AUT: Communist relations of production within present-day capitalist society

["Ben Seattle" <icd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

About ten days ago, in a move born of desperation, Netscape
released the source code for its famous browser to the
"General Public License" (GPL) model of development.  Under
GPL, also known as "copyleft" (ie: as opposed to "copyright"),
all source code, and *all future development and improvements*
to the source code, are available, free, to anybody, until the
end of time.  Source code, for readers unfamilar with computer
jargon, is the term for the internal instructions that make a
computer program, such as a browser, perform the way that it
does.

Companies such as Microsoft, however, would not be able to use
the source code--because "copyleft" and copyright are mutually
exclusive.  Source code which is integrated with copylefted
code *cannot be copyrighted* but rather, from a legal standpoint,
becomes copylefted code itself.  Microsoft has already issued
instructions telling its workers not to even look at the Netscape
source code which is now available for free to tens of thousands
of programmers around the world.

The GPL model is best known as the process that gave birth to the
Linux operating system and the Apache web server.

The GPL model of development was created by Richard Stallman of
the Free Software Foundation and, in its essence, is a *communist
method of wealth creation*.  It is based on the principle of
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his
need".  The wealth created under the GPL model is available for
free and the labor is voluntary and unpaid.

Communist wealth creation
=========================

This is a *communist* method of wealth creation because everything
takes place *without exchange* of one commodity for another (ie:
there is no exchange involving the labor-commodity, the universal
money-commodity or any other commodity).  This is a communist
method of wealth creation because the form of wealth produced
*is not a commodity*.  It cannot be sold or owned.  The wealth that
is created is produced *for use* and not *for exchange* with
anything else.

Similarly, the labor involved in this process is not a commodity
either.  It is "free labor" (not in the capitalist sense of being
free to be exploited, but in the communist sense of being free to
serve humanity) and, as such, holds the potential for *vastly higher
productivity* in terms of the creation of products that genuinely
serve the needs of the majority of the population.

In fact, all components of this process are freely given as in a
"gift economy".  Communist *relations of production* characterize
this process because no one can *own* (or control--ie: "virtual
ownership") the *means of production* and no one can marshall
appreciable *leverage* to compel anyone else to labor in accord
with anything other than their conscience or their desire to serve
the general good.

The ancillary periphery
=======================

There is also an ancillary market of commercial products (created
with paid labor) which circulates on the periphery of GPL wealth
creation.  For example, GPL source code is itself free but some
companies assemble it on CD roms and sell the CDs for a modest
price.  Since the source material cannot be copyrighted, however,
and is freely available from other sources, the CDs sell for ten
or twenty dollars instead of, for example, the thousand dollars
that Microsoft might charge for its NT operating system.  Other
ancillary products include books which are written *about* GPL
software.  But these products, too, are usually relatively
inexpensive because high-quality documentation for GPL products
is generally available for free.

Netscape, apparently, hopes to make its fortune by operating in
the periphery of this process, taking advantage of the unpaid
labor of a worldwide army of volunteer programmers.

Netscape (which will have the advantage of a huge paid programming
staff and possibly several weeks, or even months, headstart in
examining the code that is created by this process) still hopes to
retain leadership of the overall development process (presummably
in the way that Linus Torvald plays a central organizing role in
Linux development).  Whether (or for how long) Netscape is
successful in retaining leadership of this process is, for now
however, a question of secondary importance.

Historical Perspective
======================

The seeds of the capitalist mode of production took root in the
period of feudal rule in Europe.  Before these capitalist shoots
could fully develop, however, it became necessary for the emerging
bourgeoisie to overthrow the feudal system.

The significance of the GPL model of software development us that
it gives us a fascinating glimpse of how economic wealth will be
created in the moneyless economy of the future.  And, for this
reason, this recent development is of extraordinary importance.
These communist shoots will, similarly, require the overthrow of
the system of bourgeois rule in order to fully make good on their
potential.

The proletariat will assemble around itself the support of the
majority of society and leave no stone unturned in its efforts to
use peaceful and democratic means to assert its right to throw
off the shackles of the bourgeois domination which has outlived
its historic usefulness and now stands as an obstacle to the
forward progress of all humankind.  But the bourgeoisie, unwilling
to voluntarily leave history's stage via any peaceful or democratic
process, will certainly resist by force and, in so doing, will
trample underfoot its vaunted and sacred "democracy".  And such
action will only add fuel to a raging fire and lead to the final
extinction of bourgeois rule.

But that is a story for the 21st century.

Back to the present
===================

In the meantime, I am posting here two items that readers may
find useful in understanding Netscape's plunge into GPL and its
hopes of earning billions in the capitalist periphery of what,
in many ways, is a communist process.

