ࡱ> ܥhc e)((((( 4(\L( )W`vvvv` "h ) ) ) ) ) ) )c)X)7 ) )jp vv ) ) ) )v ) ) ) )vv )17Q.V(( ) ) ) ) Final Report for Independent Study IPR and Open Source Intellectual Property Rights and the Open Source Movement Stefan Carmien December 1999 "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." Thomas Jefferson Table Of Contents  TOC \o "1-5" 0.1 The Issue of Nomenclature  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152297  PAGEREF _Toc472152297 3 1 Introduction  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152298  PAGEREF _Toc472152298 4 1.1 What is Open Source and what are Intellectual Property Rights?  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152299  PAGEREF _Toc472152299 4 1.2 Why study Open Source? How does it relate to what the L3D group is doing?  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152300  PAGEREF _Toc472152300 5 1.2.1 L3D an Overview  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152301  PAGEREF _Toc472152301 5 1.2.2 L3D to Open Source  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152302  PAGEREF _Toc472152302 5 1.2.3 Open Source to L3D  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152303  PAGEREF _Toc472152303 5 2 The Open Source Movement  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152304  PAGEREF _Toc472152304 6 2.1 Background  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152305  PAGEREF _Toc472152305 6 2.1.1 Historical background  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152306  PAGEREF _Toc472152306 6 2.1.2 The Context of the Environment  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152307  PAGEREF _Toc472152307 7 2.2 Open Source Principals  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152308  PAGEREF _Toc472152308 8 2.3 Open Source Examples  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152309  PAGEREF _Toc472152309 8 2.4 Structure & models  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152310  PAGEREF _Toc472152310 9 2.4.1 Models Of Abstract Basis  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152311  PAGEREF _Toc472152311 9 2.4.1.1 Bits & Atoms  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152312  PAGEREF _Toc472152312 9 2.4.1.2 Maturity of Components  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152313  PAGEREF _Toc472152313 10 2.4.1.3 The Community Of Open Source Computer Professionals  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152314  PAGEREF _Toc472152314 11 2.4.1.4 Changing motivations  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152315  PAGEREF _Toc472152315 11 2.4.2 Models of actual practice  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152316  PAGEREF _Toc472152316 12 2.4.2.1 Raymond's lists of lessons  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152317  PAGEREF _Toc472152317 13 2.4.2.2 Parts of a successful Open Source project  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152318  PAGEREF _Toc472152318 14 3 Real world implementation of Open Source  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152319  PAGEREF _Toc472152319 15 3.1 Open Source and the mortgage payment  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152320  PAGEREF _Toc472152320 15 3.2 License types  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152321  PAGEREF _Toc472152321 16 3.3 The Impact of Open Source on Society  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152322  PAGEREF _Toc472152322 17 4 Shared Topics in L3D and Open Source  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152323  PAGEREF _Toc472152323 18 5 Additional Work  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152324  PAGEREF _Toc472152324 20 6 Summation  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152325  PAGEREF _Toc472152325 20 Appendix - Open Source Questionnaire  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152326  PAGEREF _Toc472152326 22 References  GOTOBUTTON _Toc472152327  PAGEREF _Toc472152327 24  0.1 The Issue of Nomenclature In doing this study I had the opportunity to exchange email with Richard Stallman, the head of the GNU project, and arguably the 'godfather' of the movement that has come to be known as Open Source. In his correspondence with me he requested that I clarify certain commonly held conceptions about Open Source, the Linux project and his Free Software Movement. What follows is portions of our correspondence [Stallman 99] regarding his position. Many people think that I, the GNU Project, and the "Linux" operating system are part of the Open Source Movement. This is a misunderstanding. The GNU Project is part of the Free Software Movement. Since the "Linux" operating system is really a version of the GNU operating system, it too should be attributed primarily to the Free Software Movement, not the Open Source Movement. The Free Software Movement was started 15 years ago with an idealistic goal: to give computer users the freedom to participate in a community and cooperate. We believe that software users should be free; to have freedom, we need to use free software, not proprietary software. This goal was the reason for developing the GNU operating system. The Open Source Movement (founded 1998) aims primarily for support from business. It does this by mentioning only practical advantages, while studiously avoiding discussion of deeper issues. The Free Software Movement says that freedom and cooperation are important advantages in themselves. We raise the deeper issues that the Open Source spokespeople shun. We and they can work together on practical projects, but we don't want to be thought of as sharing their views. 1 Introduction 1.1 What is Open Source and what are Intellectual Property Rights? This study is about the Open Source Movement and the larger context of intellectual property rights. The Open Source Movement consists of loosely organized groups of people pursuing a goal of developing and distributing software projects whose primary common characteristic is that the source code for these projects, is freely distributed along with the executables and documentation of the projects. The Open Source Movement is, as we use the term, composed of many groups and individuals as well as the ephioniously named Open Source.org. Here is most of the Open Source.org's definition [OS.org 99 ]: Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution 2. Source Code in distribution 3. Derived Works -The license must allow modifications and derived works 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code. - i.e.. the code of one author must not be attributed to another nor can changes be allowed without a new attribution 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product. The Open Source approach is a new way of looking and implementing the intellectual property rights of producers of computer code. Beyond being free, in the economic sense, Open Source aims at becoming free in a political and philosophical sense, as we will see. These issues of value and freedom are intimately tied with ownership which leads to the notion of the intellectual property rights and laws concerning both the creators of the code and the code itself. Intellectual property rights constitute the formal boundary between ideas and enterprise. In the original Open Source endeavor, science [DiBona 99], there are implicit rules about ownership of concepts and areas of study. These unwritten rules create the structure that allows individual researchers to work knowing that they are not duplicating others' work and that their efforts will not be attributed to others. The World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO 99] defines it as: Intellectual property comprises two main branches: industrial property, chiefly in inventions, trademarks, industrial designs, and appellations of origin; and copyright, chiefly in literary, musical, artistic, photographic and audiovisual works. Some copyright laws provide that computer programs are to be protected as literary works. One of the big issues being worked upon in the development of the Open Source concept is this notion of intellectual property: how the source code is free and how the context it is in is also free. Some of the groups see this as an absolute, that all software should be free, some take a more moderated position. 