Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Subject Positions
Subject Position
Comparative Analysis
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Discourse Analysis

The contestation of code

Profile image of David M. BerryDavid M. Berry

2004, Critical Discourse Studies

https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900410001674524
visibility

…

description

25 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

A preliminary investigation into the discourse of the free/libre and open source movements This paper uses discourse analysis to examine the free/libre and open source movements. It analyses how they fix elements within the order of discourse of computer code production. It attempts to uncover the key signifiers in their discourses and trace linkages between the sedimented discourses of wider society. Using discourse theory and critical discourse analysis, the theoretical foundations underpinning each of the movements are critically examined and the effect on the wider developer and Internet community is discussed. Additionally, this paper seeks to recommend discursive strategies that could be employed to avoid the threat of colonization by neoliberal discourse and the consequent challenge this has for the ideas of freedom, liberty and community within the developer communities' own discourses.

Related papers

OPEN SOURCE PROGRAMMER'S STRATEGIES TO COPE WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENSIONS
Bertil Rolandsson

In this paper we analyse how the increased use of open source software in companies affect employed programmers' work, which we theorize as part of a larger secularisation process. We have studied both companies based on a more traditional proprietary model who are becoming open source oriented, and SMEs built around open source business concepts. This change results in a need for professional programmers to re-interpret open source within a new business oriented context. We study what kind of strategies programmers develop to cope with these contradictory systems and how it changes work roles and programmers' approaches towards open source community work. that we analyse how basic assumptions, ideological values, forms of organization and practices, associated with the open source movement, is challenged while professional programmers try to re-interpret them within a new business oriented context.

View PDFchevron_right
Acting through technology: The proliferation of open source practices and its consequences
Raul Ferrer

2016

The internet has enabled new forms of sharing and collaboration which arguably have been pioneered by early open source communities (Coleman 2013). The availability and modifiability of the underlying technologies and infrastructures combined with the technological affordances of the internet has allowed open source advocates to use technology as a form of expression: they not only act with available technology, but through it by creating technical infrastructures that express ideas and concepts about “how economy and society should be ordered collectively” (Kelty, 2008, p. 28). Kelty (2008) described open source as an experimental system made up of five key practices: sharing source code, defining openness, writing copyright licenses, coordinating collaborations, and forming a movement. These practices can be adopted and appropriated by actors in almost every area of social life, from encyclopedic knowledge (Wikipedia) to activism (Beyer, 2014) or creativity online (Creative Common...

View PDFchevron_right
Mobilization of software developers: the free software movement
Walt Scacchi

Information Technology & People, 2008

Purpose -The paper has three purposes: the first is to provide a deeper understanding of the ideology and work practices of free and open source software development, the second to characterize the free software movement as a new type of computerization movement and the third to present a conceptual diagram and framework with an analysis showing how the free software computerization movement has evolved into an occupational community. Design/methodology/approach -Qualitative data were collected over a four year period using a virtual ethnography in a study of free and open source software development and, in particular, a study of a free software community, GNUenterprise, located at www.gnuenterprise.org, which has the goal of developing a free enterprise resource planning software system. Findings -It is concluded that the ideology of the free software movement continues to be one of the factors which mobilize people to contribute to free and open source software development. This movement represents a new type of computerization movement which promotes the investment of time in learning a new software development process instead of investment of money in the acquisition and use of new technology.

View PDFchevron_right
Writing in the Disciplines versus Corporate Workplaces: On the Importance of Conflicting Disciplinary Discourses in the Open Source Movement and the Value of Intellectual Property
Brian Ballentine

Across the Disciplines, 2009

Writing programs and more specifically, Writing in the Disciplines (WID) initiatives have begun to embrace the use of and the ideology inherent to, open source software. The Conference on College Composition and Communication has passed a resolution stating that whenever feasible educators and their institutions consider open source applications. Although well-intended, open source ideology often runs counter to a corporate business culture that produces revenue from aggressively protecting intellectual property. Such aggressiveness helps contribute to the perception of a rigid binary between open source and corporate communities. This article challenges WID scholars and instructors to better acknowledge the complexity of corporate discourses and to develop more nuanced stances in regard to open source and intellectual property. The merits of open source are not simply attacked here but instead the article insists that as WID ponders open source that the discourses from the corporat...