1) John Dvorak's article and some readers' comments from his web
   site located at

     http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/insites/dvorak/jd980126.htm

2) "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", an essay by a participant
    in the movement to create free software located at:

     http://sagan.earthspace.net/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

Readers are also, of course, invited to check out my essay
"The Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy" at:

     www.pix.org/some

_________________________________________________________________
  ** NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107,
     material appearing below is distributed without profit to
     those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
     information for research and educational purposes. **
_________________________________________________________________

January 26, 1998

A Brilliant Move. Not!

By John C. Dvorak

I'm amused by Netscape's machinations since Microsoft agreed last
week to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows 95, at the behest of
the Justice Department. Netscape's move--to give away its browser
source code to save its waning market share--is going to be great
for users. And though that looks to be a shot across Microsoft's
bow, the strategy will actually backfire for Netscape's browser
business.

Netscape has decided not only to give away its browser freely but
also to release the source code, a bold move indeed. This lets any
developer who wants to modify the code do so legally. The only
catch: Developers must let Netscape have the modifications for its
use in future products. I've always believed that during the DOS
wars, the DR-DOS people should have made this move to thwart
Microsoft, when Microsoft wasn't as big as it is today. A free DOS
with free source code would have decimated the Microsoft cash cow,
exactly the way Microsoft's free browser hurt Netscape. Obviously
Microsoft took my advice about free software somewhere along the
way.

Unfortunately, in this instance the Netscape strategy won't work,
despite all the praise the company has received. This ploy will
change nothing about Microsoft's bottom line. Microsoft is already
giving away its browser. Nothing is impacted except Microsoft's
pride. In fact, Netscape's move may actually make money for
Microsoft and benefit the company greatly. Here's how.

Once the Netscape browser source code is released, Microsoft can
find a way to license any new tricks. Most people don't know that
Microsoft licenses most of its own browser from Spyglass and others
already. (Go to the Help tab on the Internet Explorer menu bar and
click on it. Then go to About Internet Explorer, then click on the
Copyright hot link. From there, continue through page after page of
attributions for the true source of the product.) On top of that,
Microsoft loses money on its browser, since it spends so much on R &
D programs to improve the thing. By letting a large community
develop and test numerous new concepts, Microsoft can just sit back
and watch and then do what it does best: copy and improve.

For a short while, the market may get flooded with 20 new and
improved versions of the Netscape browser. As they all compete with
each other and go nowhere fast, Microsoft can take the best ideas
from each one and incorporate them into a super-browser that does
everything. Does Netscape have the same resources as Microsoft for
trying this maneuver? Not really, although the company will have
free access to the developed source code of any product. While on
the surface this seems like a clear advantage for Netscape, it opens
the door to a browser by committee or, worse, a spaghetti-code
browser. More importantly, Netscape doesn't have the "copy and
improve" mind-set of Microsoft.

It's obvious that Microsoft will be the big winner here. For
Netscape to survive, it's going to have to get into a different
business. It can become an applications vendor or even consolidate
with other software companies. But at some point in this business,
there will have to be a General Motors to compete with Microsoft's
Ford. This means that we have to find an Alfred Sloan character to
compete with the Henry Ford (Bill Gates) of our era. There doesn't
seem to be anyone interested in taking on this role. I had hoped
that smart-cookie James Barksdale at Netscape would show this
potential, but he should have been making moves long before the
company started bleeding money. I suspect a lot of shouting at the
venture capitalist-dominated board meetings didn't help, either. The
other high-profile executives in the industry either are at their
competency limits or tend to be one-trick ponies, like Larry
Ellison, who specialize in narrow industry segments.

The thing people forget about Microsoft is that the company has
invented a process to develop software that is a close equivalent to
the assembly line. By comparison, everyone else is still making
handmade cars. Still, when Ford was dominating car manufacturing, it
began to ignore certain trends that GM exploited. One was painting a
car a color other than black. Microsoft seems to be caught in a
quagmire of sorts--stuck on a product development treadmill of
constantly increasing complexity. The idea of "simple yet powerful"
hasn't been exploited. If Netscape looked in that direction, it
could win, especially with the tonnage of newbies and know-nothing
users hitting the scene. Does anyone think cutting the browser
source code loose is going to result in an easier-to-use system? I
see more complex, harder-to-use products being the end result. And
that's too bad.

=========================================
Reader Response # 1
=========================================

From:    John
Subject: Free Netscape

Comment: John,
You've overlooked the Bazaar & Cathredral theory. (Sun Expert, Jan
98, page 32). Actually *we* are the Borg, not MS. We work together
on the Net, a group mind, for free, out of devotion, to improve
Netscape. It's a bazaar. Meanwhile, MS builds a cathredal -- at
great expense. We win because we can exert superior financial
leverage. That's why Netscape did what they did.