1.2 Why study Open Source? How does it relate to what the L3D group is doing? 1.2.1 L3D an Overview The Center for Lifelong Learning and Design (L3D) is part of the Department of Computer Science and the Institute of Cognitive Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder[ L3D 99a]. The mission of the center is to establish, both by theoretical work and by building prototype systems, the scientific foundations for the construction of intelligent systems that serve as amplifiers of human capabilities (e.g., to expand human memory, augment human reasoning, and facilitate human communication). A prerequisite for intelligent systems is understanding the information processing possibilities and limitations of the human and the computer. The center aims to apply basic, qualitative theories of human thinking to guide the design of innovative systems. Such systems should not only be significant as technical achievements in computer science, but also because they are based upon principled analyses of how one can best help people to cope with complex information systems. It is not sufficient to know how to build these systems; L3D's goal is to discover which systems are worth building [ L3D 99b]. 1.2.2 L3D to Open Source The L3D group has a number of slogans and conceptual tools that relate directly to the Open Source Movement: concepts such as long term indirect collaboration and communities of practice and methods like the Seed, Evolve and Reseed model [L3D 99]. More importantly L3D can offer the Open Source Movement forum for discussion about the extension of Open Source tool creation into domains that are less technically specialized. Extending the notion of active participation in the process of software creation, with the perspectives of L3D and the tools it has created, will allow an Open Source like process to be available to citizens at every level of technological sophistication. 1.2.3 Open Source to L3D Examining Open Source projects and analyzing how they have succeeded will provide the L3D group with better models to base projects on. These real world examples will allow us to focus our creative energies more effectively. By discovering what already works in the real world our tool design and user interface will be realistically improved. An example of how this may occur might be emulating the motivation factor of strict attribution [Raymond 98] in the Open Source process. L3D projects could more clearly label artifacts with their creators identity, thus both investing ownership in the process, and inspiring others to participate. 2 The Open Source Movement 2.1 Background 2.1.1 Historical background In this presentation of Open Source I will start with the historical background of the movement. This history embodies the culture that Open Source sprang from, both a real and a mythical lineage. Open Source is more a cultural phenomenon than an intellectual movement. Open Source sprang from the world of the classical 'hackers', before the 1980's in university and laboratory environments where computational resources were very scarce and the sense of community of practice was very strong [Raymond 99]. In these surroundings, there was a fraternal feeling and willingness to share and create a separate, elite, culture. From this background several generations of hacker and hacker-like students and eventually working engineers arose. Out of this context the GNU project incubated. GNU, founded and directed by Richard Stallman out of MIT, was driven by a philosophy that software ought to be free [Stallman(a) 99]. Free in both the sense of liberty and in the sense of no cost, but especially in the sense of liberty. The goal was an operating system (HURD) that was UNIX-like but whose code was not owned by anyone. A version of EMACS, GCC (a multiplatform compiler) and many other tools came from the Free Software Foundation, the formal name of the GNU project. GNU itself is an acronym for GNU is Not Unix. Equally important as the software were two things: 1) Most hackers used the tools 2) The GNU license, otherwise known as copyleft There were other free source projects during this time (the mid 1980s) such as sendmail, bind, and fetch. And out of these came other seminal figures for this movement, such as Eric Raymond. Finally we come to the Linux project and Mozilla (netscape's Open Source web browser). From these seminal figures came the core documents of the movement. Eric Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar [Raymond 99] discussed the movement and the principles that had evolved within it. Similarly his Homesteading the Noosphere [Raymond 98] discussed the motivations for the participants in the movement, and The Magic Caldron, the economics of Open Source. The many writings of Richard Stallman provided a strident political framework for the free software movement, especially his GNU license and the various copyleft communities. 2.1.2 The Context of the Environment For the Open Source Movement to really take off there was a physical substrate that had to be in place. What triggered it was three fold: - The Arpanet (which turned into the Internet): this cheap to the user, high bandwidth connection, originally connected research faculties and eventually extended to nearly any modem or network connection. This allowed the dissemination of the projects, and more importantly the control of the dissemination of the projects. The ubiquitous internet and the tools of FTP, email and mail lists, facilitated both creation and distribution of Open Source projects [DiBona 99]. - The spread of UNIX as the mid-level operating system of choice, as the standard for academic teaching of operating systems, and the stability of this mature operating systems design. Linux was written to have all the facilities and commands of UNIX without any proprietary code. However the point is not just about the Linux project as an implementation of UNIX, but that most Open Source projects were designed to be run in UNIX environments, and ported to other operating systems afterwards. - The ubiquity of inexpensive microprocessors with non-trivial compu-tational power. The powerful combination of Moores law and the economies of scale that the millions of 'wintel' machines (Intel processor with Microsoft's windowing 'operating system' installed) being sold drove the price of machines down low enough where anyone could afford a computer to run and develop this software. Had any one of these structural parts been missing, the explosive growth of the Open Source idea would never have happened. 