View PDFchevron_right
The Indirect Debate and the Community. How the Periphery and the Core Relate In the Free/Open Source Software Community
Francesco Rullani

DRUID conference 2008 paper, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
Decoding Liberation: The Promise of Free and Open Source Software
Scott Dexter

2008

View PDFchevron_right
‘Open source has won and lost the war’: Legitimising commercial–communal hybridisation in a FOSS project
Mathieu O'Neil

New Media & Society, 2020

Information technology (IT) firms are paying developers in Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects, leading to the emergence of hybrid forms of work. In order to understand how the firm–project hybridisation process occurs, we present the results of an online survey of participants in the Debian project, as well as interviews with Debian Developers. We find that the intermingling of the commercial logic of the firm and the communal logic of the project requires rhetorical legitimation. We analyse the discourses used to legitimise firm–project cooperation as well as the organisational mechanisms which facilitate this cooperation. A first phase of legitimation, based on firm adoption of open licenses and developer self-fulfilment, aims to erase the commercial/communal divide. A second more recent phase seeks to professionalise work relations inside the project and, in doing so, challenges the social order which restricts participation in FOSS. Ultimately, hybridisation raises th...

View PDFchevron_right
Challenging Code: A sociological reading of the KDE Free Software project
Brian Alleyne

Sociology, 2011

Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) challenges the norms and relations of the capitalist software industry that is at the core of network society. Many people involved in FLOSS see themselves as activists in a new social movement. The article discusses the KDE (Kool Desktop Environment) project as a FLOSS case study. KDE is one of several projects intended to bring ease of use of a graphical user interface (GUI) to various free operating systems. (The operating system is the underlying software on top of which sit applications we use directly such as web browsers or word processors.) The article considers the KDE project from three broad perspectives — ‘cosmological’, technical, and organizational — in order to examine the expressed world-view and technical organization of the project through an established sociological approach to activism and social movements.

View PDFchevron_right
Freeing software and opening space: Social Forums and the cultural politics of technology
Giuseppe Caruso

Societies Without Borders, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
Leveraging Software, Advocating Ideology: Free Software and Open Source
Matt Ratto

Computing Research Repository, 2001

In section I, I review some recent legal scholarship about software and explain why understanding how embedded technical expression works is important given the increasingly large role of software in governance. In section II, I explore software construction as a combination of social and technical practices. In section III, I describe some examples of meaning-making around the software program Linux. In section IV I conclude with a short description of why such analyses are important.

View PDFchevron_right

References (85)