=========================================
Reader Response # 2
=========================================

From:    Real
Subject: Are we stuck with Microsoft ?

Comment: I am a big fan of free software, and like most people,
I hate Microsoft just like I hate big fat companies that keeps
eating everything around them, claiming it's their innovation,
and blah, blah.

When I look at these companies, I still have some questions that
keeps bogging me! Why do they think they have the answer to
everything ? What about if we (small teams of programmers) would
come with great new ideas ? And if we did, why not distribute if for
free (like FreeBSD, Apache, etc...) My point is, there is a
community of brilliant programmers around the world who do not
necessarily want to move to California and go to work for Microsoft
or whatever company. They can contribute together at building a
great operating system, browser, etc... with instant feedback from
their customers.

Micro$oft may laugh at these small communities, but the truth is the
day we're all gonna get together and focus to build great software,
then they will have to move to something else.

Why do we use IE and Win 95 ? Because there is nothing else
equivalent out there to compete with it. We're stuck with it. Who
said Win 95 was THE way to go for personal computing ?

Oops sorry, I have to go reboot that damn NT server again, while my
FreeBSD server has been working for a year without a problem...

=========================================
Reader Response # 3
=========================================

From:    Steve
Subject: If MS photocopies all good Free Software ideas,
         why does Linux make NT look bad?

Comment: I find John Dvorak's column to be mistaken for one major
reason: Microsoft can't keep up with the sort of innovation offered
by free software.

There are a lot of advantages that come with being a huge company;
deep pockets for R&D and publicity, the ablility to undercut your
competitors, the security of being invested in several varied
segments of the market, etc.

However, there is at least one major disadvantage: momentum. Even
with Bill personally involved, it takes months to change direction;
the fabled "Internet Miss" of a few years back proves this. Free
software exploits this advantage to the hilt.

The most famed example of free software also proves the point. Linux
went from a bare kernal to an operating system with an install base
on par with Apple's in a mere seven years. Linux achieved this
rather impressive feat by offering features that put the Microsoft
operating systems to shame (if you want examples, check any linux-
related newsgroup or web site; I won't get into it).

Has Microsoft copied the bulk of the features that makes Linux so
popular? Hardly.

Will Microsoft be able to keep up with a free Netscape? Why would
you think so?

=========================================
Reader Response # 4
=========================================

From:    Ali
Subject: Dvorak wrong... copyright laws

Comment: Even though the source code is free for everyone to see,
there is a little thing called copyright laws that keeps Microsoft
from ripping off Netscape's source. Therefore, Dvorak, your argument
is fundamentally flawed.

=========================================
Reader Response # 5
=========================================

From:    Ariel
Subject: Browser by committee? Not

Comment: You write "browser by committee" to try to put this idea in
a bad light. But in actual fact a similar type of development
actually works stunningly well. Read the paper available at:
http://locke.ccil.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-paper.html (it's a
slow server, be patient) it explains how a development team made up
of hundreds of users can work together to create a piece of software
of exceptional quality and usability. Linus maker of Linux was the
first to use this type of development team (known as bazaar).

It lets him sit back and let other developers do all the work. He
manages the whole process. This is what Netscape is trying to do, be
the steward of Netscape. It will allow them to do things they just
don't have the resources to otherwise do, and at a speed that is
simply impossible to match in any other way.

Read the news group they made available
netscape.dev.client-source-code.general to see just how excited
developers are about this, they want to get started now. I already
know about two teams that have formed, one less then 24 hours after
the announcement, and more are forming at this moment.

Netscape will become a browser so much better then any other that
few people would even think about using anything different - and
without the cost usually associated with this type of success (ex.
word) - because everyone who wants to, can add and improve the
product.

What do I mean by that? Look at a regular monopoly, user wants a new
feature, he needs to wait for the new release, if his feature will
even be added - after all the developer doesn't care - they own the
market anyway. Now look at Netscape, a user wants a new feature, a
programmer thinks it's a great idea (or the programmer thought of it
himself, programmers are users too - hundreds of programmers means a
lot of ideas), writes it, hundreds of other programmers grab the
source, look at it, debug it, move it out of beta, and in a
blazingly short time, user has his new feature - and bug free in a
way that no other development type can match.

Linux and Perl operate this way, do I need to mention how successful
they are?

The one problem is what you mention, Microsoft stealing ideas. First
of all this depends greatly on the license, and Netscape is quite
aware of this problem I'm sure. And even when Microsoft does steal
an idea, they can't hope to match the development speed Netscape
will produce. By the time a Microsoft manager decides to go with the
new idea, and actually release it. Netscape will have had it for
months and will be well on it's way to new things.

I've joined a few Internet development teams (mostly as a spectator)
the quality of software released simply can't be matched in any
other way.