2.2 Open Source Principals We have described in some detail the history of the free software or Open Source Movement up to now, but it is useful to put all the Players on one stage. The community of hackers form the human context for Open Source. Several people stand out. Of course there is Richard Stallman, who lead the GNU group to produce significant and widely used software. Both his software contributions and his writings are foundations for the movement. A significant thinker and producer of Open Source software is Eric Raymond. Mr. Raymond wrote The Cathedral and The Bazaar, which lead to his part in Netscape's Mozilla project, and could be said to be the theorist of the Open Source Movement. Linus Torvalds (http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/linus/) started and coordinated the Linux project. Tim OReily has, through publishing, writing, and speaking been a significant player in the Open Source revolution. He has hired several of the key participants in the movement and provided encouragement by sponsoring many conferences on aspects of the movement. Also worth mentioning are the individuals who lead open projects: Larry Wall for perl and the founders of apache, python, and others. Finally we have that actual participants, the programmers that constitute the actual guts of the Open Source Movement. This community of practice, comprised of production programmers in their spare time, academics, and hobbyists, does the bulk of the work that we call Open Source. 2.3 Open Source Examples Open Source projects range from entire operating systems to tools to build applications and operating systems to utilities. They are driven and directed by lone visionaries and committees, but all have some common elements. The GNU project [GNU 99], under the leadership of Richard Stallman, has since 1984 produced software under the GNU license such as: emacs, GCC, gzip, gun tar, gdb and many other tools that permeate the Computer Science world. Sendmail, the mail transport agent that handles most of the email in academia and possibly the world is Open Source. It was developed originally by Eric Allman as free software and later brought into a hybrid business model - the basic product is open and the extended product is proprietary. The Linux project, lead by Linus Torvalds, is the killer app for the open software movement. The Linux operating system is the project that most people think of when Open Source is mentioned. Apache is a Open Source server that was created by a group of webmasters to create a robust & extendible replacement for the popular NCSA httpd. It is coordinated by the Apache foundation [Apache 99]. Netscape, whose web browser was an attempt to kill Mosaic (the original Open Source web browser), released the source code of its browser to Open Source as Mozilla . Part of the motivation for this is an attempt to block Microsoft Internet Explorer from seizing the whole browser market. ProjectStructure/LeaderPlatformType of SoftwareGNUR. Stallman/GNUUNIXSuite of toolsSendmailEric AllmanUNIXMail transportLinuxLinus Torvalds / Linux OrgLinuxOperating systemApacheApache ConsortiumVarious (primarily UNIX )WWW serverMozillaMozilla OrgVariousWeb BrowserFigure 1 - Examples of Open Source Projects 2.4 Structure & models With the perspective gained from the above material, I will discuss models that have been drawn from observing and participating in Open Source projects. First I will present the abstract, high level concepts that form the background of Open Source and in fact the new electronic frontier in toto. From that basis we will look at models of actual practice: the details of an Open Source project. 2.4.1 Models Of Abstract Basis 2.4.1.1 Bits & Atoms A basic difference between commerce before the digital era and today is that if I give you a physical thing then you have it and I don't, whereas if I give you software or digital data, then we both have it [Cox 96]. Because software has no physical bounding, and since the transport of such copies is nearly instantaneous (so your code is exactly like my code) there is no physical model of scarcity for digital economics to emulate. This has lead to all sorts of points of view from justifying software piracy to tape duplication to the Open Source Movement. Whatever point of view we take we need to remember this fundamental difference, and the implications it raises. Brad Cox, in his book Superdistribution [Cox 96] comments on this: "Within the last generation, mankind has experienced a new form of goods that is immune to the conservation laws that have supported commerce since antiquity. Electronic property is made of bits. These don't abide by the physical laws that apply to goods made of atoms. Bits can be replicated in nanoseconds and transported at literally the speed of light. Although this is largely responsible for the growing importance of such goods, it also leads to a breakdown of the understandings that supported collaborative enterprise in the past." Similarly from Nicholas Negroponte [Negroponte 95] of the MIT media Lab, in his book Being Digital: The DNA of Information: Bits and Atoms The best way to appreciate the merits and consequences of being digital is to reflect on the difference between bits and atoms. While we are undoubtedly in an information age, most information is delivered to us in the form of atoms: newspapers, magazines, and books (like this one.) Our economy may be moving toward an information economy, but we measure trade and we write our balance sheets with atoms in mind. One of the great challenges to our society in the 21st century will be to sanely incorporate this difference into our culture and laws. The process of creating an Open Source Movement has highlighted many of the issues that this difference touches. 2.4.1.2 Maturity of Components Another key part of the picture is the existence of mature components acting as a theoretical basis and as the tools to make the software itself. The components range from the C language to the standard algorithms, data structures and operating system concepts of contemporary Computer Science. These elements are mature in the sense that their use has been spread far and widely enough to become a lingua franca for software design. It is important to note that none of the Open Source products represent a significant breakthrough in technology, that they are all built upon proven designs, from Linux to Sendmail. They are examples of categories of existing software done correctly (in a formal computer science engineering sense) and extensibly. Since the theoretical basis has already been proven in other applications, projects were mostly implementation. In fact the Linux design used a monolithic kernel design which was much older than the current micro-kernel design for operating systems . Also, most Open Source projects were designed to run on Unix or Linux platforms, and were based on using standards like network protocols and mail protocols. Interestingly, many Open Source programs have been written using Open Source compiler, revision control, and other tools, on a Linux platform - Open Source projects built upon Open Source foundations. 2.4.1.3 The Community Of Open Source Computer Professionals The unique position of software professionals in today's society is key to the production of Open Source software. Not unlike guilds in the middle ages, coders and software designers came out of a closely bound environment. There is an affinity that has been enculturated by academia and the workplace, a special language and aesthetic sensibility that members of that culture possess. The arcane skills and the immense leverage that possession of these skills give created a particularly strong sense of community. Think of 'religious wars', think of the special and exclusive connectivity that they possessed, especially during the time between the establishment of the internet and the arrival of the flood of users that commercial access companies like AOL unleashed. Combine this with relatively high levels of compensation and odd working hours, and the result provided the time, resources, and inclination to spend in coding these projects. 