  1. Atton, C. (2003, November 4). Talking about a quiet revolution. The Financial Times, p. 8.
  2. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. California: University of California.
  3. Barbrook, R., & Cameron, A. (1995). The Californian ideology. Retrieved June 21 2003, from http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/pessimism/califIdeo_I.html.
  4. Barnes, B. (1995). The elements of social theory. London: UCL Press.
  5. Berry, D. M. (2003). Internet research: Privacy, ethics and alienation -A free/libre and open source approach. Retrieved January 21 2003, from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ Users/hbp17/.
  6. Berry, D. M. (2004). The political economy of open source: Immaterial labour and informational capitalism. Retrieved March 15 2004, from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ hbp17/.
  7. Berry, D. M., & Moss, G. (2003). The libre manifesto: Towards a libre society. Retrieved June 21 2003, from http://www.libresociety.org.
  8. Berry, D. M., & Moss, G. (2004). Democratising digital government: The democratic impli- cations of adopting open source software in government. Retrieved January 10 2004, from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hbp17/.
  9. Bezroukov, N. (2003). Open source software development as a special type of academic research (critique of vulgar Raymondism). Retrieved June 16 2003, from http://www. firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_10/bezroukov/index.html.
  10. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (2001). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  11. Bonaccorsi, A., & Rossi, C. (2003). Comparing motivations of individual programmers and firms to take part in the Open Source movement. From community to business. Retrieved December 14 2003, from http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/bnaccorsirossimoti- vationlong.pdf.
  12. CreativeCommons. (2003). Creative commons. Retrieved February 1 2003, from http:// www.creativecommons.org.
  13. Di Bona, C. Ockman, S., & Stone, M. (Eds.) (1999). Open sources: Voices of the open source revolution. Cambridge: O'Reilly.
  14. Elliott, M. S., & Scacchi, W. (2002). Communicating and mitigating conflict in open source soft- ware development projects. Retrieved June 22 2003, from http://www.ics.uci.edu/ wscacchi/
  15. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
  16. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
  17. Feenberg, A. (1995). Alternative modernity: The technical turn in philosophy and social theory. London: University of California Press.
  18. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Fueston, L. (1998). Self-interest. Retrieved June 25 2003, from http://www.fsf.org/ philosophy/self-interest.html
  20. Garfinkel, S. L., Kapor, M., & Stallman, R. (1991). Why patents are bad for software. Retrieved June 25 2003, from http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/ issues.article
  21. Habermas, J. (1988). Legitimation crisis. London: Polity.
  22. Habermas, J. (1992). The structural transformation of the public sphere (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity.
  23. Habermas, J. (1997). Between facts and norms (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity.
  24. Harvey, B. (2003). What is a hacker? Retrieved June 25 2003, from http://www.cs. berkeley.edu/bh/hacker.html
  25. Himanen, P. (2001). The hacker ethic and the spirit of the information age. London: Vintage.
  26. Kelty, C. M. (2001). Free software/free science. Retrieved June 21 2003, from http:// www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_12/kelty/
  27. Kesan, J. P., & Shah, R. C. (2002). Shaping code. Retrieved December 10 2003, from http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/shah.pdf
  28. Kohn, A. (1987). Studies find reward often no motivator: Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain. Retrieved June 25 2003, from http:// www.fsf.org/philosophy/motivation.html
  29. Kuhn, B. M., & Stallman, R. (2001a). Freedom or power. Retrieved June 25 2003, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html
  30. Kuhn, B. M., & Stallman, R. (2001b). Freedom or power? Retrieved June 26 2003, from http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/08/15/free_software.html
  31. Laclau, E. (2001). The philosophical roots of discourse theory. Retrieved September 10 2003, from http://www.diskurs.dk/skaermkursus/skaerm4eng.pdf
  32. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical demo- cratic politics. London: Verso.
  33. Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. The Journal of Industrial Economics, L(2).
  34. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
  35. Lessig, L. (2002). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage.
  36. Linstone, H. A., & Murray, T. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. New York: NJIT.
  37. LOCA-Records. (2003). LOCA records mission. Retrieved January 14 2003, from http:// www.locarecords.com
  38. MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  39. Margetts, H. (1996). The implications for democracy of computerisation in government. In P. Hirst & S. Khilnani (Eds.), Reinventing democracy (pp. 70-84). London: Black- well.
  40. Microsoft. (2003). Supplemental end user license agreement -Windows system resource manager for Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Enterprise edition and Datacenter edition. Retrieved December 14 2003, from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/ downloads/wsrmeula.mspx
  41. Moglen, E. (1999). Anarchism triumphant: Free software and the death of copyright. Retrieved June 20 2003, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_8/moglen/in- dex.html#author
  42. Moody, G. (2002). Rebel code: Inside Linux and the open source revolution. Oxford: Perseus.
  43. Nissenbaum, H., & Howe, D. C. (2003). Values in design. Retrieved December 12 2003, from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/valuesindesign/index.html
  44. Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. London: Harvard University Press.
