M. (1999). Pirates of Silicon Valley.
Calore, M. (2009). Aug. 25, 1991: Kid From Helsinki Foments Linux Revolution | This Day In Tech | Wired.com. Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/08/0825-torvalds-starts-linux
Canonical Ltd. (2008). “firefox-3.0” source package?: Hardy (8.04)?: Ubuntu. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/hardy/+source/firefox-3.0/3.0~b5+nobinonly-0ubuntu3
Chen, J. (2008). AT&T’s 3G iPhone Is $199 This Summer | Gizmodo Australia. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/04/atts_3g_iphone_is_199_this_summer-2/
Chi, E. H. (2009, July 22). PART 1: The slowing growth of Wikipedia: some data, models, and explanations. Augmented Social Cognition Research Blog from PARC. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html
Clarke, G. (2010). OpenOffice files Oracle divorce papers • The Register. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/28/openoffice_independence_from_oracle/
Collins, B. (2011). Ubuntu Unity: the great divider | PC Pro blog. Retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/05/03/ubuntu-unity-the-great-divider/
Distrowatch.com. (2011). DistroWatch.com: Put the fun back into computing. Use Linux, BSD. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://distrowatch.com/
Duke, O. (n.d.). Open Sesame | Love Learning. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://www.reedlearning.co.uk/learn-about/1/ll-open-standards
Fairhurst, R. (2011). File:Osmdbstats8.png – OpenStreetMap Wiki. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osmdbstats8.png
Free Software Foundation. (2010). The Free Software Definition – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Germain, Ja. M. (2011). Linux News: Android: How Linuxy Is Android? Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/How-Linuxy-Is-Android-73523.html
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2011). Commonwealth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Hars, A., & Ou, S. (2001). Working for Free? – Motivations of Participating in Open Source Projects. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 7, p. 7014). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society. doi:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2001.927045
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team. (2011). Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team?» Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://hot.openstreetmap.org/weblog/
Ingo, H. (2006). Open Life: The Philosophy of Open Source. (S. Torvalds, Trans.). Lulu.com. Retrieved from www.openlife.cc
Jackson, J. (2011). How Linux mastered Wall Street | ITworld. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://www.itworld.com/open-source/193823/how-linux-mastered-wall-street
KernelTrap. (2002). Interview: Andrew Morton | KernelTrap. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://www.kerneltrap.org/node/10
Map Kibera. (2011). Map Kibera. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://mapkibera.org/
Martin Burns. (2002). Where all the Work’s Hiding | evolt.org. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://evolt.org/Where_all_the_Works_Hiding
Marx, K. (1959). Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts. (M. Mulligan, Trans.). marxists.org. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Economic-Philosophic-Manuscripts-1844.pdf Retrieved on 2011-11-03
Marx, K. (1976a). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books in association with New Left Review.
Marx, K. (1976b). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. The Pelican Marx library (Vol. 3). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books in association with New Left Review.
Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Mills, A. (2007). Why I quit: kernel developer Con Kolivas. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://apcmag.com/why_i_quit_kernel_developer_con_kolivas.htm
Moeller, E., & Zachte, E. (2009). Wikimedia blog?» Blog Archive?» Wikipedia’s Volunteer Story. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/
Netcraft Ltd. (2011). May 2011 Web Server Survey | Netcraft. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2011/05/02/may-2011-web-server-survey.html
Parfeni, L. (2011). Linus Torvalds Drops Gnome 3 for Xfce, Calls It “Crazy” – Softpedia. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linus-Torvalds-Drops-Gnome-3-for-Xfce-Calls-It-Crazy-215074.shtml
Paulson, R. (2010). Application of the theoretical tools of the culture industry to the concept of free culture. Retrieved October 25, 2010, from http://bumblepuppy.org/blog/?p=4
Raymond, E. S. (2002). Homesteading the Noosphere. Retrieved June 3, 2010, from http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/ar01s10.html
Rivlin, G. (2003, November). Wired 11.11: Leader of the Free World. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/linus.html
Rooney, P. (2011). IT Management: Red Hat CEO: Google, Facebook owe it all to Linux, open source. IT Management. Retrieved October 25, 2011, from http://si-management.blogspot.com/2011/08/red-hat-ceo-google-facebook-owe-it-all.html
Sneddon, J. (2010). LibreOffice – Google, Novell sponsored OpenOffice fork launched. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/libreoffice-google-novell-sponsored-openoffice-fork-launched/
Stallman, R. (2010). Free Software Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. (J. Gay, Ed.) (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: GNU Press, Free Software Foundation.
Stout, K. L. (2007). CNN.com – Reclusive Linux founder opens up – May 18, 2006. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/05/18/global.office.linustorvalds/
The Linux Foundation. (2009). Linux Kernel Development. Retrieved from https://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/files/publications/whowriteslinux.pdf
Torvalds, L. (2001). Just For Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary. London: Texere.
Torvalds, L. (2005). “Re: Kernel SCM saga..” – MARC. Retrieved from http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=111288700902396
Veltman, K. H. (2006). Understanding new media: augmented knowledge & culture. University of Calgary Press.
Wikipedia:About. (n.d.).Wikipedia. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:About