'Hacker culture' highly esteems competency and self reliance [Raymond 98], the attitude of creating your own tools. These computer professionals are known for of personalizing their local computer environment (i.e. their editor, their screen appearance, etc.: every way that their computer interacts with them) to appeal to a sense of craftsmanship. Hackers are defined by their ability to accomplish nearly anything one might imagine, given the time and resources. If it doesn't work or appear just the way you want it, change it. This attitude is exacerbated by the tremendous flexibility of the Unix environment and tools that most hackers originally honed their skills upon. 2.4.1.4 Changing motivations Central to any Open Source project are the people who actually do the coding. Conventionally speaking, work is performed in exchange for payment, all else is hobby or avocation. Of course there are other factors in employment, but without financial compensation, the others are conventionally considered insufficient. Here, however, is a case where this does not apply - why? The powerful and revolutionary principle we are seeing is the other compensatory mechanisms that can inspire real work. We can call these mechanisms the formation of social capital, in contrast with economic capital. Eric Raymond [Raymond 99] has pointed out several possible rationales: 1) The sense of 'owning' part of the new electronic frontier is a powerful motivation for hackers to write code. Ownership in this context means attribution of work to a specific author, a cultural notion, rather than a economic and legal sense of ownership. A member of the L3D group, Eric Scharff, owns part of Linux documentation and part of the kernel. Creating the code is analogous to homesteading to gain possession, in this case possession of a portion of the noosphere, the land of knowledge, in contrast to, say, Kansas. This sort of ownership is intrinsically desirable by the creator of the code. 2) Hacker culture has become a gift culture, in contrast to a culture where status is economically based which we will call an exchange culture. Because the economics of scarcity are less and less applicable to hackers in a fundamental way, hackers are less driven by strict economic considerations. In gift cultures (as in the northwest Amerindians) status is gained by the amount of real personal wealth given away. The image here is of an Open Source project as a cyber-potlatch. He who has contributed most (or most profoundly) is accorded the most status and appreciation by the community. 3) A real source of inspiration to do the coding is the sheer joy of creating a well-crafted piece of code. The mark of well crafted code is the use of it by others, and a very good way to have others use and appreciate it is through the Open Source process. The drive to produce powerful and elegant objects is a strong motivator for all levels of society, from carpenters to sculptors. 4) Tying all these together is the emotional payoff of obtaining a reputation as an alpha coder. Ones reputation as a first class coder pays off emotionally in the form of status, as well as financially in the form of enhanced fees for consulting and employment. One of the most interesting aspects of this study is the possibility of this paradigm change from economic, scarcity based payoffs to cultural, human oriented payoffs, spreading from the hacker culture into the general norm. 2.4.2 Models of actual practice In this section I will present some conclusions drawn from actual practice in Open Source projects and a synthesis of different models of what minimally is required for a successful Open Source project. At this point it might be useful to define what constitutes success in the realm of Open Source. First an Open Source project must be used. It doesnt matter how well constructed a piece of software is, if it is not used and used widely (there is some latitude here) it cannot be a success. Next it must be free (in the narrow sense of GNU or the wider sense of Open Source .org); to be free in this way it must have a workable licensing scheme attached to it. Finally, and most importantly, it must have been created in an Open Source mode [DiBona 99]. 2.4.2.1 Raymond's lists of lessons Eric Raymond in his essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" [Raymond 99] documented the process and qualities of Open Source projects. Here are several of the 'lessons' he extracted from his experience and study. The important point here is that this is not a result of research about an idea that he had, but rather is an anthropological study of an existing and successful process. His 'lesson' is in bold, my commentary in italics. Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch. - Think of why successful Open Source software are successful and contrast that with 'feature bloat' and 'churn 'n' burn' revision release marketing that is common amongst commercial application developers and especially in a certain Redmond, Washington company's products. Treating your users as co-developers is your least-hassle route to rapid code improvement and effective debugging. This is the source for both: linuxs drawing on a world-wide pool of expertise and the ability to do the following two aphorisms: Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers. Its an L3D maxim that computational tools should be end-user modifiable. By frequently releasing the code Linus Thorvalds was treating his users as co-developers in a very effective way. Frequent releases also produced the equivalent of advertising in the closed source world. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Debugging is parallelizable. This directly contradicts Fred Brooks famous saying that adding more programmers to a behind schedule project makes the project further behind schedule. The point here is that this is a VERY flat hierarchy and that combined with frequent releases and a high degree of modularity in project design makes for a qualitatively different game. Provided the development coordinator has a medium at least as good as the Internet, and knows how to lead without coercion, many heads are inevitably better than one. There are several points here: 1) The project depends on the charisma of the developer, 2) The need for a infrastructure that permits the frequent releases and rapid communication that is not tied to any one location. In my research these same points were echoed in various studies and websites [Carmien 99]. What we are seeing here is a systematization of a set of emergent behaviors. 2.4.2.2 Parts of a successful Open Source project This list was generated from my readings, especially Eric Raymonds writings. Not all Open Source projects have all these elements but in general they describe the attributes of an Open Source effort. Beyond the infrastructure I have discussed earlier (an operating internet, inexpensive machines to develop the software on, and willing and interested developers to work on and the project) an Open Source project requires: 1. A great idea that has been developed enough to demonstrate the doability of the idea. Generally, the functionality of this idea has to be already well accepted (i.e. a UNIX like operating system, a C compiler, a email modular component) and the proposed design is usually not novel or groundbreaking. 2. A licensing scheme that will enforce Open Source status. 