  45. O'Reilly, T. (2001). My definition of freedom zero. Retrieved May 26 2003, from http:// www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/526
  46. O'Reilly, T. (2002). The growing politicization of open source. Retrieved June 25 2003, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1840
  47. O'Reilly, T. (2003). "Freedom zero" and "Freedom or power": Tim O'Reilly and FSF leaders debate. Retrieved June 25 2003, from http://linuxtoday.com/news_story. php3?ltsn ¼ 2001-08-17-011-20-OP-CY-MS
  48. Perens, B. (1999). It's time to talk about free software again. Retrieved June 16 2003, from http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/debian-devel-199902/ msg01641.html
  49. Perens, B. (2003). The open source definition. Retrieved June 21 2003, from http:// www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html
  50. Phillips, L., & Jørgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.
  51. Post, E. (2003). Real programmers don't use Pascal. Retrieved June 10 2003, from http:// www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/Humour/Real.Programmer.Stories.html Python. (2003). Python's development process. Retrieved May 2 2003, from http:// www.python.org/dev/process.html
  52. Rand, A. (1992). Atlas shrugged. New York: Penguin.
  53. Raymond, E. S. (1999a). The magic cauldron. Retrieved August 1 2003, from http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/
  54. Raymond, E. S. (1999b). Why I am an anarchist. Retrieved August 1 2003, from http:// catb.org/esr/writings/anarchist.html
  55. Raymond, E. S. (2001a). The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Cambridge: O'Reilly.
  56. Raymond, E. S. (2001b). Freedom, power, or confusion? [ESR on debate between O'Reilly and FSF].
  57. Raymond, E. S. (2001c). Goodbye free software, hello open source. Retrieved June 25 2003, from www.tuxedo.com/esr
  58. Raymond, E. S. (2002a). Ethics from the barrel of a gun: What bearing weapons teaches about the good life. Retrieved August 1 2003, from http://catb.org/esr/guns/gun- ethics.html
  59. Raymond, E. S. (2002b). Why we fight -An anti-idiotarian manifesto. Retrieved August 1 2003, from http://catb.org/esr/aim/
  60. Raymond, E. S. (2003a). Homesteading the noosphere. Retrieved June 10 2003, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_10/raymond/
  61. Raymond, E. S. (2003b). The law is an ass. Retrieved June 25 2003, from http://www. opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id ¼ 8&debateId ¼ 40&articleId ¼ 246
  62. Richardson, J. (2003). Free software and GPL society: Interview with Stefan Merten of Oekonux. Retrieved June 16 2003, from http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/ mertentext.html
  63. Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and technology. London: Guildford Press.
  64. Scoville, T. (1999). Whence the source: Untangling the open source/free software debate. Retrieved August 12 2003, from http://opensource.oreilly.com/news/ scoville_0399.html
  65. Slashdot. (2001a). Eric S. Raymond answers. Retrieved May 10 2003, from http://slashdot. org/interviews/99/09/30/1418244.shtml
  66. Slashdot. (2001b). Thus spake Stallman. Retrieved May 10 2003, from http://slashdot. org/interviews/00/05/01/1052216.shtml
  67. Slashdot. (2003). Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters. Retrieved August 5 2003, from http://www.slashdot.org
  68. Spectorsoft.com. (2003). Home page. Retrieved June 16 2003, from http://www. spectorsoft.com/
  69. Stallman, R. M. (1991a). Against software patents. Retrieved June 25 2003, from http:// lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/against-software-patents.html
  70. Stallman, R. M. (1991b). The GNU general purpose license. Retrieved February 12 2003, from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
  71. Stallman, R. M. (1992). Why software should be free. Retrieved August 2 2003, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
  72. Stallman, R. M. (1993). The GNU manifesto. Retrieved February 10 2003, from http:// www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
  73. Stallman, R. M. (2002a). Free software, free society: Selected essays of Richard M. Stallman. Boston: GNU Press.
  74. Stallman, R. M. (2002b). RMS responds. Retrieved August 2 2003, from http:// www.slashdot.org
  75. Stallman, R. M. (2003a). Categories of free and non-free software. Retrieved June 16 2003, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware
  76. Stallman, R. M. (2003b). The free software definition. Retrieved June16 2003, from http:// www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  77. Stallman, R. M. (2003c). GNU is not Unix. Retrieved February 10 2003, from http:// www.gnu.org/
  78. Stallman, R. M. (2003d). Let's share! Richard Stallman. Retrieved June 25 2003, from http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-40-31.jsp
  79. Stallman, R. M. (2003e). Why free software is better than open source. Retrieved June 6 2003, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
  80. Stallman, R. M. (2003f). Why software should not have owners. Retrieved June 2 2003, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
  81. Weber, S. (2003). Open source software in developing economies. Retrieved August 2 2003, from http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/publications/ITST_materials/webernote2.pdf
  82. Weinstein, M. (2003). Text analysis markup system (Version 2.15a7). Retrieved 12 January 2003, from http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/tamsys
  83. Williams, S. (2002). Free as in freedom. London: O'Reilly.
  84. Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. London: University of Chicago.
  85. David M. Berry is an ESRC-funded DPhil research student at the University of Sussex, UK, in the Graduate Research Centre for Culture and Communication (CULCOM). His research is focused on the democratic potential of the Internet, particularly related to the Free/Libre and Open-Source movements and issues such as participatory and value- sensitive design and critical theories of technology. Address: University of Sussex, Media and Cultural Studies, Brighton. [email: d.berry@sussex.ac.uk]