=========================================
Reader Response # 6
=========================================

From:    Ross
Subject: Power of free software grossly underestimated!

Comment: John, I have followed your columns for many many years and
have the utmost respoect for you, but you (and many others) are dead
wrong on this.

Free source means that the whole world can pick up on a project
where the developers left off. No company can compete with the
combined resources of the developers of the world. The window of
profitability for source code is only a few years. After that, why
hold onto it? If it is not released, other developers will be forced
to re-write it and we all suffer.

If the source is shared freely, like with Netscape, Linux, KDE, GNU
projects, etc.. developers can get up to speed quickly and start
doing really important coding.

On the internet, it *is* possible to find 30 people around the world
who want to work on an unpaid project and devote time to it. When
they get tired/busy, there are 30 more to take their place. None of
the work is lost.

Look at the success of Linux - I dare you to find a more active UNIX
platform. It's so active that it is often the first platform that
new tools are ported to.

I dare say that even Microsoft cannot muster as much programming
effort as the combined volunteer efforts of the programmers in the
rest of the world.

This sounds altruistic, but the free software movement is really
achieving something, and doing at internet speed.

A free Netscape on a free, stable OS with free useful apps may not
appeal to you or many other Americans (who can afford $3000 for a
new computer and $1000 per year for software and have friends who
are sysadmins who can help them set it up), but for the other 95% of
the world, this is cost prohibitive and will remain so.

In a world of 5 billion people, there must be at least a few (tens?
hundreds?) thousand skilled programmers interested in coding for the
betterment of the whole world.

History will remember software as the great architecture of our
century.

=========================================
Reader Response # 7
=========================================

From:    Matt
Subject: The Real Deal(tm)

Comment: There are some good points here, but I'd like to point out
that Netscape itself will be managing the release of the 'new'
Netscape's, in much the same fashion as Linus Torvalds manages the
releases of new Linux kernels. In this fashion, Netscape will get
their hands on the code before the public, and will have first crack
at license the cool new bits. Also, under the terms of the GPL as I
know it, Microsoft could, at best, steal the idea for a new feature,
but not actually the code. If they stole the GPL'd code, they'd be
in a situation where they'd have to release their product under the
GPL also, which I don't believe they're prepared to do.

As far as I've seen, Microsoft has yet to steal anything major in
the way of GPL'd software or code. Although the code starts out, and
stays beta, for quite a while, the end result tends to be a more
stable, more optimized, and more portable product.

And about Microsoft taking code, and improving upon it, I point you
to Win95. Improvement upon anything? In some aspects. But mostly,
it's broken. Linux. It's free. It's GPL. It works. I can go for
months without needing to reboot a Linux box, whereas every Win95
machine I've encountered gets itself reset at least once a week.
Why? Because Win95 isn't the best at handling the architecture. As I
once heard it described..."It's a 32-bit extension to a 16-bit patch
for an 8-bit operating system designed for a 4-bit processor." Which
just about sums it up. If they were so keen on doing a 32-bit
operating system, why not steal the functional and re-usable code
from the Linux kernel? It's freely available. It was designed for a
32-bit architecture. It's highly portable. It's great for network
integration. Why wait? Yet they have. Why? I ask you...

=========================================
Reader Response # 8
=========================================

From:    L.
Subject: A Brilliant Move. YES!

Comment: The main point of your column "A Brilliant Move. Not!" is
that Netscapes latest move will ease Microsoft's task, namely to
copy and improve Communicator features. The underlying theory beeing
that MS software production process is a revolutionary one that no
other company yet matches. And your implicit conclusion is that
Netscape will soon be out of the browser business.

This is wishfull thinking from a Win32 development book author!

Netscape move is brilliant, because it contributes the last missing
piece in the free software chain: the end-users User Interface. Now,
one can design, test and deploy a complete network application (from
server OS down to client UI) made exclusively of free software, and
independant from the client platform.

Actually, Microsoft does not understand what free software is, as it
did not understood the Internet. Free software means a STANDARD
implementation of a STANDARD concept, from which one can quickly
build an understood and tested commercial system that will benefit
from all improvement made to the standard. The Internet is the MEDIA
that enables developper to contribute to the standard implementation
or concept (or is it copy and improve ...?).

Look at the pogress and successes of GNU Tools, Linux, Apache,
SSLay, Samba and other free Internet collaborative development
projects. This is the truly revolutionary software production
process. And Linus Torvald is the guy you are looking for ...

=========================================
Reader Response # 9
=========================================

From:    Hellrighteous1
Subject: Netscapes a big winner

Comment: Dvorak, how much does Microsoft pay you to write this crap.
I would take a hacked up version on Netscape any day over the bug
invested MS 4.0

[Please see separate posts for "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"]



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---