3. A project coordinator (or coordinator group) who has a clear vision of what the project will be i.e. linux, perl, gcc. The coordinator or coordination team must have the people skills to work with many developers without a conventional carrot or stick. Well, not entirely, the coordinator has final approval on the acceptance of a developers code in to the official project. This ability for approval gives the coordinator the ability to steer the project and direct the changing code set. Typically successful coordinators are humble self-effacing sorts (or at least appear to be so) [Raymond 99] 4. A release early and often policy [Raymond 99]. By frequently releasing versions of code fixes are rapidly propagated and interest in the project is kept high. The Linux project added the notion that some releases are labeled stable and others beta test level. 5. There must be a close and immediate relation between the code guardian(s) and the developers / beta testers. This close relationship allows for rapid bug detection and fixes, and for a sense of community. A lack of this could result in forking behavior or at least poorly debugged code. The coordinator must protect against forking of the project. Forking is the splitting of the project into two or more different sets of code with the same aim as the original project. Forking waters down development efforts by reducing the number of developers working on any one project. The ability to control the 'official' set of source code as well as having a clear vision for the direction of the project helps prevent this. Because of the nature of the participants motivation , their 'ownership' of their part of the code, participants are loathe to fork the project because in order to maintain the code as 'theirs' they must now be involved in two separate projects. Additionally, because the projects are implementations of existing functionality based on stable design principles (data structures, protocols, algorithms etc.), forking is seen as less necessary. 3 Real world implementation of Open Source There are two principal issues at the boundary of Open Source and the 'real' word. (i.e. outside labs or academia). The first and most obvious is the question of how does anyone support him or herself with this great idea if the product itself is free? We operate in an economic context that requires money. The second issue is how to insure that the software is free and how to let others know that the project that produced this software was Open Source. Further there is a need to protect the Open Source code from being hijacked into the old commercial model of software. 3.1 Open Source and the mortgage payment The issue of finances is core to the continuation of Open Source as a long term viable alternative and not just a hobby for young hackers. The ability for Open Source practitioners to consistently obtain long term remuneration for their work, however obliquely, will be the ultimate test of the movement. That it is part of the business world is no longer a question, especially with the migration of Linux into many mission critical areas, including Wall Street financial firms. I counted the software section of the most recent Sys Admin buyers issue and 8.7% of 540 ads were for Open Source related products or services [SysAdm 99]. Currently there are 5 indirect ways Open Source groups & individuals fund themselves and one very indirect way. 1. The first and most well known is to repackage, perhaps with value added functionality, a Open Source product. This is essentially selling a brand. Examples of this are Redhat, SUSE, Caldera. 2. Next are the various groups and individuals that sell support and training for specific Open Source projects. These range from the writers of Linux and sendmail to departments of IBM and HP. 3. Associated with these groups are the Open Source consultants - they may give talks & lead programs on the movement like Eric Raymond, or serve as consultants for specific installations of open software products, like Sendmail Pro. 4. Also associated with the above approaches are companies that have a hybrid approach like Sendmail Pro whose current release is proprietary and who's previous release is Open Source. Similarly Mozilla, a Open Source web browser, is sponsored by Netscape, who sells a non-Open Source code Web server engine. Other companies will take an Open Source project and adapt it to specific uses, however this interacts with the license situation, and creates proprietory product.. 5. Last in the simply indirect set of ways is the portal clearing house method. Some Open Source groups provide space for Open Source connections, or provide the connections themselves, either as a way of paying back to the Open Source community or as a way of raising money through portal advertising. Examples of this approach are Gamelon, fresh meat and Open Resources.org. 6. Additionally, there are the indirect methods of funding that are not dependent on the Open Sourceness of the code, but rather the content of the product. The funding may come from a grant issuing organization, private or governmental, and the goal is often a implementation of the Open Source concept towards a non-Open Source goal, often of an educational or theoretical nature. This approach is the most artificial and least productive of viable models for our Open Source study as the results are not necessarily directly tied to the usability of the product, however it may become so when it splits off of the parent organization and enters the Darwinian workplace as Agentsheets has done. Agentshests is an agent-based spreadsheet environment for creating SimCityTM-like interactive simulations, domain-oriented visual programming languages and more, developed as an L3D research project and spun off as a business [Agentsheets 99]. Other examples of this approach include Educational Software Components of Tomorrow (http://www.escot.org/escot /home.html) and the Educational Object Economy (http://www.eoe.org/), research projects aimed at group process and the creation of educational software tools. 3.2 License types Licensing is the tool by which Open Source stays Open Source, it is also the way that developers of commercial software legally enforce their rights. A license defines the rights that the user of the software has, and the rights that the creator of the software. In the case of the copyleft license it also defines the obligation the software and any derived works to stay Open Source. When we buy software we buy a license to use that software, when we acquire Open Source type software we are bound by whatever license is attached to that software. There are several main software license types. They roughly span an axis from most freeing (ironically in practice most constrictive, i.e. copyleft) to hybrid licenses for work in a mixed proprietary / Open Source environment. At the most ideologically pure end of this axis is the GNU general public license, also known as copyleft [Stallman(a) 99]. Copyleft is designed to keep the code completely unencumbered with the notion of exclusive ownership and to infect any derived code with the same properties. Basically it says that software licensed under the GNU license must be accompanied by the source code and that anyone has the right to use and modify this source code as long as the resultant code is covered by the same license. The desired result is an ever widening pool of free software. Other licensing schemes range from a simple statement that the code may be copied - but dont sue us, to the infamous BSD license that obligates the branding of the code as derived from UCB, to complicated systems allowing a mixture of proprietary code and free code that does not force the freeing up of the proprietary code, as GNU GPL (General Public License, i.e. copyleft) would. Linux is released under GNU GPL. Various other schemes have been developed by Sun, IBM, Netscape (the Mozilla license) to cover their hybrid business style. Licensing is an issue that has spawned religious war like conflicts, and will be an ongoing border between commercial and Open Source cultural values. 