Related papers

New political struggles in the network society: the case of free and open source software (FOSS) Movement
Andrea Calderaro

2011

Since the advent of the Internet as a means to practice politics, research in the field has had the tendency to treat the Internet as nothing more than an instrument to practice politics. According to Melucci (1996), however research on social movements should not focus only on new forms of protest, but identify how inequalities arising from these forms of protest generate new political struggles. In the framework of the Network Society, we can observe that citizens increasingly demand new civil rights to overcome inequalities in accessing and in designing ICTs. Following this, the Internet is not only an instrument to practice politics, but serves as a source of new rights claims. This paper explores new claims emerging from the Network Society, and empirically investigates the generation of new campaigns to advance these claims. Contemporary social movements are sensors of new challenges and struggles of current societies. The Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement is a social movement clustered around the claim that people must be equally free to construct the meaning of digital technologies. By focusing on the FOSS movement as a case study, this paper highlights how ICTs are not only useful tools to support social movements, but also in themselves the source of new political struggles.

View PDFchevron_right
Writing in the disciplines versus corporate workplaces: On the importance of conflicting disciplinary discourses in the open source movement and the value of …
Brian Ballentine

Across the Disciplines, 2009

Writing programs and more specifically, Writing in the Disciplines (WID) initiatives have begun to embrace the use of and the ideology inherent to, open source software. The Conference on College Composition and Communication has passed a resolution stating that whenever feasible educators and their institutions consider open source applications. Although well-intended, open source ideology often runs counter to a corporate business culture that produces revenue from aggressively protecting intellectual property. Such aggressiveness helps contribute to the perception of a rigid binary between open source and corporate communities. This article challenges WID scholars and instructors to better acknowledge the complexity of corporate discourses and to develop more nuanced stances in regard to open source and intellectual property. The merits of open source are not simply attacked here but instead the article insists that as WID ponders open source that the discourses from the corporate workplace are not ignored. The concern is that the values inherent in the open source community and built into the technologies it produces are the dominant or only influence on how writing instructors approach intellectual property. This article begins with an examination of open source values and their tenuous relationship to intellectual property law. The remainder of the article is an examination of why and where WID is appropriating open source technologies and its influential development model. Brief recommendations are offered for specific technologies and the article explains how regardless of monetary savings, open source applications enable a more robust critical literacy in the WID classroom. English departments, writing programs, and to a certain extent the humanities in general display a growing enthusiasm for embracing open source software and along with it, its development ideology. Embedded within that ideology is an attitude toward intellectual property that endorses alternative licensing options in order to promote knowledge sharing. In addition, the open source development model welcomes collaboration, favors interaction, and insists on an intense focus on the audience or end-user. All of these concepts, even imported from the world of software, resemble familiar values to those who teach writing and adhere to a writing pedagogy advocating revision and multiple iterations of student work. As scholars who research intersections of writing and technology have

View PDFchevron_right
Hegemonization of open source for mobiles: a comparative discourse analysis on Android
Lela Mosemghvdlishvili

he paper provides a discourse analysis on Android, the dominant open source platform for mobile devices. What Android is, or what an open platform means, is not just constructed techno-legally, but is also discursively formed. Conceptually and methodologically, we propose and illustrate an application of ‘political discourse theory’ to engage in a textual analysis. Originally, Laclau and Mouffe (1985) developed the discourse theory to analyze political discourses. We argue, however, that its analytical tools (nodal points and logics of signification) are valuable for also studying texts in the non-political domain as well, especially when there are different, even opposing, understandings about the same phenomenon. A comparative analysis of texts produced by Google Inc. and the Free Software Foundation Europe reveals differences in how the two organizations construct the meaning of mobile technologies and points to disagreements on the issues of ownership and control over code and user data. Through our reading, we problematize Google’s use of Android’s compatibility program and argue that it enables the company to justify control over the platform, the value of which is structurally built through consumer surveillance. On the other hand, the practice of free software activists challenges the ‘openness’ of Android and politicizes the access to source code in the mobile domain.