3.3 The Impact of Open Source on Society There are two main interrelated threads that both motivate Open Source participants and result from the Open Source movement. On one hand there is the ongoing tradition of writing tools that scratch your own itch and sharing that code with others in your community of practice. This was sparked and extended by the rich environment of academic and hacker contributions to the corpus of free software. On the other hand there is a, seemingly reactionary, response to the increasing encroachment of proprietary products and practices. OK, lets say it - Microsoft. The result of publicizing the creation of tools by users is the larger body of users moving away from seeing themselves as passive consumers and towards active participation in their world. Seeing complex systems as being amenable to change and redesign by ordinary people, and not huge faceless corporations, moves every member of society closer to being participants rather than consumers. Not unlike the punk revolt against corporate rock in the late 70's and the indie film making phenomenon currently occurring, whenever a DIY (do it yourself) movement occurs, all members of society benefit. The second part of where Open Source touches society in a larger way, is a reaction to being frustrated by poorly written operating systems and interfaces, and in a larger sense the monolithic and poorly implemented new technologies (for example cel phone coverage, automated PBX front ends, help desks, bank service). The discovery that there are alternatives, even if not actually used, creates an richer environment where alternatives can exist. By seeing that Linux, written by just regular people (albeit very smart and highly trained regular people) in contrast to a huge monolithic corporation, is a viable alternative to either very expensive UNIX systems or reasonably priced but shoddily implemented winNT systems, we return the ownership of computers to the users of these systems. From the regaining of ownership of a significant tool in a users life, comes a reduction of a sence of alienation from that tool, and that part of the users life. 4 Shared Topics in L3D and Open Source Of the conceptual areas where the two communities overlap most obvious is the SER model. [L3D 99]. Seed, Evolve and Reseed are echoed in the Open Source definition requiring a semi-finished project as a starting point, and the motto Release early, Release often This iterative process spans the whole Open Source Movement, less clearly in the GNU projects, more so in the more recent Linux project. The SER model of a seed, rather then a complete project or a bare concept, as a starting point, is an abstraction of the real starting point of Open Source projects. Some of the other themes where there is overlap include [L3D 99]: Integration of learning and work - the Open Source model blurs the distinction between learning and work in an interesting way: the unpaid (at least directly) nature of participating makes the work all learning. Communities of practice - The existence of the internet creates an information environment for collaboration rather than one simply for information dissemination. Design as an evolutionary process - The ongoing issue of updates and improvements to Linux, Sendmail, and others demonstrates this principle. End-user modification and programmability - not withstanding the limited membership of the movement, the Open Source is, when successful, based on the notion of making your own tools, scratching your own itch Beyond the shared themes there are areas that could be researched in the Open Source Movement that L3D would benefit from. Obviously the success of collaborative work practices is the success of the Open Source Movement. What we can learn from Open Source is that here is an example of emergent behavior that succeeds in one of the most intense of socially Darwinian environments. By succeeding in an economic context that it is orthogonal to, Open Source points out ways to motivate cooperative endeavor that are human-centered and perhaps more basic than marketplace motivators. Another interesting area to explore is the connection between the Open Source process and the issue of who is beneficiary of work, and who does the actual work [Fischer 99]. Because there is a delinkage in a direct way between work and economic issues, the source of alienation inherent in the dichotomy of benefit and doing the work is to a large degree eliminated - the benefit is doing the work. This is directly tied to the topic of new forms of motivation. By binding directly the beneficiary and the producer of the work, as the benefit is not directly financial, we open up realistic possibilities of cooperation. An interesting illumination on this topic is a paper by Herbert Simon [Simon 90] that proposes a mechanism that accounts for a measurable benefit of altruistic behavior. He posits that altruism is positively selected in the human species because it provides a real increase in the genetic 'fitness' of such behavior. This leads to the topic of learning as new form of labor and the notion of lifelong learning in general. For the Open Source participant the line between work and learning and play becomes thin. On the other hand there are L3D themes that are not directly addressed in the Open Source Movement which seem to have great possibility if amplified in an Open Source way. Because Open Source software is largely produced and used by a narrowly self defined technological elite (Computer Science professionals), the power of the symmetry of ignorance [L3D 99] is not harnessed. The notion here is that in cooperative endeavors, where there are stakeholders from different and disjoint domains of expertise; there is a net gain amongst these groups in the process of collaborative design. At worst this symmetry results in user interfaces designed by programmers, and forcing the use of specific and inappropriate data structures by end users. However the opposite can be true: that each group builds on the expertise of the other. The difference is in the acknowledgment of this as an issue in structuring the collaborative process. How can Open Source express the synergetic energy that expertise in distinct and separate domains interacting creates? Certainly this is a topic ripe for exploration. Similarly, studying examples of Open Source like behavior in collaborative learning environments like the Expert Exchange (http://www.experts-exchange.com/) may give useful models to build upon. Other topics that are touched by both Open Source and L3D are the techniques to allow distributed cognition, and distributed design [Fischer 99]. Clearly the development of Linux was a great example of how to do this using minimal resources with maximal human payoff. Another area that is to be explored is the further development of computational tools to facilitate this process. It is interesting to note that the primary tools used were relatively fundamental: email, newsgroups, mail-lists, FTP, TCP/IP and the internet itself. The addition of the world wide web, I would argue has not significantly added to the process. Are there approaches and tools we can design to assist cooperative design and work that are as powerful and extendible as the idea of e-mail? By looking at the specific qualities of the tools that were used, perhaps we can come up with substantive improvements. 5 Additional Work For this independent study I have created a series of references in Sources (http://Seed.cs.colorado.edu/dynababyl.SourcesQueryEnv.fcgi) also accessible through the L3D site (http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~l3d/) . The IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) collection in sources, of which my entries comprise the majority, are intended to be a seed for discussion of these issues. This presentation will also be a reference in sources. These references are also listed in a website at indra.com/~carmien/ipr.htm and this site is a entry in the Sources listings. This paper will be expanded as a paper, also to be posted in sources. Additionally there is a questionnaire sent to twenty three of the major participants in the Open Source Movement and the responses will be published in a format yet to be determined (see appendix). 6 Summation This paper has been a first pass at closely looking at the Open Source Movement. By drawing together the insights and observations of participants and the various commentaries on the movement I have tried to present some background and a few intellectual tools to evaluate and extend this interesting and provocative movement. Further, I have sketched out opportunities for further research, in areas ranging from analyzing the specifics of the process and extending the process to other areas of collaborative design. Appendix - Open Source Questionnaire University of Colorado at Boulder Stefan Carmien and Gerhard Fischer Center for LifeLong Learning & Design (L3D) and Department of Computer Science Campus Box 430 Boulder, Colorado 80309-0430 (303) 492-1502 fax: (303) 492-2844 email: gerhard@cs.colorado.edu or carmien@cs.colorado.edu December 2, 1999 Dear Mike Balma: The College of Engineering, the Department of Computer Science, and the Center for Lifelong Learning & Design (L3D) at the University of Colorado at Boulder are engaged in a research project (and the planning of a possible conference) entitled "Discovery Learning: an Open Source Initiative Creating New Learning Communities and New Learning Opportunities". We are in the process of constructing a user-extensible library of important articles and ideas about this project. An important part of our project is to ask you, as a recognized expert in this field, a few questions. We would be very grateful if you would take a few minutes and answer the questions articulated in the questionnaire below. Your answers to this questionnaire will allow us to gain insight into the Open sources movement and assist us in systematizing a model of the process of Open Source development. We appreciate any time you will take in answering some or all of these questions. You may find it more useful and complete to point to a paper or presentation you have made that is available on the web for some of these topics. 1. Do you have a model of Open Source? 2. Could you articulate your view of the cause for the spread of Open Source? 3. What do you think of the probability for the continued expansion of Open Source? 4. Do you see Open Source as 4.1. a special case, an artifact of a special time and a specific set of conditions or 4.2. a new paradigm (in both the sociological and legal domains)? 5. Open Source projects 5.1. which Open Source projects have failed and why? 5.2. which Open Source projects have succeeded and why? 6. How can and will the Open Source movement influence the structure of university/corporate partnerships? 7. What insights do you have about the nature of participants motivation in the Open Source process. 8. How do you see Open Source development interfacing with the real, long term need for financial remuneration? 9. Do you see an Open Source style extending towards common users or is Open Source only applicable to high-level projects. Thank you very much in advance for your help and assistance in this project. If you wish, we will send you a copy of the results of our work. P.S.: FYI an initial collection of URLs relevant to this topic can be found at: http://www.indra.com/~carmien/ipr.htm Stefan Carmien and Gerhard Fischer Department of Computer Science University of Colorado at Boulder References Note: most of the references can be found at http://indra.com/~carmien/ipr.htm [Agentsheets 99] The Center for Lifelong Learning and Design (L3D). project page, http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~l3d/research/projects.html, 1999. [Apache 99] The Apache Software Foundation , http://www.apache.org/, 1999. [Carmien 99] Stefan Carmien, Intellectual Property Rights, collaboration and learning: Articles and References, http://indra.net/~carmien/ipr.htm, 1999 [Cox 96] Brad Cox. SuperDistribution, Objects as property on the Electronic frontier, Addison Wesley, 1996. [DiBona 99] Chris Dibona, Sam Ockman, Mark Stone. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Software Revolution, 1999. [Fischer 99] Gerhard Ficher, Lecture notes, "Design, Learning and Collaboration", http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~l3d/courses/csci7212-99/Syllabus.html, 1999. [GNU 99] The GNU project. http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/home.html, 1999 [L3D 99] Domain-Oriented Design Environments: A New Understanding of Design and its Support with Computational Artifacts Glossary of Terms. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~l3d/jargon.html, 1999 [L3D 99a] The Center for Lifelong Learning and Design (L3D). http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~l3d, 1999 [L3D 99b] The Center for Lifelong Learning and Design (L3D), Introduction to L3D http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~l3d/introduction.html, 1999 [Negroponte 95] Nicolas Negroponte. Being Digital, Vintage Books 1995 [OS.org 99] Open Source Foundtion. http://www.opensource.org/, 1999 [Raymond 98] Eric Raymond. Homesteading the Noosphere, April 1998. [Raymond 99] Eric Raymond. The Cathedral and the Bazaar, August 1999 [Simon 90] Herbert A. Simon, A Mechanism for Social Selection and Successful Altruism, Science, Vol 250 December 1990. [Stallman 99] Richard M Stallman. Personal correspondence 1999 [Stallman(a) 99] Richard M Stallman. Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF), http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/philosophy/pragmatic.html, 1999 [SysAdm 99] Sys Admin, The journal for UNIX Systems Administrators November 1999 [WIPO 99] World Intellectual Property Organization. http://www.wipo.org/eng/index.htm , 1999. PAGE 4 /=#$%)<=vwy{BCQRpq6 7 R S j k l n  ) * A B C E M N ` a | }   " # : ah uDaa uDcc c$ccHc4VVcX: ; < > N O j k     6 7 8 : V W r s   , - . 0 P Q l m *+-/lm9:QRTa uDabTVz{KLgh./13^_z{  ()@ACERSno*+-/01 uDcaha uDa]17TUe!"o#i$l$$$%%A%B%%%")#)_)`)g)h)p)q)))*!*&*=*S*j*s*t***++D,E,~,,,,,../.46P6667078888>>@@JHJ3M4M0PQRRTUV,W9WZe[ekkpp^qqqr^VcUccUV^UV]chVcc VcXrr3ssssstuZuvvTwUw1xxxIJps25ruwyPQRڤۤTWabӦզ|}_v(ɪʪK(*t:;g|hi$(V^cVchUccVhUVVU[./ ijuPaP uDP]hUc$%&'()=wxyz{|}~*-.@A)ABo F ? ; 1 0W 4F023457U*$%.M6de7 !!"r#$$$$%%h)i)).,G,.p0'.......//*02x4445%6Q7888)8*88:< > >>>>>]@CC]D^D_DyDzDZEJJTLx(JJJ.J7JHJIJMJ]JbJqJrJ{JJJJJJJJJJJJKKKK(K0K?K./p,/i@de'(ijp3 pp p p p&\jklh`pp pp K@Normala c$@$ Heading 1c $@$ Heading 2c@ Heading 3U$@$ Heading 4 <U"@" Heading 6 p3"@" Heading 7 p3"A@"Default Paragraph Font,@,TOC 1xx! U[c&@&TOC 2 ! Zc&@&TOC 3 ! Vc$@$TOC 4 ! c$@$TOC 5 ! c$@$TOC 6 ! c$@$TOC 7 ! c$@$TOC 8 ! c$@$TOC 9 ! c @ Footer !)@ Page NumberB@ Body Text3O Hyperlink^bc : T1rjklmnoA.J3MsR:/pqrstuvwxyz{BQp6Rjlm )ACD`|":<=Nj  6 8 9 V r  , . / P l  * - . l  9 Q T U z     K g  .12^z (@CDRn*-.0 2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@2%@ !` _Toc469565279 _Toc469588141 _Toc469565280 _Toc469588142 _Toc469565281 _Toc469588143 _Toc469565282 _Toc469588144 _Toc469590105 _Toc469590273 _Toc469671909 _Toc469834995 _Toc469835075 _Toc469835115 _Toc469835573 _Toc469842545 _Toc469844445 _Toc471884291 _Toc472053648 _Toc472152297 _Toc469565283 _Toc469588145 _Toc469590106 _Toc469590274 _Toc469671910 _Toc469834996 _Toc469835076 _Toc469835116 _Toc469835574 _Toc469842546 _Toc469844446 _Toc471884292 _Toc472053649 _Toc472152298 _Toc469590107 _Toc469590275 _Toc469671911 _Toc469834997 _Toc469835077 _Toc469835117 _Toc469835575 _Toc469842547 _Toc469844447 _Toc471884293 _Toc472053650 _Toc472152299 _Toc469565285 _Toc469588147 _Toc469590108 _Toc469590276 _Toc469671912 _Toc469834998 _Toc469835078 _Toc469835118 _Toc469835576 _Toc469842548 _Toc469844448 _Toc471884294 _Toc472053651 _Toc472152300 _Toc471884295 _Toc472053652 _Toc472152301 _Toc469565286 _Toc469588148 _Toc469590109 _Toc469590277 _Toc469671913 _Toc469834999 _Toc469835079 _Toc469835119 _Toc469835577 _Toc469842549 _Toc469844449 _Toc471884296 _Toc472053653 _Toc472152302 _Toc469565287 _Toc469588149 _Toc469590110 _Toc469590278 _Toc469671914 _Toc469835000 _Toc469835080 _Toc469835120 _Toc469835578 _Toc469842550 _Toc469844450 _Toc471884297 _Toc472053654 _Toc472152303 _Toc469565288 _Toc469588150 _Toc469590111 _Toc469590279 _Toc469671915 _Toc469835001 _Toc469835081 _Toc469835121 _Toc469835579 _Toc469842551 _Toc469844451 _Toc471884298 _Toc472053655 _Toc472152304 _Toc469590112 _Toc469590280 _Toc469671916 _Toc469835002 _Toc469835082 _Toc469835122 _Toc469835580 _Toc469842552 _Toc469844452 _Toc471884299 _Toc472053656 _Toc472152305 _Toc469590113 _Toc469590281 _Toc469671917 _Toc469835003 _Toc469835083 _Toc469835123 _Toc469835581 _Toc469842553 _Toc469844453 _Toc471884300 _Toc472053657 _Toc472152306 _Toc469565289 _Toc469590114 _Toc469590282 _Toc469671918 _Toc469835004 _Toc469835084 _Toc469835124 _Toc469835582 _Toc469842554 _Toc469844454 _Toc471884301 _Toc472053658 _Toc472152307 _Toc469565290 _Toc469588151 _Toc469590115 _Toc469590283 _Toc469671919 _Toc469835005 _Toc469835085 _Toc469835125 _Toc469835583 _Toc469842555 _Toc469844455 _Toc471884302 _Toc472053659 _Toc472152308 _Toc469671920 _Toc469835006 _Toc469835086 _Toc469835126 _Toc469835584 _Toc469842556 _Toc469844456 _Toc471884303 _Toc472053660 _Toc472152309 _Toc469565291 _Toc469588152 _Toc469590116 _Toc469590284 _Toc469565292 _Toc469588153 _Toc469590117 _Toc469590285 _Toc469671921 _Toc469835007 _Toc469835087 _Toc469835127 _Toc469835585 _Toc469842557 _Toc469844457 _Toc471884304 _Toc472053661 _Toc472152310 _Toc469565293 _Toc469588154 _Toc469590118 _Toc469590286 _Toc469671922 _Toc469835008 _Toc469835088 _Toc469835128 _Toc469835586 _Toc469842558 _Toc469844458 _Toc471884305 _Toc472053662 _Toc472152311 _Toc469565294 _Toc469588155 _Toc469590119 _Toc469590287 _Toc469671923 _Toc469835009 _Toc469835089 _Toc469835129 _Toc469835587 _Toc469842559 _Toc469844459 _Toc471884306 _Toc472053663 _Toc472152312 _Toc469565296 _Toc469588157 _Toc469590120 _Toc469590288 _Toc469565298 _Toc469588159 _Toc469590121 _Toc469590289 _Toc469671925 _Toc469835011 _Toc469835091 _Toc469835131 _Toc469835589 _Toc469842561 _Toc469844461 _Toc471884307 _Toc472053664 _Toc472152313 _Toc469590122 _Toc469590290 _Toc469671926 _Toc469835012 _Toc469835092 _Toc469835132 _Toc469835590 _Toc469842562 _Toc469844462 _Toc471884308 _Toc472053665 _Toc472152314 _Toc469565305 _Toc469588166 _Toc469590124 _Toc469590292 _Toc469671928 _Toc469835014 _Toc469835094 _Toc469835134 _Toc469835592 _Toc469842564 _Toc469844464 _Toc471884309 _Toc472053666 _Toc472152315 _Toc469565307 _Toc469588168 _Toc469590125 _Toc469590293 _Toc469671929 _Toc469835015 _Toc469835095 _Toc469835135 _Toc469835593 _Toc469842565 _Toc469844465 _Toc471884310 _Toc472053667 _Toc472152316 _Toc469565308 _Toc469588169 _Toc469590126 _Toc469590294 _Toc469671930 _Toc469835016 _Toc469835096 _Toc469835136 _Toc469835594 _Toc469842566 _Toc469844466 _Toc471884311 _Toc472053668 _Toc472152317 _Toc469590127 _Toc469590295 _Toc469671931 _Toc469835017 _Toc469835097 _Toc469835137 _Toc469835595 _Toc469842567 _Toc469844467 _Toc471884312 _Toc472053669 _Toc472152318 _Toc469565314 _Toc469588175 _Toc469590128 _Toc469590296 _Toc469671932 _Toc469835018 _Toc469835098 _Toc469835138 _Toc469835596 _Toc469842568 _Toc469844468 _Toc471884313 _Toc472053670 _Toc472152319 _Toc469671933 _Toc469835019 _Toc469835099 _Toc469835139 _Toc469835597 _Toc469842569 _Toc469844469 _Toc471884314 _Toc472053671 _Toc472152320 _Toc469565315 _Toc469588176 _Toc469590129 _Toc469590297 _Toc469590130 _Toc469590298 _Toc469671934 _Toc469835020 _Toc469835100 _Toc469835140 _Toc469835598 _Toc469842570 _Toc469844470 _Toc471884315 _Toc472053672 _Toc472152321 _Toc469565317 _Toc469588178 _Toc469565318 _Toc469588179 _Toc469590131 _Toc469590299 _Toc469671935 _Toc469835021 _Toc469835101 _Toc469835141 _Toc469835599 _Toc469842571 _Toc469844471 _Toc471884316 _Toc472053673 _Toc472152322 _Toc469565319 _Toc469588180 _Toc469590132 _Toc469590300 _Toc469671936 _Toc469835022 _Toc469835102 _Toc469835142 _Toc469835600 _Toc469842572 _Toc469844472 _Toc471884317 _Toc472053674 _Toc472152323 _Toc469565322 _Toc469588183 _Toc469590133 _Toc469590301 _Toc469671937 _Toc469835023 _Toc469835103 _Toc469835143 _Toc469835601 _Toc469842573 _Toc469844473 _Toc471884318 _Toc472053675 _Toc472152324 _Toc469565324 _Toc469588185 _Toc469590134 _Toc469590302 _Toc469671938 _Toc469835024 _Toc469835104 _Toc469835144 _Toc469835602 _Toc469842574 _Toc469844474 _Toc471884319 _Toc472053676 _Toc472152325 _Toc469590135 _Toc469590303 _Toc469671939 _Toc471884320 _Toc472053677 _Toc472152326 _Toc469835025 _Toc469835105 _Toc469835145 _Toc469835603 _Toc469842575 _Toc469844475 _Toc471884321 _Toc472053678 _Toc472152327))==77777777777777UU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i&i&i&i&i&i&i&i&i&i&i&i&i&i&.).).).).).).).).).).).).).)G)G)++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++5555555555555;;;;;;;;;;;;;;_A_A_A_A_A_A_A_A_A_A_A_A_A_AjHjHjHjHjHjHjHjHjHjHjHjHjHjHJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ4J4J4J4J4J4J4J4J4J4J4J4J4J4JQQQQzRzRzRzRzRzRzRzRzRzRzRzRzRzRWWWWWWWWWWWW^^^^^^^^^^^^^^pipipipipipipipipipipipipipilllllllllllllluuuuuuuuuuuu66666666????QQ____bbbbbbbbbbݡݡݡݡݡݡݡݡݡݡݡݡݡݡ@@@@@@@@@  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~<<vvTTTTTTTTTTTTTT############!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"""&&&&&&&&&&&&&&F)F)F)F)F)F)F)F)F)F)F)F)F)F)++++++++++++++++++++++++++,,,,,,,,,,,,(5(5(5(5(5(5(5(5(5(5(5(5(5;;;;;;;;;;;;;;wAwAwAwAwAwAwAwAwAwAxAxAxAxAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH2J2J2J2J2J2J2J2J2J2J2J2J2J2JHJHJHJHJHJHJHJHJHJHJHJHJHJHJzRzRzRzRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRWWWWWWWWWW,X,X^^^^^^^^^^^^^^iiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllll v v v v v v v v v v v v????IIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPPPPRR 999JJJJJJJJJJJJ@WTimes New Roman Symbol "ArialBComic Sans MS1Courier New"hrKrKKAZWm7Slide 1Stefan CarmienStefan Carmien  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F17Q.VWordDocument)CompObjjSummaryInformation(  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.69qOh+'0   H T ` lxSlide 1Stefan CarmienNormalStefan Carmien2Microsoft Word for Windows 95@F#DocumentSummaryInformation8   FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q| Vorpal Ltd.mW Slide 1@Z Z@3.V@3.VZ՜.+,0@H\d lt | Vorpal Ltd.mW Slide 1