View PDFchevron_right
European Sociological Association PhD Summer School 2016-draft article : “ Talk is silver , code is gold ? Contribution beyond source code in Free / Libre Open Source Software communities ”
Nigel Gilbert

2016

While contributions to the digital commons of Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) communities, such as source code and documentation, have been widely explored, other types of contribution have remained less visible. This paper offers empirical evidence of the perception of “community-oriented” activities as contributions, their lack of visibility in digital collaboration platforms, and their relevance for the sustainability of the community. Additionally, the paper connects this issue to the larger literature on the commons, by drawing on the concept of affective labour. The “code-centric” FLOSS community, Drupal, was used as a case study, triangulating data from participant observation, documentary analysis and qualitative semi-structured interviews obtained following an ethnographic approach.

View PDFchevron_right
Decoding Liberation: The Promise of Free and Open Source Software , by Samir Chopra and Scott D. Dexter. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. 211 pp. $135.00 hardcover/$39.00 paper. ISBN 0415978939 (hardcover)/0415876788 (paper)
Jacob McWilliams

The Information Society, 2013

Routledge Studies in New Media and Cyberculture is dedicated to furthering original research in new media and cyberculture studies. International in scope, the series places an emphasis on cutting-edge scholarship and interdisciplinary methodology. Topics explored in the series will include comparative and cultural studies of video games, blogs, online communities, digital music, new media art, cyberactivism, open source, mobile communications technologies, new information technologies, and the myriad intersections of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, and sexuality with cyberculture.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Sociology
  • Critical Discourse Studies

    • Cited by

    Where and When Can Open Source Thrive? Towards a Theory of Robust Performance
    Sheen S. Levine

    IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 2010

    While the economic impact of, and the interest in, open source innovation and production has increased dramatically in recent years, there is still no widely accepted theory explaining its performance. We combine original fieldwork with agent-based simulation to propose that the performance of open source is surprisingly robust, even as it happens in seemingly harsh environments with free rider, rival goods, and high demand. Open source can perform well even when cooperators constitute a minority, although their presence reduces variance. Under empirically realistic assumptions about the level of cooperative behavior, open source can survive even increased rivalry and performance can thrive if demand is managed. The plausibility of the propositions is demonstrated through qualitative data and simulation results.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Colonization tendencies in the development of the world wide web
    Lee Salter

    New Media & Society, 2005

    While many studies of the web and related technologies of communication have focused on its use, there has been little engagement with the structural properties of the web and related technologies from a broadly social theoretic point of view. This article analyses pressures on the technological development of the web from the perspective of the Habermasian concepts of colonization and juridification. On this analysis, legal and quasi-legal tendencies can be seen to restrict the uses and development of the structures of the world wide web, as I will show with the use of several case studies.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Free your ‘most open’ Android: a comparative discourse analysis on Android
    Lela Mosemghvdlishvili, Jeroen Jansz

    Critical Discourse Studies, 2018

    Through this paper, we convey a comparative analysis of how Google Inc. and the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) discursively construct and contest Android, a dominant mobile operating system. Methodologically, we use political discourse theory to engage in the textual analysis; identify and compare key signifiers and nodal points across the exemplary texts from the two actors, and interpret their meaning vis à vis contextual insights about the political economy of Android's production. Albeit being marketed as 'the first truly open platform' for mobiles, through our analysis we find Google's definition of open source practices strictly conditional. We argue that Google's usage of compatibility rhetorically as well as techno-legally justifies the conglomerate's control over the platform. By contrast, the discursive moment by free software activists, through a campaign 'Free Your Android' deconstructs the discourse on open source and attempts to politicize the access to code in the mobile domain. This is done by extending from the well-known developer's four freedoms onto users' privacy, due to personal character of mobile devices. Such articulation of free software in relation to privacy of user data is a new development and arguably has a potential to contribute to widening support to the movement.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Internet research: privacy, ethics and alienation: an open source approach
    David M. Berry

    Internet Research, 2004

    This paper examines some of the ethical problems involved in undertaking Internet research and draws on historical accounts as well as contemporary studies to offer an analysis of the issues raised. It argues that privacy is a misleading and confusing concept to apply to the Internet, and that the concept of non‐alienation is more resourceful in addressing the many ethical issues surrounding Internet research. Using this as a basis, the paper then investigates the Free/Libre and Open Source research model and argues for the principles of “open source ethics” in researching the online world, which includes a participatory and democratic research method.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved